Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2
Brief Summary of the Project
Summary:
Due to ongoing competitive environment, prevailing Industry &
Market scenario, business objective for Profit Maximization
was chosen to meet stakeholders’ expectations. This project
helped in increasing availability of 8mm TATA TISCON TMT
rebars (higher value product) from 37kt/Month to 45kt/Month
by Capability Building at its Steel Processing Centers (called
as SPC) using TQM methodology & tools, and thereby
addressing customers need to improve product mix basket .
Audited Savings:
INR 11.67 Crores
1
3
Section # 1
Project and Team Selection
Tata Steel has a very well defined TQM improvement framework and methodology for project TSL’s Value
1 selection and responsibility Refer item 1.3.0 slide 12
Stream
Marketing
Sales
Corporate Level
Process Used
Capability building
2 for production
Profitably
2
1.1.0 Understanding the context for project selection 5
What background information of the company or those who selected the project is needed
1.1.1 to better understand the context of the project ? (2/2)
CHALLENGE C
Steel Processing Center (SPC)
Refer 2.2.2 slide 24 Mill: ( Beekay ,SSIL ,BMW ,Modern etc) TECHNO COMMERCIAL
(Facilities owned by SPC, TSL has given VIABILITY AT SPC
FG contract to SPC for using this facility)
Cascading of Objective from Corporate Level (TSL) to department (LPP) Refer to Slide no. 4, item number 1.1.1.
2
Revenue Streams :Steel Value Chain
3
1.2.0 Project Selection process 7
1.2.2 What data was generated to help select the project ? (1/3)
Necessary and
BO&S Sufficiency Refer item 2.4.1, slide 31
Check ( N&S)
BO&S
N&S :
(Business
Ensures the
Objectives and
relevant
Strategy) : To “Need” projects are
identify Prioritization selected for
objectives for (P1, P2,…) each objective
meeting ABP
/strategy
targets
These methods and tools are unique to Tata Steel (winner of Deming Grand Prize (DGP)
4
1.2.0 Project Selection process 9
What goals (organizational), performance measures, and/or strategies is the project expected to
1.2.3 impact? (1/3) & What was the relationship between the stated measure & perceived gap in 1.2.1 (2/3)
1
Corporate Objective Steel Manufacturing LPP Strategy Project Goal Other measures /
Objective KPI
Achieve target Enrich sales mix profitability Meeting higher Production of 8mm
margin by providing new and value Enhancement in requirement of 8mm TMT
added products services and profitability rebars 45,000 tpm,
Sales of 8mm TMT
solutions to our customers current capability
levels of 37,000 tpm
2
Availability of 8mm TMT Enriched Increasing Customer
Stated Measures (measured in terms of DDP) Product Mix satisfaction index (CSI)
5
1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 11
How were the stakeholders groups identified? (1/2)
1.3.1
1
Tool - SIPOC
S LD # 1
I Analyst- LP Planning
2 Tool - ARMI
VP SM
2. Change 2
1. Policy holder
1 (VP-SM sets the direction Acceleration Team VP SM
using Policy (CAT)
Chief, LPP
Management. (for steering
R Chief, BAG
LPP reports to VP-SM purpose) I
Refer item 1.1.1, slide 4 Chief , TG
Tata Steel
Head, SPC Management, Out
location
3. Cross
I Head, SPC Technical and New
Functional Team Initiative Senior Manager
E (CFT)
4. SPC ,Technical
(since the (for driving the Senior Manager ,Commercial
SPC to be chosen opportunity
based on drill project is Senior Manager, Order
down of improvement at identification E Management
opportunity SPC) &execution Steel Processing Centers
(SPC)
The 4 key stakeholder groups
Refer item 2.4.1, slide 34
6
1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 13
What knowledge or skill sets were determined to be necessary for successful completion of the
1.3.2 project? (1/3)(1/3)
1
Critical Success Factor for project Critical Success Factor for project
Supply Chain
expectations(including out affecting
SPC) service level to
• Buy In from SPC customer
Refer challenge on slide 5
Managerial 2 Refer challenge on slide 5
Skill
Project Management types
Critical Success Factor for project
Technical-Rolling
• Right selection of tools for
TQM &
Approach: Right people with right skills & experience for effective teamwork in meeting project goals
