Dock to Stock Cycle time

Reduction
Project background
Why the project was initiated
 Excess time taken for material from docking to stocking of material in warehouse. Resulting in following
discrepancies Organizational Practices
 Material available in plant but unable to use in Production, resulting in production loss hours.
 Reduced material utilization.
 Excessive material handling charges.

Metrics related to project

Metrics Target Actual % Diff
Lead time from Dock to Stock 2 Days 4.41 Days +105 %
Inspection aging (Waiting time) 20 Hrs. 132.67 Hrs. +506 %
Inspection time (Process) 12 Hrs. 68.8 Hrs. +466 %
Material delivery to Stock 4 Hrs. 28.05 Hrs. +600 %
Receipt traveler generation 12 Hrs. 12 Hrs. No Diff

2
Project Contents
Topic Slide No.
Define phase 4
 Project charter 4
 Process Drill down matrix 6
 CTQ tree 7

Measure phase 8
 Data collection 8
 Value stream map 9
 Distribution analysis 13

Analyze phase 15
 Probable causes 15
 Analysis 17

Improve phase 32
 Improvement summary 32
 Improvement validation 33
 Value stream map 38

Control phase 46
 Executive Summary 46
 Results summary 50
 Lessons learnt 51
 Way forward 52

3
DEFINE - Project Charter
Project Charter
Problem Statement Business Case & Benefits

Hard savings – $12750

Time taken for material to be stocked upon receipt at dock is high at 4.41days
Others – Reduced line stoppages due to Non availability of
(6650Min Average) against the target of 2 days.
material, Improved morale

Goal Statement Timeline

Phase Plan
Primary goal: Define June`17
Lead time for material movement from Dock to Stock to be reduced by 30% Measure Oct`17
within Q4`2017
Secondary goal: Analyze Nov`17
IQA Aging hrs. reduction by 40%, Increasing RT cleared / inspector by 30% Improve Dec`17
Control Jan`18

Scope In/Out Team Members

Vignesh Jothivelan (PQA - Champion)

S.Balaji (SQA – Black belt)
Vijaykumar Ramanthan (SQA)
Vijay Krishnan (IQA)
Project is limited to activities done on bought out parts related to Final Assembly.
Vimal Rajan (Receiving)
Menaka (QMS)
Jayapal (QMS)
Malini (Project Guidance)

4
DEFINE – Process drill down matrix
Vehicle Unloading Receipt of RT IQA Delivery of
entry of material material Preparation inspection material

No. of Commodities
Process
Activities Electronics PWB Castings Mechanical Packaging

Vehicle entry 10 10 10 10 10 10
Unloading of material 5 5 5 5 5 5
Receipt of material 8 8 8 8 8 8
RT preparation 15 15 12 12 15 12
IQA inspection 9 9 7 7 9 6
Delivery of material 7 7 6 4 7 1
TOTAL 54 54 48 46 54 41
Inference:
 Since Electronic parts and Mechanical parts follow 54 Activities for reaching the Stock, we would
sample the same for further analysis.

 PWB, Casting and Packing material only follow a part of the activities for reaching Stock. Hence by
analyzing the above two parts, improvements can be harnessed in the other commodities as well.
5
DEFINE – CTQ tree
FIFO based RT
RT generation
Generation

Average time for

inspection

Dock to stock
material movement
IQA Inspection
lead time

Variation in
Inspection time

RT clearance

Needs

Delivery Lead time Time taken for delivery

CTQs - Level 1 CTQs - Level 2 6

MEASURE – Data collection plan
Data Collection Sheet Process
Data Collected by
Date & time
Sample ref: Data collection Sheet Legend
prepared for each Supplier / Transporter: Sindhu
Time in Minutes
Distance In Meters

process to accumulate cargo Cycle time Data

Activity
Qty in Nos

No. of
basic data on Cycle Activities Recorded by Start time End time CT Quantity Operators Stations

time, Distance moved,

Inventory / Waiting Material movement data
Qty / Total
period. Activities Recorded by Operators Distance
Movement Cycle Qty. moved

Inventory data / Queue data

Waiting time
Quantity in
Activities Recorded by Start time End time Wait Time "Q" Operators

7
MEASURE- Dock to stock process explained
Material RT Inspection of Delivery of
received Generation components parts
Supplier Warehouse

8
MEASURE – VA vs NVA Analysis
Actual in
Character Description RN
minutes
VA
Total time 130
Dock to Stock [PE
6650
time VA + RNVA + NVA RC
EN
VA TA
Total value Add GE]
0
time (As per SME definition)
RNVA 130
Total Reqd. (Activities reqd. for ensuring
Value Add time proper flow as per current  
system) NVA
652
Time of material waiting in 0
Total Waiting time 6520 [PE
various queues
RCE
NTA
GE]

INFERENCE of Pareto Analysis

Based on the analysis, NVA is identified as a major contributor to the total time.
Hence providing a great opportunity to improve the process.

