Título del proyectoMH Los Arcos - Grupo Industrial La Italiana S.A. de C.V.NombreDepartamento

Fase del proyecto

Fecha de inicio Fecha propuesta de finalización

Fecha real de finalización

Definición 01/04/2011 05/04/2011 05/04/2011Medición 05/04/2011 10/04/2011Análisis 11/04/2011 18/04/2011Mejora 19/04/2011 30/04/2011Control 01/05/2011 13/05/2011Validación

Scheduling

Imagen relacionada con el proyecto Planta: Los Arcos

Process Owner: ----------Proceso:

Nombre del proyecto

D M CA I

Declaración del problema

Cuantificar…

Imagen relacionada con el proyecto

Imagen relacionada con el proyecto

D M CA I

Objetivo del proyecto Eliminar… Garantizar… Reducir…

Imagen relacionada con el proyecto

Imagen relacionada con el proyecto

D M CA I

Primer paso

Segundo paso

Tercer paso

Cuarto paso

yb: costo…

yp: paquetes con defectos

Proceso

D M CA I

y’s y validación del SM

YC1= ------------- (MXN)

YB1 = ----------- (PPM)

YB2 = ----------- (USD)

YP1= ---------------- (m)

YP2= ----------------- (PPM)

YP3= ---------------- (PPM)

Observation

Indi

vidu

al V

alue

10987654321

10

5

0

_X=3.4

UCL=9.61

LCL=-2.81

Observation

Mov

ing

Rang

e

10987654321

8

6

4

2

0

__MR=2.333

UCL=7.624

LCL=0

I-MR Chart of Num piezas

YB1: ------ (MXN)

Calibration certificate (Destructive Test) Dimensional Report

for Gage GO / No GO

YP1= Push out force (Nw)

YP2= Burrs presence (PPM)

YP3= Deformed bushing (PPM)

Attribute MSA accepted

D M CA I

Análisis de capacidadyp1: ------------------

Nivel Sigma: -0.51

DPMO = 696279 PPM

D M CA I

Análisis de capacidad

  Descripción Antes Target Después % mejoraYC YC1: SDDSDVSV 2000 0    

YB YB1: OIDHJSDN 125 0    YB2: IAJASDOndcjknc 12580 0    

YP

YP1: JSONJdnc

yp11: spagh Avg 135 > 200      PPM 7850000 4      Sigma 0.3 6    

yp12: fideos Avg 135 > 200      PPM 7850000 4      Sigma 0.3 6    

YP2: UIHDCNSDSCAvg 135 > 200    PPM 7850000 4    

Sigma 0.3 6    

D M CA I

Identificación de causas (X’s)YP1= Push out force (Nw)

Push out force under spec

Materials Method

People Machines

Non defined frequency of

electrode change

The way in which the piece is placed isn’t

always the same

Non defined welding parameters

Materials are not fixed correctly

Variation in the thickness of the plate

Operators aren’t trained

Personnel rotation

Reworked electrodes

First shift operators use a different method than those of the third shift

X1

X2

X3Push out force

under spec

Materials Method

People Machines

Non defined frequency of

electrode change

The way in which the piece is placed isn’t

always the same

Non defined welding parameters

Materials are not fixed correctly

Variation in the thickness of the plate

Operators aren’t trained

Personnel rotation

Reworked electrodes

First shift operators use a different method than those of the third shift

X1

X2

X3

YP2= Presence of burrs

Burrs on bushing

Materials Method

Non defined frequency of

electrode change

The way in which the piece is placed isn’t

always the same

Variation in the thickness of the plate

First shift operators use a different method than those of the third shift

Materials are not fixed correctly

People Machines

Non defined welding parametersOperators aren’t

trained

Personnel rotation

Reworked electrodes

X1

X2

Burrs on bushing

Materials Method

Non defined frequency of

electrode change

The way in which the piece is placed isn’t

always the same

Variation in the thickness of the plate

First shift operators use a different method than those of the third shift

Materials are not fixed correctly

People Machines

Non defined welding parametersOperators aren’t

trained

Personnel rotation

Reworked electrodes

X1

X2

YP3= Deformed bushing

Bushing deformation

Materials Method

People

Non defined frequency of

electrode change

The way in which the piece is placed isn’t

always the same

Misaligned Electrodes (concentricity)