3 The detailed team member wise skill mapping is shown in the next slide k.
QA Rollout √
Use of Optimiser tool √
Effective Communication √ √ √ √ √ √
Decision Making √ √ √
Approach: Right people with right skills & experience for effective teamwork in meeting project goals
7
1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 15
1.3.3 Before the project started ,what specific training was done? (1/2) (3/3)
Project Management √ √ √ √ √ √
Optimizer tool √
Approach: Right people with right skills & experience for effective teamwork in meeting project goals
Before the project started ,what was done to prepare the team to work
1.3.3 together as a team (2/2) (1/2)
1 2
Team preparation meeting 1 Refer item 1.3.4, slide 19 Team preparation meeting 2
CTQ drilldown “ Y” & Factors
Project Deadlines and
impacting the project- x1,x2,…
deliverables
8
1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 17
1.3.4 What roles and expectations were determined ahead of the project (1/3)
(2/2)
Mr. Anurag
Name Mr. Suman Biswas Mr. Anurag Agarwal Mr. S. Rajamani Mr. Rajesh Sehgal Mr. Rajiv Banka
Raturi
Head SPC
Chief, Long Product Head SPC, Technical Sr. Mgr, Order Sr. Mgr,
Designation Management, Out Sr. Mgr, Commercial
Planning and New Initiative Management Technical
location
Define:
Measure:
Analyze:
Improve:
Control:
Holding Gains
Approach :
a) In view of High Impact project , taking stretched target . But considering interdependency of activities, 5W1H
b) Protects stakeholders interests
Customer First :Ensuring regular material availability (rebars) to customer
Supplier partnership :Minimization of downtime of SPCs
Expected date of completion
9
1.3.0 Team Selection & Preparation 19
Regular
1 meetings
between 1+2=3
Experts and
Senior
Management
2 Roadmap
Identification
and Correct
results were 3
shared
4 Formal closure of
phases & compliance
3 to the project
execution plan
2
1
20
Section # 2
Current Situation and Root
Cause/Improvement Opportunity Analysis
BENCH- COST
MARKING MODELLING
DOE WHY-WHY
Possible
Solution
Final
Final Solution
SUPPLY
Opportunity
CHAIN
OPTIMIZER BUY – IN PROJECT
(LINDO) FROM SPC PLANNING DOE
( CCPM)
10
2.1.0 Key Measures expected of the project 21
What specific goals and/or measures is the team trying to achieve with the project?
2.1.1 (1/2) & What additional potential benefits, other than the specific goals and /or
measures, will the project impact? (2/2)
Increase in
Production
Improvement
in CSI
feedback
P W H A T W H Y H O W
o
s 1. Bar Chart Monthly level Analysis of Historic data
s available on SPC wise
Refer 2.2.1 slide 23 monthly production
i 1
b Understanding the Team already
l current performance had
levels understanding of
e
basic TQM tools
2. Production Owing to difference in
O infrastructure facilities,
p Capability matrix SKU level
different SPC has limitation in
p Refer 2.2.2 slide 24 producing various SKUs
o
r Refer item 1.3.2, slide 14
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
11
2.2.0 Key Measures expected of the project 23
What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the possible root
2.2.2 cause(s)/improvement opportunity? (1/2) What were the possible root cause / improvement
opportunities? (2/2)
There are two levels of analysis ; I level is shown below and II level is shown in the next slide
1
Ist level analysis to understand Production Trend Refer item 2.2.1 slide 22
Analysis of Historic data available on SPC wise monthly production Data analysis using Bar Chart
25,000
20,000 24,743
22,773 22,314
21,231 21,251
15,000 19,236
17,383 17,304 17,844
16,146
10,000 14,523
5,000
-
Apr'13 May'13 Jun'13 Jul'13 Aug'13 Sep'13 Oct'13 Nov'13 Dec'13 Jan'14 Feb'14
Modern - SPC Brand Alloy - SPC Nanded - SPC Sharda - SPC WRM_W (Own)
WRM_E (Own) ISWP (Own) Sub total Own Total 8mm
Approach : Scenario based planning with Long term focus for systematic and systemic solution
Learning : Too many variables, hence Supply Chain optimiser needed to give best option depending upon options s
12
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement Opportunities 25
What methods and/or tools were used to identify the final root cause(s)/
improvement opportunities ? (1/3) Why were these methods and /or tools