9
MEASURE – Pareto Analysis for waiting time

INFERENCE of Pareto Analysis

Component waiting time for Inspection and Delivery process contributes to more
than 80% of the total waiting time. Hence the processes are taken for improvement.

10
MEASURE – Data integrity
Method:
3 Months historical data is retrieved from Oracle
ERP and compared with the Average inspection
time measured during sampling.

Inspection times in Hrs

Month
RT SD Sample
inspected Average* (Sigma) data

March 2884 55.11 97.61

60
April 3951 81.34 147.86 (3600 Min)
May 3557 65.61 138.15

11
MEASURE – RT cleared / Inspector
Method:
3 Months historical data is retrieved from Oracle ERP and Manpower
used for clearing the RT is used for calculating the metrics.

RT / Inspector

Month RT RT /
inspected Inspectors Inspector

March 2884 33 87.39

April 3951 33 119.72

May 3557 33 107.78

12
What to Improve

Inspection
Inspection • Waiting time of material for
inspection.

Inspection
lead time
aging
Aging • Time calculated from ERP

Delivery
aging
• Time taken for completing the
Inspection •
inspection process.

lead time • Predominate contribution by PWB

and mechanical commodities.

• Time taken for delivering the

Delivery material to its intended location @
Stores.
aging • Time calculated by ERP

13
ANALYZE – Cause analysis
Inference from Measure phase:
Based on the CTQ tree and Pareto analysis on Waiting time, following process measures are identified as
major causes for issue.

• Inspection process delays:

• Variation in lead time for inspection of component is at 130 Hrs approx. (Standard deviation
during the period stands between 108 to 167 hrs). Hence process inconsistency to be reduced by
80% for allowing any further process improvements.

• Average lead time RT closure is observed to be 70 Hrs (Varying from 55 to 81 hrs.). Hence
IQA inspection time to be reduced by 50%.

• Delivery process delays:

• Variation in lead time for delivery of material into Stock is at 165 Hrs approx (Standard deviation
during the period stands between 127 to 255 Hrs). Hence process inconsistency to be reduced
by 30% for allowing any further improvements.

14
ANALYZE - Inspection lead time variation reduction
Line items contributing to Variation in Lead time
400 500

320 400

Average time in Hrs.

No. of Line items

240 300

160 200

80 100

0 0
Filter Philips GEME Tejas Other NSN
Line items 173 66 358 207 140
Average Hours for clearence 443 417 298 268 170

15
ANALYZE - Inspection lead time variation reduction
Filter parts Inspection Variation reduction

Define the Problem: Excess variation in clearing filter parts

Why is it happening?
Time taken for inspection of Filter parts varies
Why is that?
from Lot to Lot

100% visual inspection of filter parts is done Why is that?

Visual defects observed in the Filter parts Why is that?

No common understanding of Visual

criteria b/w Customer and suppliers

16
IMPROVE - Inspection lead time variation reduction
NSN Filter parts Inspection Variation reduction
What Excess variation in clearing NSN filter parts

Why No common understanding of Visual criteria

b/w Customer and suppliers

How 1. Provide training to Supplier on Visual

standard
2. Converting Filter parts inspection from
100% to Sampling

Where 1. Supplier end

2. IQA, Customer

Who 1. Sait Mughanatali, Jothi basu

2. S.Balaji

17
ANALYZE - Inspection lead time variation reduction
Red X – Variation in clearing Philips NPI parts inspection
5 Whys Worksheet

Define the Problem: Excess variation in clearing Philips NPI Parts

Why is it happening?
Time taken for inspection of Philips NPI parts is Why is that?
high

Layout inspection of components @ Customer

Why is that?
for dimension

Repetitive inspection of component @ Supplier

Why is that?
and Customer ends

Lack of coordination during inspection

of component b/w Supplier and
Customer 18
IMPROVE - Inspection lead time variation reduction
Red X – Variation in clearing Philips NPI parts inspection
What Excess variation in clearing Philips NPI
Parts

Why Lack of coordination during inspection of

component b/w Supplier and Customer

How Introduction of Source inspection (Joint

Inspection) @ Supplier end

Where SQA, IQA & Supplier

Who Murali perumal, S.Balaji

When Q3`2017

19
 ANALYZE - Inspection lead time variation reduction
Pink X– Variation in clearing GEME parts after inspection
5 Whys Worksheet

Define the Problem: Excess variation in clearing GEME parts after inspection
Why is it happening?