Variation in the thickness of the plate

First shift operators use a different method than those of the third shift

X6

X7

Electrode holder notperpendicular to base

Electrode holders are not parallel

X4

X5

Materials are not fixed correctly

Machines

Bushing deformation

Materials Method

People

Non defined frequency of

electrode change

The way in which the piece is placed isn’t

always the same

Misaligned Electrodes (concentricity)

Variation in the thickness of the plate

First shift operators use a different method than those of the third shift

X6

X7

Electrode holder notperpendicular to base

Electrode holders are not parallel

X4

X5

Materials are not fixed correctly

Machines Causas potenciales:

X1 – Non defined welding parametersX2 – Reworked electrodesX3 – Different Method between ShiftsX4 – Electrode not parallelX5 – Electrode not perpendicularX6 – Misaligned electrodesX7 – Method to place piece in welder

D M CA I

Validación de causasX6Misaligned electrodes (concentricity) YP3

1 sample-t

6 measurements around electrodes pulled together

One-Sample T: concentricity Test of mu = 90 vs not = 90 Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95% CI T P concentricity 6 89.9500 0.0548 0.0224 (89.8925, 90.0075) -2.24 0.076

Ho: the angle at which electrodes are pulled together is 90°

Ha: the angle is different to 90°

Electrodes are not misaligned

Null hypothesis is not rejected

D M CA I

Matriz de causas verificadas

Ys Potential Cause Null Hypothesis Alternative Hypothesis Verification Data Data type Verification method P- value Significant?

X1 Non defined welding parameters n/a n/a DOE Variable DOE n/a ?

Pressure n/a n/a DOE DOE n/a ?Weld time n/a n/a DOE DOE n/a ?

Heat n/a n/a DOE DOE n/a ?Hold time n/a n/a Fixed on DOE Fixed on DOE n/a No

Squeeze time n/a n/a Fixed on DOE Fixed on DOE n/a No

X2 Reworked electrodesDetachment force is the same with new or excessively reworked

electrodes

Detachment force is different with new or

excessively reworked electrodes

5 pieces for 3 mm- reworked electrodes,

and 5 for 5 mm- reworked electrodes

Variable 2 sample-t 0.002 Yes

YP1 X3

First shift operators use a different method

than those from the thrid shift

Pieces welded by workers from shifts 1

& 3 have same detachment

Pieces welded by workers from shifts 1 &

3 have different detachment

4 pieces welded by worker 1 and 4

pieces welded by worker 2 (3rd shift)

Variable 2 sample-t 0.915 No

X4 Electrode holders are not parallel

Superior measurement equals inferior measurement

Superior measurement different to inferior

measurement

6 different points around electrode holders, match

superior to inferior

Variable Paired t test 0.695 No

X5 Electrode holder not perpendicular to base

Electrode holder angle equals 0° (is

perpendicular)

Electrode holder angle is different to 0° 6 measurements Variable 1 sample t 0.203 &

0.102 No

X6 Misaligned electrodes (concentricity)

The angle at which electrodes are pulled

together is 90°

The angle is different to 90°

6 measurements around electrodes

pulled togetherVariable 1 sample t 0.076 No

X7The way in which the piece is placed isn't

always the same

Angle at which the device is held is not

modified (=0°)Angle different to 0°

15 measurements during welding (greatest angle

taken)

Variable 1 sample t 0.00 Yes

YP3

YP1 & YP2

X1 DOE

X2 & X7 verified significant

X3, X4, X5, & X6 verified not significant

D M CA I

Matriz de mejoras

Very effective, easy to implement, low costModerately effective, Moderately easy to implement, Moderate costNot very effective, Hard to implement, High cost

LEGENDYs Possible Counteractions

Efec

tiven

ess

Easy

to

Impl

emen

t

Cos

t

Safe

ty

YP1 X1 Non defined welding parameters

Establish optimal parameters by DOE (analysis focused on

push out force)

YP2 X2 Reworked electrodes

Calculate useful life of electrodes (durability)

YP3 X7

The way in which the piece is placed

isn't always the same

Install a pokayoke so that when the device is placed, there is no way

the angle varies and affects the electrodes

asymetrical wear down and bushing deformation

Potencial Causes X's

Conteractions:

X1 – Establish optimal parameters through DOE

X2 – Define the useful life of electrodes

Soluciones

Análisis por ANOVA, DOE Factorial, Superficie de Respuesta, CDC, etc…

D M CA I

D M CA I

Controles

“Welding Parameters Register” form updated. Parameters are audited every 14 days.