2.3.1 selected to identify the final root cause(s)/ improvement opportunities ? (2/3)
Approach used was selection of suitable Supply Chain Optimiser to determine final opportunity
Selection of
correct input
data Hands on Training on
past data using
Helped in surfacing of optimizer
initial input gaps wrt to
Optimiser
The robustness of team preparation for usage of LINDO was ensured through using 4M approach
i.e. Men ,Method , Machine, Material
Ensured robustness of model and training on the basis of past data, use of optimizer and fine tuning
13
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement Opportunities 27
What data was generated and how was the data analyzed in order to
2.3.2 identify the final root cause(s)/ improvement opportunities? (1/3)
Data generation and analysis was done using LP Optimizer ( A Linear Programming Tool from LINDO) in which data
pertaining to “ Total cost starting from RM to final delivery of FG was analysed
Optimizer Model
Logic and
Formulation:
2
Forecasting the volume to be served from various producing unit for serving a given demand (at SKU level) and the geographical
Output / Analysis
spread of the customer in the most profitable way.
Volume enhancement to
be done from Beekay and
Sharda
1
2: Front end screen of LP Optimizer
14
2.3.0 Final Root Cause(s) / Improvement Opportunities 29
How was (were) the final root cause(s)/ improvement opportunities validated? (1/2) continued next
2.3.3 slide
A
Steps of Validation Process Need for Validation Process p
Long term impact of decision w.r.t. infrastructural p
changes (8mm) which is largely irreversible in nature r
1 1: Brainstorming 2: Feasibility Analysis o
a
Technical Experts c
h
:
S
y
s
• Looked at the productivity t
advantage of our mills vis-à-vis e
Validation
SPCs m
Purpose of The output
Global • Meeting the product segment s
Optima requirement TMT as well as analysis is shown
Wire rod in the next slide T
A
2 h
C
C Inward
• Will our Mill design allow to i
add 8 mm component n
U Looking
Features of k
Validation
R i
Process A n
C g
• Finally which are the SPCs
Y Outward where capability enhancement
Looking
can be done
15
2.4.0 Project Management Update 31
How was the correctness of the initial project scope, deliverables, and
2.4.1 timing confirmed ( or , what changes were made))?(1/4) (1/4)
Change in scope
2
In CAT meetings, it was discussed that SPC Nanded
is a potential case for closure based on cost to serve,
hence to be excluded from the scope to determine the
revised distribution system and cost to serve
Change Acceleration
Team (CAT)
Change in team composition
Based on CAT meetings , it was
decided to include team
The Correctness w.r.t. - Cross Functional members from SPC ( Beekay &
Approach (CFT) SSIL )
• Scope
• Deliverables 1
• Timelines
Refer item 1.3.4 slide 17-19
Global Project
Management System
(GPMS)
• Vice President, SM
Obtaining Direction Setting at Key
Policy Holder Stages of the Project
Refer slide 12 ,item no 1..3.1
16
2.4.0 Project Management Update 33
3.3.1
What stakeholder resistance was identified and/or addressed in this
2.4.1 phase of project?(3/4) (3/4)
Refer 1.3.4 slide 17-19
• Vice President, SM R1: If we stretch SPC beyond their R1: Decided to put in place robust quality
Customer capability then Brand Promise assurance system so that there is no gap
(Quality )may get compromised w.r.t Brand expectations and actual
performance of the product
Vice President, SM R2: Go ahead is conditional to R2: Involved Financial Analysis team and
Change required technical team to ensure the
Chief BAG submission of vetted feasibility
Acceleratio options, robust project planning robustness of the process and get the Buy-In
n Team Chief LPP timely manner
documents
Chief TG
Head, SPC Management, Out R3.1 : Team decided to explore through
R3.1: There was resistance in the
location
Cross team as this kind of project has benchmarking and consulting other experts to
Head, SPC Technical and New
functional never been done before in TSL and understand the feasibility
Initiative
team R3.2: It was decided that the Critical Chain
Senior Manager Technical, also the current setup of the
