To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition

Kaustubh Kulkarni Hyderabad Plant

Project Charter, Team
Project Title

D

M

A

I

C

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition

Project Sponsor Black Belt Project Leader Team Members

Nagaraja Rao, Plant Head Abraham Chacko Kaustubh Kulkarni Vijaya Reddy, HR Executive Revi Vasudevan, Mgr - Production

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Project Charter, Description
Project Description

D

M

A

I

C

Purpose of the project is to identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing the operator attrition

Process and Project Perimeter
Operators at the Hyderabad Plant, India

Project Goals
Reduce attrition rate from 12% to less than 6% Reduce replacement recruitment cost Reduce Re-training hours Reduce potential for product non-conformities
To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Project Charter, Financials
Financial Savings for the Company
Cost of Operator replacement is Rs. 3,000

D

M

A

I

C

An operator takes at least 2 weeks (initial learning curve) to get trained and deliver required output Other savings include reduced potential for non-conformities leading to possible customer dissatisfaction Material scrap generated as a consequence of faulty manufacturing

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Project Charter, Timelines
Project Timelines
Start Date: 5th April 2007

D

M

A

I

C

End Date: 30th September 2007

Project Phases
Define and Measure Analyze Improve and Control
5th April 2007 – 15th May 2007

16th May 2007 – 15th June 2007

16th June 2007 – 30th September 2007

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

S-I-P-O-C

D

M

A

I

C

Recruitment Consultants Walk-Ins Advertisements Employee Referral Potential Candidate Selection and Retention of right candidate

Trained and Retained Candidate Defect-Free Products

Production Function
Management

EndEnd-User

Supplier

Input

Process

Output

Customer

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

C

% t o p S n o i t i r t t A

% 8 4 . 5 % 4 5 . 1 1 % 0 4 . 2 1

% 6 5 . 2

% 7 7 . 1

% 1 5 . 5

A

I

D

d n E h t n o

t n u o c d a e

3 7 0 9 3 8 1 2 3 2 7 7 1 1 1 1

M

M H

Attrition Trend, Oct 06 – Mar 07

s e e y o l p t f e L

4 2 2 7

5 6 1 1

m E

s e e y o l p m E d e n i o J

7 1 8 5 6 7 3 2 1 1 1

M

M

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition
r a e Y

h t n o

6 6 0 0 - t v c o O N

6 7 0 0 - c n e a D J

7 0 b e F

7 0 r a

6 0 0 2

7 0 0 2

Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Definition and Sampling Plan
Data Pattern

D

M

A

I

C

The Hyderabad Plant started with the high volume 2 shift production of Industrial Control products from January 2007. At this time we started experiencing a high rate of operator attrition suddenly, leading serious concerns on being able to ramp up production to meet demanding market schedules. The hypothesis was that the shift operations were contributing to the high rate of attrition that got introduced in January of 2007. Resignation – Operational Definition The last working day of the the employee is the date of relieving of the employee. Sampling Plan and Strategy The data for all the employees being available from inception in October 2005, the entire population was used as part of the analysis for this project.
To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Fish-Bone/Ishikawa Diagram
X Organizational Aspects
Shift Working Product Line IC, LV, MV Work Strain

D

M

A

I

C

Distance from Plant

Logic Score

Qualification Domiciliary Status

Pursue further Education Health Reasons

Operator Attrition at the Hyderabad Plant

Y

Marriage Other Opportunities

Age

Candidate Profile

X

Personal Reasons

X

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Data Collection Sample Sheet
# 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 Name P.Bhavani D.Srividya Ch.Aswini K.Mamatha P.Swapna G.Anuradha Ms.T.Anuradha V.Lakshmi K.Srilatha K.Swetha A.Srivani Ch.Pranitha G.Jyothi K.Vijayalakshmi B.Swapna T.Sujatha P.Nagarani J.Bhavani T.Lavanya DOB 5/May/1984 7/Feb/1988 28/Jun/1988 16/Jul/1988 10/Jun/1984 4/Feb/1985 25/Mar/1986 8/Apr/1987 19/Jul/1985 18/Aug/1986 31/Oct/1987 14/Jun/1987 10/Jul/1984 14/Jun/1985 6/May/1983 21/Jun/1987 19/May/1986 10/Jun/1988 14/Jul/1988 DOJ 8/Jan/2007 8/Jan/2007 9/Jan/2007 18/Jan/2007 22/Jan/2007 22/Jan/2007 22/Jan/2007 24/Jan/2007 24/Jan/2007 24/Jan/2007 24/Jan/2007 24/Jan/2007 24/Jan/2007 24/Jan/2007 5/Feb/2007 7/Feb/2007 7/Feb/2007 7/Feb/2007 7/Feb/2007 DOR Product Line Tesys Activa Tesys Tesys Tesys Tesys Tesys Tesys Tesys Tesys Tesys Stores Tesys Tesys Tesys Tesys Tesys Tesys Stores