HOJA DE REGISTRO DE PASOS Y PARAMETROS DE PUESTA A PUNTO

CODIGO DEL EQUIPO: PUP-01OPERACIÓN: A4ADAP 120/AD 120/A4AD 120DESCRIPCIÓN OPERACIÓN:PUNTEADO DE BUJES A CACHAS

INDICAR LOS RANGOS DE PARAMETROS COMO EVIDENCIA DE LA PUESTA A PUNTO.

Característica Rangos de Parámetros Registrar valores obtenidos en la Puesta a Punto del Equipo de la Celda de Trabajo.

OK Colocar OK en cuadro correspondiente si el paso de la descripción de Puesta a Punto se realizó.NOK Colocar NOK en cuadro correspondiente si el paso de la descripción de Puesta a Punto no se realizó, y colocar en el cuadro de observaciones la Razón por la cual no esta OK.N/A Colocar N/A en caso de que la Celda de Trabajo no esté operando.

Paso 1.- Verificar llaves de agua abiertas

Paso 2.- Encender la maquina

Paso 3.- Verificar que no tengan paros de emergencia

Paso 4.- Verificar los electrodos de la punteadora.

Paso 5.-Verificar que el botón del controlador este en WELD y en ON.

NIVEL FECHA DESCRIPCIÓN DEL CAM BIO REVISÓ: APROBÓ:1 6.09.02 CAMBIO DE FORMATO2 25.11.03 CAMBIO DE FORMATO

N/A

Nota: ante cualquier anomalia en la puesta a punto de tu operación debes para y avisar a tu supervisor de producción.

ASIENTO DELANTERO A4/NB

OBSERVACIONES

N/A

Llaves de agua abiertas

Estado de los electrodos

DESCRIPCIONES DE LA PUESTA A PUNTO

Supervisor de Producción Spervisor y/o auditor de Calidad.

SI NO

ITEM DE CONTROL

D

“Set up sheet” now includes the parameters at which the machine should be working.

D M CA I

Medición posterior a las mejoras

Data

A4 fijo despuésA4 antes

9000

8000

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

Boxplot of A4 antes, A4 fijo después

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: A4 antes, A4 fijo después Two-sample T for A4 antes vs A4 fijo después N Mean StDev SE Mean A4 antes 28 3101 1735 328 A4 fijo después 10 8001 926 293 Difference = mu (A4 antes) - mu (A4 fijo después) Estimate for difference: -4900.13 95% upper bound for difference: -4154.25 T-Test of difference = 0 (vs <): T-Value = -11.15 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 30

95% Bonferroni Confidence Intervals for StDevs

A4 fijo después

A4 antes

2500200015001000500

Data

A4 fijo después

A4 antes

1000080006000400020000

F-Test

0.032

Test Statistic 3.51P-Value 0.053

Levene's TestTest Statistic 5.00P-Value

Test for Equal Variances for A4 fijo antes, A4 fijo después

Test for Equal Variances: A4 fijo antes, A4 fijo después 95% Bonferroni confidence intervals for standard deviations N Lower StDev Upper A4 antes 28 1327.95 1734.66 2475.43 A4 fijo después 10 605.41 925.53 1863.70 F-Test (normal distribution) Test statistic = 3.51, p-value = 0.053 Levene's Test (any continuous distribution) Test statistic = 5.00, p-value = 0.032

Sample

Sam

ple

Mea

n

18161412108642

10000

7500

5000

2500

0

__X=8001

UCL=10078

LCL=5923

A4 antes A4 fijo después

SampleSa

mpl

e Ra

nge

18161412108642

6000

4500

3000

1500

0

_R=1105

UCL=3609

LCL=0

A4 antes A4 fijo después

Xbar-R Chart of Datos A4 fijo by Etiq2

D M CA I

Nuevos niveles Sigma

  Descripción Antes Target Después % mejoraYC YC1: SDDSDVSV 2000 0    

YB YB1: OIDHJSDN 125 0    YB2: IAJASDOndcjknc 12580 0    

YP

YP1: JSONJdnc

yp11: spagh Avg 135 > 200      PPM 7850000 4      Sigma 0.3 6    

yp12: fideos Avg 135 > 200      PPM 7850000 4      Sigma 0.3 6    

YP2: UIHDCNSDSCAvg 135 > 200    PPM 7850000 4    

Sigma 0.3 6