Senior Manager Commercial
Project Management would be used to arrive
existing SPCs do not support at the possible timelines and the resources
SPC
enhancement of 8 MM capability required
R3.2 : The project timelines
appeared to be very ambitious
R4.1: TSL shared the long term organizational
goal and objective of enriching the product
Processing Beekay Steel & SSI(L Sharda R4.1 High investment requirement
mix. SPCs role in meeting above objective was
Partners explained . Benefits of Long-Term partnering
with TSL was also shared
Approach /Learning : Managing expectations of stakeholders is key to achievement of Long term results
Vice President, SM
Change Acceleration Chief ,BAG
Monthly Review
Team (CAT) Chief ,LPP
Chief TG
17
35
Section # 3
Solution/Improvement Development
BENCH- COST
MARKING MODELLING
DOE WHY-WHY
Possible
Solution
Final
Final Solution
Opportunity SUPPLY
CHAIN
OPTIMIZER BUY – IN PROJECT
(LINDO) FROM SPC PLANNING DOE
( CCPM)
Final solution
Possible solution
Challenge 1: overcoming constraints related to productivity Challenge 2 : Production of 8 mm for the
and quality w.r.t 8mm already under production Ist time
Refer slide 30 ,item 2.3.3
Tools commonly used for both SPCs are Benchmarking, Buy-In, Project Management . Benchmarking used for infrastructure gap study for
production of 8mm. Cost modelling used for negotiation of rates & buy-in from SPC to take investment decision. CCPM used to reduce the
project commissioning time for up gradation of the SPC facilities & minimise the disruption of supplies to customers
18
3.1.0 Possible Solution or Improvement 37
Why were these methods and/or tools selected to identify the possible solutions/
3.1.1 improvements? (2/3)
Refer slide 5
,item 1.1.1
• Brainstorming session with • To understand the range of rates for • Understanding of sample
• Brainstorming
inputs from Domain Experts
session with and • Based on study
negotiation of SPC specific
by understanding cost
cost case study
Mill Equipment
inputs from DomainSuppliers was
Experts and driver
model of other SPCs
done
Mill to arrive on
Equipment the was
Supplies • and benchmarking of relevant cost with
parameters
done to be
to arrive on benchmarked
the • other production
Development units forExecution
of Project development
parameters to be benchmarked of cost
Plan model
using which can be mutually
CCPM
• GEMBA Visit (Field Observation) agreed upon between PC and TSL
• GEMBA
was done for (Field
Visit processObservation) • Before the start of the project the
parameters
was done & checklist • Development of management
relevant project Project Execution
training
Plan using CCPM
was imparted .
19
3.1.0 Possible Solution or Improvement 39
What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to determine
3.1.2 the possible solutions/ improvements? (1/3) continued next slide
What are the possible solutions/ improvements? (2/3) continued next slide
1: 2: Buy-In with SPC 3. Project
on Plan Monitoring
Benchmarking
Plant operating parameters Benchmarking can give direction of solution but due to differences in the operating
parameters DOE during the pilot testing is needed
1
Instead of Data the process as per the TOC approach is shown
for getting the Buy-In from SPC Benchmarking
Six Layers of Resistance
Layer 1: Agreement on the problem
Layer 2: Agreement on the direction of the solution
Layer 3: Agreement that the solution will bring the
desired benefits
Yes, but…
Layer 4: Fear of negative ramification
Layer 5: Fear about how to implement the solution 2
Layer 6: Unexplained fear (say “yes” but do “no”)
CCPM Plan of bridging the infrastructural gaps
20
3.1.0 Possible Solution or Improvement 41
What evidence showed that the solution/ improvements identified were
3.1.2 possible instead of final? (3/3)
a) Proven Design
The Slit rolling Technology is new to the world specially w.r.t to 8mm .SSIL had
very recently incorporated slit rolling .Our extended manufacturing facility at
Thailand had encountered all this problem and were duly solved by modification
of original roll pass design ( dog bone ) .
b) Supported by basics of roll pass design
This change in design is supported by Basics of Roll Pass Design..