D

M

A

I

C

Service Distance Age in Education Shifts Length from Plant Yrs 283 283 258 105 258 206 183 202 108 267 267 267 267 267 255 252 226 253 253 12 24 6 63 6 5 5 12 1 5 13 30 19 13 40 63 19 13 22 23 19 19 19 23 22 21 20 22 21 19 20 23 22 24 20 21 19 19 Inter Inter Inter Inter Graduate Graduate Graduate Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Inter Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N

G 10 Score 26 25 29 28 26 17 26 23 30 23 24 24 15 20 20 22 20 22 25

Dom. Status N Y N Y N Y N N N Y N N Y N N Y N N N

Work Status A A R R R R R R R A A A A A A R R A A

2/Feb/2007 5/Jul/2007 2/Feb/2007 26/Mar/2007 18/Apr/2007 30/Mar/2007 2/Jul/2007

8/Feb/2007 6/Mar/2007

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Normality Plot for Data - Y

D

M

A

I

C

P r o b a b i l i ty P l o t o f Y ( D i s ta n c e f r o m P l a n t)
No r m a l
99.9 99 95 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5 1 0.1 M ean S tD ev N AD P - V a lu e 151.4 128.9 71 2.574 < 0.005

Percent

-300

-200

-100

0

100 y

200

300

400

500

600

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Residuals and Data Normalization
R e s i d ua l P l o ts f o r y
No rm a l P ro b a b ilit y P lo t o f t h e R e s id u a ls
99.9 99

D

M

A

I

C

R e s id u a ls V e rs u s t h e Fit t e d V a lu e s
300 150 Residual 0 - 150 - 300

Percent

90 50 10 1 0.1

- 400

- 200

0 R e sid u a l

200

400

100

200 F itte d V a lu e

300

H is t o g ra m o f t h e R e s id u a ls
16 Frequency Residual 12 8 4 0 - 200 - 100 0 R e sid u a l 100 200

R e s id u a ls V e rs u s t h e O rd e r o f t h e D a t a
300 150 0 - 150 - 300
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

O b se r v a tio n O r d e r

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Statistical Tests for Significance

D

M

A

I

C

Two Sample Tests

Age Logic Test Scores Distance
Chi-Square Tests

Working in Shifts – Yes/No Staying with Parents – Yes/No

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Two-Sample T and Box Plot Age – Active vs. Resigned

D

M

A

I

C

Individual Value Plot of Age A, Age R
25.0

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Age A, Age R
22.5

Two-sample T for Age A vs Age R N Mean StDev SE Mean Age A 163 17.65 1.86 Age R 99 17.94 1.95 0.15 0.20
15.0 Data 20.0

17.5

Age A

Age R

Difference = mu (Age A) - mu (Age R)
25.0

Boxplot of Age A, Age R

Estimate for difference: -0.289087 95% CI for difference: (-0.770619, 0.192444) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -1.18 P-Value = 0.238 DF = 199
Data 22.5

20.0

17.5

15.0

Age A

Age R

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Two-Sample T and Box Plot Logic Test Scores – Active vs. Resigned

D

M

A

I

C

Individual Value Plot of Test Score A, Test Score B
40

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Test Score A, Test Score R Two-sample T for Test Score A vs Test Score R
Data

35 30

25 20

N Mean StDev SE Mean Test Score A 158 23.71 4.64 Test Score R 94 25.07 3.99 0.37 0.41

15 10 Test Score A Test Score B

Difference = mu (Test Score A) - mu (Test Score R) Estimate for difference: -1.36561 95% CI for difference: (-2.45518, -0.27603) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -2.47 P-Value = 0.014 DF = 218
Data

Boxplot of Test S core A, Test S core B
40

35

30 25

20

15

10 Test S core A Test S core B

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Two-Sample T and Box Plot Distance – Active vs. Resigned

D

M

A

I

C

Individual Value Plot of Dist. A, Dist. R
70

Boxplot of Dist. A, Dist. R
60 50 40 Data 30 20 10

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Dist. A, Dist. R Two-sample T for Dist. A vs Dist. R N Mean StDev SE Mean Dist. A 163 17.0 10.6 Dist. R 99 22.8 16.4 0.83 1.6

0 Dist. A Dist. R

Boxplot of Dist. A, Dist. R
70 60

Difference = mu (Dist. A) - mu (Dist. R)
50

Estimate for difference: -5.72473
40

95% CI for difference: (-9.36979, -2.07967) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -3.10 P-Value = 0.002 DF = 148
To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Data

30 20 10 0 Dist. A Dist. R

Chi-Square Tests
Chi-Square Test: Active, Resigned for Candidate Staying with Parents and Away from Parents Expected counts are printed below observed counts Chi-Square contributions are printed below expected counts Active Resigned Total 1 81 77.15 0.193 2 82 85.85 0.173 Total 163 43 46.85 0.317 56 52.15 0.285 99 262 138 2 124 1