Time taken for disposition of GEME parts is high Why is that?

80% of RT is held at IQA after

Why is that?
inspection of component

COC not recd along with the material Why is that?

A certificate of conformity, or CoC, is issued by

an authorized party (sometimes
the manufacturer, sometimes an independent Lack of process for identification and
laboratory) and states that the product meets the
required standards or specification
follow up of materials requiring COC.
20
IMPROVE - Inspection lead time variation reduction
Pink X– Variation in clearing GEME parts after inspection
Interim Action - 1 Corrective action - 1 Corrective action - 2

What Variation in clearing GEME parts after inspection

Why Lack of process for identification and follow up of materials requiring COC.

Discussed with Supplier and 4

NCMR to be raised and material to RDR list updated for including COC
How different options provided to Supplier
be moved to MRB as a purchase requirement.
for submitting COC

Where Customer Customer Customer

Who IQA Balaji, Vijaykumar Vijay, Vimal

When Immediate Q3`2017 Q4`2017

Remarks RDR list updated in Oracle.

21
ANALYZE - Reducing Average inspection lead time

Man Machine

Measuring instruments
Average
Lack of inspectors
not available Inspection
Re inspection of parts lead time is
using alternate equipments
Unaware of priority high
Un-calibrated equipments
Equipment unusable

No proper SOP / WI
Uneven material flow

Insufficient training
Variation in lead time based on commodity

Method Material

22
ANALYZE - Reducing Average inspection lead time

List of probable
Issue Validation method Remarks
Causes

Lead time for Inspector unaware of Queuing theory

inspection is High priorities

Lack of Skilled 5 Why Analysis

inspectors

Variation in inspection 5 Why Analysis Action taken for

samples based on reducing the SD by
commodities eliminating 100%
sampling of Casting
parts

23
ANALYZE - Reducing Average inspection lead time
Probable cause - 1
5 Whys Worksheet
Define the Problem: Average lead time for inspection of component is high
Why is it happening?

Material waiting time for inspection is high Why is that?

Inspectors inspect the material based on

Why is that?
availability

Inspectors not able to visualize priority Why is that?

Prioritization matrix not available and

lack of Visual management for
identification of same. 24
IMPROVE - Reducing Average inspection lead time
Probable cause - 1
IMPROVEMENT PROPOSED: implementing VISUAL CONTROL

• Materials which are to be cleared first are identified using aging report.

• “URGENT CRTICAL PARTS” are identified separately and clear indication provided to the operator.

• Clear hierarchy for inspectors are provided to priorities inspection.

• Urgent Critical parts for same day build

1

• Urgent Critical parts identified during E-Boards

2

• Old aging parts in FIFO

3

• Other activities
4

25
ANALYZE - Reducing Average inspection lead time
Probable cause - 2
By using QUEUE THEORY, no. of electrical inspectors required to
close the RTs within the target period is calculated.

IMPROVEMENT ACTION:
Using “Q” Theory, 4 electronics inspectors where required for
clearing the RTs within the stipulated period.
The same is achieved by MULTISKILLING of RF inspectors to
inspect Electrical and Mechanical inspections.

26
IMPROVE - Reducing Average inspection lead time
Probable cause - 2
What Average lead time for inspection of
component is high

Why Lack of training for inspectors to inspect

both the commodities.

How Multi-skilling of Inspectors and introducing

Shuttle inspectors to swap b/w
commodities

Where IQA

Who Vijay, S.Balaji

When Q3`2017
27
ANALYZE - Variation in delivery time
5 Whys Worksheet

Define the Problem: Variation in delivery of components is high

Why is it happening?

Material waiting @ IQA and receiving area

Why is that?
for delivery

Operators waiting for trolley to be filled for

Why is that?
moving the material

Operators are instructed to move the

material only based on filling of trolley.