What methods and/or tools were used to identify the final solution(s)/
3.2.1 improvement(s)? (1/3)
2: Buy-in with 3. Project
5. Why-Why
1: Benchmarking 4. DOE
SPC on Plan Management (CCPM)
Final solution
Possible solution
Challenge 1: overcoming constraints related to productivity Challenge 2 : Production of 8 mm for the
and quality w.r.t 8mm already under production Ist time
Refer slide 30 ,item 2.3.3
Dev. - Development
Change Acceleration Team
Rational for using DOE & Why-Why in SSIL & not in Beekay. (Need for DOE also explained in slide 39 (item 3.1.2))
21
3.2.0 Final Solutions or Improvements 43
Why were these methods and/or tools were used to identify the final solution(s)/
improvement(s)? (2/3)
3.2.1 How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools to identify the final
solution(s)/ improvement(s)? (3/3)
1
• While benchmarking showed direction of
solution but actual plant conditions are • While doing DOE ,when intended
Why and How different and requires arriving at SPC specific results were not achieved ,this tool
process parameter level was used to modify the parameter
these tools were
used • So under controlled environment interaction of level based on gap /abnormality
various factors were studied to arrive at a final analysis
solution
1 2
Issues at various stages
A step wise approach was
used Initial Problem Pertaining Next level of problem and Final Solution: through Evidence
Phase 1: Critical to to approach Design changes under
(CTP/CT controlled condition for
Production -Using process Q) the final solution
knowledge, the product
design parameters were Phase -1 * CTP Issue in Alignment of rebars Evidence-2
Dog Bone pass DOE2 done for Change
drilled down to actual getting damaged Further why-why analysis in entry guide & slitter 44
process and plant design (DOE1 was done. design
parameters (Area :Finishing
Mill)
Phase 2: Critical to Quality Phase -2 CTQ Inconsistency in Mechanical DOE3 Evidence-3
– Quality defect in property DOE for Water Box
Vital few Critical to quality, the Finishing Stand Nozzle design changes (
Critical to Production Nozzle diameter
(Area Water Box) Further why-why analysis DOE4 Evidence-4
parameters were shortlisted was done to change Water Changes in Thermax
for implementation ( design Nozzle diameter and circuit Length
of experiments) using why – design
why analysis to validate the
solution
*New Dog Bone Design pass was tested as per Benchmarking Input. Changes were successful but full benefit could not be derived.
22
3.2.0 Final Solutions or Improvements 45
How were the final solution(s)/improvement(s) validated? (1/2)(1/2)
3.2.3
Identified
Final DOE Pilot Testing
Opportunity Why-why
for critical
factors
Results
Why-Why
1
Background for DOE3 and DOE4:
From a single billet cut piece, there are 4 rebars length produced. To achieve consistency in YS, the variation in YS is studied
at various cut length of each rebar. Study done also to understand the variation between various piece of rebar
Relationship to explain the cause –effect of various parameters:
Yield Strength (YS)= Function(FRT) Function (Water flow rate, Time of Quenching)
Function (Nozzle Diameter, Length of Water Box)
Snapshots of trial results during DOE journey is shown below. However , full factorial DOE was done(factors :3
,Levels :3 )
2
DOE3: Reduced the nozzle diameter DOE4: Reduced the Water Box length (the gap
(still gap in the between YS values at various point hence between YS of various point has been significantly
DOE4 was conducted) bridged)
3
Trial Trial
results results
during
DOE
during
journey DOE
journey
1F 2F 2B Extreme Back
2B Extreme Back
23
What additional potential benefits were anticipated from the final 47
3.2.4
solution(s)? (1/2) & Were the additional potential benefits anticipated
prior to implementation? (2/2)(1/2)
Customer
• Fulfillment of VOC on
8mm availability
Anticipated
benefits
Tata Steel
SPC • Improvement in Customer
• Debottlenecking of production & satisfaction
quality constraints • Increase in Profitability
• Increase in business share with • Improvement in availability
Tata Steel. • Consistency in quality leading
• Decrease in quality rejection and to Zero customer complaints
thereby improvement in Yield
Approach used : Value creation for stakeholders , Expectations (Stated and Implied )
.2.5 What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to justify & why the chosen 48
3.2.5 final solution(s) / improvement(s) should be implemented? (1/2) & What evidence