D

M

A

I

C

Chi-Square Test: Active, Resigned for Candidate Working in Shifts and Not Working in Shifts Expected counts are printed below observed counts Chi-Square contributions are printed below expected counts Active Resigned Total 64 72.62 1.023 98 89.38 0.831 Total 162 53 44.38 1.675 46 54.62 1.361 99 261 144 117

Chi-Sq = 0.968, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.325

Chi-Sq = 4.890, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.027

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Data Collection Sample Sheet
Binary Logistic Regression: C2 versus C1 Link Function: Logit Response Information Variable Value Count C2 1 0 Total 83 (Event) 172 255

D

M

A

I

C

Logistic Regression Table Odds Predictor Constant C1 Coef SE Coef Z 95% CI P Ratio Lower Upper

-1.55402 0.258814 -6.00 0.000

Distance is statistically significant

0.0408698 0.0106133 3.85 0.000 1.04 1.02 1.06

Log-Likelihood = -152.675 Test that all slopes are zero: G = 16.429, DF = 1, P-Value = 0.000

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Statistical Findings and Conclusions

D

M

A

I

C

Two Sample Tests

p-Value

Age Logic Test Scores Distance
Chi-Square Tests

0.238 0.014 0.002
P-value being less than 0.05, indicates statistically significant process influence

Working in Shifts – Yes/No Staying with Parents – Yes/No

0.027 0.325

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Analysis of Findings
Statistically Significant Aspects

D

M

A

I

C

Logic Test Scores, 0.014
This indicates that individuals with lower scores tend to continue in service with us, while the ones with higher scores are more likely to pursue other options. While the entry level criteria cannot be diluted, this aspect has the potential for a future six sigma to correlate test scores and their impact on operator efficiency

Distance, 0.002 Working in Shifts – Yes/No, 0.027
Both Distance and Shift Working have an influence on each other and summary explanation with recommended actions is provided below: From the analysis it is clear the individuals staying further away from the company are more likely to resign. This has also been validated through a one-on-one interaction with the operators. This is on account of the hardship they face when they have to come in the first shift (start from home at 4 am) and the time they reach home in the second shift (as late as 12 am in some instances).

.

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Improvement Recommendations

D

M

A

I

C

Solutions generated and actions implemented from June 2007

Distance, 0.002
Earlier, during the interview process there was no specific focus on the distance of the candidate from the company. Now we have included this aspect in the interview selection and short-listing stage itself by flagging this question in the “Candidate Personal Information Form”. The attempt is to control and select candidates to within 25 kms of the plant radius. We have also added smaller, additional vehicles for the early morning pick-up and late night-drop to facilitate easier and quicker employee movement as our entire operator population is female, and it is a concern and responsibility to ensure this

Working in Shifts, 0.027 .
The shift working is a business requirement and cannot be altered. However to address this hardship we have introduced the concept of shift allowance for all the operators who work in shifts other than the general shift

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Attrition Trend, Jan 07 – Sep 07

D

M

A

I

C

We had higher attrition in this month when about 7-8 employees left to pursue further education. This was a spot incidence. Excluding these numbers attrition is within the 6% target

Target Level of 6%

Prior to Six Sigma
To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

D&M

A

Improve and Control

Overall Improvement – Before and Post Implementation of 6S

D

M

A

I

C

a m g i S x i S e r o f e B

a m g i S x i S r e t f A

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

d e t i u r c e R e v i t c A d e n g i s %%%% e R

% 9 2 7 0 9 . 7 1 9 8 9 4

% 5 3 3 0 0 8 7 1 . 2 1

Key Learnings and Reccomendations
Key Learnings

D

M

A

I

C

Define well – This is extremely critical as this is what provided the ‘anchor’ as you navigate through the project complexities. Think ahead of how you expect to proceed, what tools you potentially intend to use. This helps avoid reaching the IC stage and finding out the only meaningful tool you could have used is a Pareto Expect the Unexpected – Hyderabad Plant being a new plant, the team was not aware of the key issues that would surface. Distance was not imagined as a constraint as we were providing transport facility. It was only when we went into shifts and started analyzing the situation were we able to control for this critical aspect Involve All – When a situation arises, don’t adopt a stance of management knows best. Make cross functional teams that cut-across hierarchies Be data and fact driven – Avoid preconceived biases from coloring your analysis phase. Be open to all ideas and creative brain-storming suggestions Be patient – there is a tendency to rush through some stages of the DMAIC cycle. Each stage is equally important, and more so the improve and control stages as this is where the rubber meets the road – the final validation of your assumptions and solutions!.

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Thank-You!

To identify and improve the key factor(s) contributing to operator attrition Kaustubh Kulkarni, GB, Hyderabad Plant

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.