showed that that justification was performed prior to implementation ? (2/2)(1/2)
The results from the trials/DOE of key critical parameters w.r.t quality specification confirmed the
implementation
The pilot test results (shown above) were taken as a evidence for confirmation for proceeding ahead of
the implementation to achieve the desired results
24
How was the correctness of the updated project scope, deliverables and 49
3.3.1 timings confirmed?(1/4)
Change Acceleration
Team (CAT)
Change in scope – NO CHANGE
Cross Functional
Approach (CFT) Change in team composition –
The Correctness w.r.t - NO CHANGE
• Scope
• Deliverables
• Timelines Global Project
Management System
(GPMS)
The project deadlines were met and the project deliverables were completed as per the
project plan. The solutions were approved for implementation by all the stakeholders
(including SSIL & Beekay Steel).There was no need felt by the team at this stage for change
in the scope or the team composition
Learning : Involvement of employees in decision making helps in boosting commitment and motivates for problem solving
Head, SPC Management, Out location Weekly team meetings or as per need
Head, SPC Technical and New Initiative basis
Cross Functional Senior Manager Technical,
Team Senior Manager Commercial
SPC
25
What stakeholder resistance was identified and / or addressed in this phase 51
3.3.1 of the project?(3/4)/4)
R1: 1. Reinforcement of
R1: Product should move
Vice President, SM comprehensive quality assurance
Policy Holder out of SPC premises only
plan was done
when it complies with all
2. Re-training people on the shop
TSL requirements
Vice President, SM floor.
Chief, BAG 3. Extensive sampling & testing in
Change R2: Data analysis should be
Chief LPP TSL Lab
Acceleration done & compliance to TSL
Team (CAT) Chief TG norms to be confirmed
R2: 1. Data collection was done.
before commercial
2. Process capabilities was
production
Head, SPC Management, Out conformed by calculating CpK .
location 3. Commercial production
Head, SPC Technical and New R3.1 Availability of clearance was given.
Cross Functional infrastructure/ equipment
Initiative
Team should be on time R3: Syndication with equipment
Senior Manager Technical,
Senior Manager Commercial R3.2: The trial losses should supplier& close follow-up for
SPC not be high ensuring timely availability of
equipment
Beekay Steel & Sharda R4.1 Production loss in trial R4.1: With input from
SPC should be compensated benchmarked partners & support
by DOE tool, the team was
confident that the losses will be
Refer 1.3.4 slide 18 bare minimum.
How was the appropriateness of the initial team membership and management routines 52
3.3.1 confirmed? (4/4)
Considerations :
Appropriateness of Team Membership • Finalized project scope
• SIPOC and ARMI tools
• Skill set mapping
Vice President, SM
Chief ,BAG
Change Monthly Review
Chief, LPP
Acceleration Team Chief, TG
52
26
53
Section # 4
Implementation and Results Verification
54
54
27
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation 55
How were the stakeholders involved in implementing the solution/
4.1.1 improvement?(2/2) (2/2)
Stakeholder involvement
Implementation
Resource SOP Validate
Stakeholder Approve Communicate plan Training
allocation development results
development
Policy Holder
Change
Acceleration
team
Cross fucntional
team
Learning : Emotional engagement at individual and team level is sometimes critical to decision making
55
Actions taken to
Stakeholder Who anticipate resistance
Approach used : Background analysis and usage of TOC principles for addressing the resistances
56
28
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation 57
What types of resistance were actually encountered during the course of
4.1.2 solution/ improvement implementation?(2/3) 2/3)
29
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation 59
1 2
a. No customer complaints or a. The key performance indicators on
adverse feedback about the
Policy holder CAT quality were showing healthy trends.
product supplied during the b. CAT meeting approval
pilot testing and later on .
b. CAT meeting approval
3
4
a. The sales loss was minimised
during the implementation. This
a. The SPCs did not come back
is measured indirectly in terms
with any claim for the initial
of increased compliance to the
loss of production based on the
customer order for which KPI
subsequent increased loading.
used is DDP (sales loss inversely
b. SPC signed the contract
related to DDP)
before implementation
SPC CFT
Approach used : Management by fact ( ie Good performance of relevant parameters indicates Stability )
30
4.1.0 Stakeholder Considerations in Implementation 61
The following actions were taken to get the buy-in of the stakeholders:
31
4.2.0 Stakeholder /Improvement Implementation 63
What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the
4.2.1 performance of the implementation? (2/2) continued in next 3 slides
Multiple actions were taken related to system changed or creation of new measures &
managing the performance of implementation. The evidences of which are shown in the
next 3 slides
quality 2 10MM 3.8MTR 1 170HP 30MM 10.51M/S 10Kg/cm2 No Required 580-630deg C 13-Mar
related 3 12MM 3.8MTR 1 170HP 30MM 9.01M/S 16.5Kg/cm2 No Required 580-630deg C 13-Mar
check 4 16MM 8.380MTR 1 170HP 35MM 11.0M/S 10Kg/cm2 8Kg/cm2 470-500deg C 13-Mar
points
5 16MM 7.800MTR 1 170HP 50-55MM 9.60M/S 9Kg/cm2 1Kg/cm2 470-500deg C 13-Apr
during the
running of 7 20MM 7.800MTR 2 100HP 50-55MM 7.0M/S 15Kg/cm2 11Kg/cm2 460-500deg C
the Mill 8 20MM 7.080MTR 1 170HP 35MM 7.0M/S 14Kg/cm2 11Kg/cm2 460-500deg C 13-Mar
related to
QC check
point Daily Check Points Observation Remarks
2) Mill Speed As Per the above chart
before the 6) Billet Temp 1040 - 1100deg C.
7) FRT Pyrometer Setting with display counter As Per the above chart
start-upof 9) Thermax Length with Nozzle Dia As Per the above chart
the Mill 10) Thermax Water Pressure
11) Thermax Water Temp. Every Shift 2 time)
As Per the above chart
Less Than 35 deg C
32
4.2.0 Stakeholder /Improvement Implementation 65
What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the
4.2.1 performance of the implementation? (2/2)
Evidence on decision
tree for maintaining
sectional weight at
Beekay
Evidence on decision tree for maintaining Yield Strength at
Sharda
2
Before After
Box Plot of YS- section 8mm (July’14) Box Plot of YS- section 8mm (Dec’14)
UCL
UCL
500 LCL
LCL
1
Started usage of Statistical tools : Box plot analysis started on regular basis to understand the
performance of critical quality parameters such as Yield strength .
The Box Plot analysis on Ys, shows that after implementation there was no outlier or extreme values in
Ys which is desired effect
Approach used : Usage of statistical tools helps in better decision making at shop floor and subsequently Poka-Yoke
was done
33
4.3.0 Project Results 67
What were the results?(1/2) & How did the results compare to the specific
4.3.1 project goals/ measure from item 2.1.1.?(2/2)
1. Increase in Production 8mm Production (t) Refer 5.1.2 slide 74
50000 44355 42911 43420 43484
37039 36259 35939 36121 39375 38181
40000 33843 33579 33380
30999
30000 26938
20000
During the start of the project the volume target taken was 45000tpm . In Q3 of FY’15, figure achieved was 44355 tpm.
In next 2 quarters (Q4 FY’15 & Q1 FY’16) the volumes was lower due to reasons external to SPCs.
So we confirm that the capability building exercise is complete and the Actual Audited savings achieved Rs.11.67 crores.
2. Student A as per Dr Kano’s Four Student Model - for assessing Business Objective Fulfillment
34
4.3.0 Project Results 69
How did the team measure any of the additional benefits that were
4.3.2 “soft”.?(2/3)2/3)
Benefits Measure
Production • Higher morale of SPC team • Now high compliance by SPC
From TSL in taking 8mm production to rolling plan given by TSL ( in-
( earlier there was reluctance ) fact asking for more of 8mm
view
plan )
• SPC gained due to reduction • Despite unit power rate and furnace
Production in fuel and power costs , price increase SPC continued contract
from SPC view reduction in payment by SPC without rate increase
on overtime to its staff
4.3.0
3.2.4Project Results 70
How do the actual additional benefits that were realized compare to the
4.3.2 expected additional benefits identified in item 3.2.4? (3/3)3)
Subsequent to customer
Customer survey ( mentioned in
criteria item 1.2.3 ) there is
Fulfillment of VOC on 8mm no adverse feedback on
availability adequacy of product mix
basket
Anticipated
benefits
Indicates
35
71
Section # 5
Sustaining and Communicating Results
A B
One Time
Sustenance C
TABLE A Take samples as per COMPREHENSIVE QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR EPAs - DECISION TREE ( Fe 500 D and Fe 500 SD )
Location Sampling Plan in Table A
Section No:of Samples Frequency
Front (F) Middle (M1,M2...M6) Back (B)
D
10mm 5 1 3 1 1Hour
12mm 5 1 3 1 1Hour Check whether % Wt
Check whether % Wt
16mm 5 1 3 1 1Hour Test samples as for Tol is in the range Check whether %
NO Retest samples as per Tol is in the range -5 to
% Weight tolerance -5 to 0 for 8mm to NO Wt Tol is NO
20mm 4 1 2 1 1Hour 0 for 8mm to 10mm , -
10mm , -4 to 0 for sampling plan : Table B conforming to BIS
25mm 4 1 2 1 1Hour 12mm to 16mm , -3 to 4 to 0 for 12mm to
Specificatioon for
32mm 4 1 2 1 1Hour 0 for 20mm and above 16mm , -3 to 0 for
Fe 500D
20mm and above
to SPCs.
Samples to be drawn 1 from each bundle 630Mpa
the cast number level.
range
from the bundle from for each failure ( i,e
-5 to 0 for 8mm to 10mm ,
-4 to 0 for 12mm to 16mm , which low YS was 1+1+1 for each UTS/YS < 1.10 ( For Fe 500 D) Bend Test Not OK
-3 to 0 for 20mm and above reported and samples failure). <1.15 (For Fe 500 SD)
from the adjacent NO NO
bundles rolled before
UTS/YS > 1.10 ( For Fe 500 D)
and after this. Retest samples as per
>1.15 (For Fe 500 SD)
sampling plan in Table B
Refer to
Hea d
T&NI
Remarks
personnel.
# Bundles need to be quarantined corresponding to the duration of “High/Low Alarm” or “Abnormal condition” and to be kept at HOLD bay with complete identity and Front, Back and Middle of 3 bars at random to be tested and the above tree has to be followed.
NO
YES Test the samples for YS after
15 billets
Gi ve cl earance for
Check whether
NO YS result is YES conti nuoues rolling
between 530- a nd follow regular
s a mpling as per
630Mpa
Ta bl e A
Scra p the
bundle ad
cut to
1meter
36
5.1.0 Sustaining Results Over Time 73
What was done to make sure the benefits obtained from the implementation
5.1.2
will be maintained ?(1/2))
Reference our response to criteria item no 4.3.1, the organizational results shows that
the production of 8mm is at increased levels.
The above was possible as the rolling of 8mm is done on regular basis each month.
( For evidence purpose the Rolling Plan is attached below)
37
5.2.0 Communication of Results 75
How did the team communicate the results to the various stakeholder
5.2.1 groups? (1/1
76
End of Document
38
77
Key legends, notes and abbreviations used
Key Abbreviations:
Key legends: SPC : Steel processing centers
CTP :Critical to production
Challenges
TOC :Theory of Constraints
Unique / Good /Best practices CAT: Change acceleration Team
CFT: Cross Functional team
Back connectivity slide no , item no TSL: Tata Steel Limited
LPP: Long product planning department
Forward connectivity slide no , item no DOE: Design of experiments ( includes
Tata Steel India (Operations) Val Steel India (Operations) Value incorporating proven design changes of
Stream equipment etc )
COST TO SERVE: total delivery cost
ktpm: 1000tons per month
tpm: tons per month
DDP : Due date performance
Key Notes:
Note1 : SPC & processing partners are used interchangeably
Note 2: SSIL & Sharda denotes the same SPC
39