28
IMPROVE - Variation in delivery time
What Variation in delivery of components is high

Why Operators are instructed to move the

material only based on filling of trolley.

How Operators will be instructed to move material on

time basis instead of Quantity basis to avoid
excessive waiting

Where Receiving

Who Vimal, Vijay

When Q3`2017

29
IMPROVE - Summary
Issue Root cause Action taken Impl. Status Remarks
Inspection lead time variation reduction

1. Provide training to Supplier on Visual

No common understanding of Visual standard Closed
Excess variation in clearing NSN criteria b/w Customer and Casting 2. Converting Filter parts inspection from
filter parts suppliers Closed
100% to Sampling

Lack of coordination during

Excess variation in clearing inspection of component b/w Introduction of Source inspection (Joint
Philips NPI Parts Inspection) @ Supplier end Closed
Supplier and Customer

1. Discussed with Supplier and 4 different

options provided to Supplier for Closed
Variation in clearing GEME parts Lack of process for identification and submitting COC
after inspection follow up of materials requiring COC. 2. RDR list updated for including Closed
COC as a purchase requirement.

1. “URGENT CRTICAL PARTS” are identified

separately and clear indication provided to Closed
Inspector unaware of priorities the operator.
2. Clear hierarchy for inspectors are provided
to priorities inspection. Closed
Lead time for inspection is High
Multi-skilling of Inspectors and introducing
Lack of Skilled inspectors
Shuttle inspectors to swap b/w commodities Closed

Variation in inspection samples based Converting Filter parts inspection from 100% to
on commodities Sampling Closed

Operators will be instructed to move material on

Operators are instructed to move the
time basis instead of Quantity basis to avoid
Variation in delivery time material only based on filling of trolley. Closed
excessive waiting

30
IMPROVE – Variation in Inspection time
Inference:

• Since P value is 0, Statistically H0 is rejected and

H1: Inspection time variation Before
improvement is Greater than After
improvement is accepted.

• SD before improvement is 132.67Hrs, and after impr.

Is 26.26Hrs. An improvement of 79.9% is
observed
140

79.9% reduction
105

Time in Hrs
70

35

0
Before After
σ 132.67 26.66

31
IMPROVE – Average lead time for inspection

70
59.11% reduction
52.5

Time in Hrs
35

17.5

0
Before After
μ 68.68 28.05

Inference:

• The difference in Variation and average Lead time is graphically demonstrated thru Interval plot.
• Average lead time before improvement is 68.68Hrs, and after impr. Is 28.05Hrs. An
improvement of 59.11% is observed

32
IMPROVE – Variation in delivery time
70
45.99% reduction
52.5

Time in Hrs
35

17.5

0
Before After
μ 60.24 32.53

Inference:

• The difference in Variation and average Lead time is graphically demonstrated thru Interval
plot.
• Variation in Delivery lead time before improvement is 60.24Hrs, and after impr. Is 32.356
3Hrs. An improvement of 45.99% is observed
33
IMPROVE – RT/Inspector

180

RT/Inspector in Nos.
6
9
%

i
n
c
r
e
0 a
Before After
s
μe 104.96 177.39
135

90

45

Inference:
• Since P value is 0.014, Statistically H0 is rejected and H1: RT Per inspector After improvement is greater
than before improvement is accepted.

• Average RT/Inspector before improvement is 104.96Hrs, and after impr. 177.39Hrs. A37n improvement of 69% is
observed
34
IMPROVE – Value Stream mapping after improvements

35
Improve – VA vs NVA Analysis
Character Description Before Impr. After Impr.
in minutes In Min.

Total time
Dock to Stock time 6650 4730
VA + RNVA + NVA

Total value Add time VA 0 0

(As per SME definition)

Total Reqd. Value Add time RNVA

(Activities reqd. for ensuring proper 130 130
flow as per current system)
Time of material waiting in various
Total Waiting time 6520 4600
queues

7000
28.5% decrease
29.5% decrease
5250

3500

1750

0
Total time VA RNVA NVA
Before 6650 0 130 6520
After 4730 0 130 4600
36
IMPROVE – Proposals for further improvements – WAY FORWARD

Way Forward:

 As per the improved VSM, Still Waiting time for inspection (Inspection lead time) is identified as the
major cause for the Dock to Stock lead time.

 Elimination of the waiting time is possible by one of following ways,

 Elimination of Inspection (STS process)

 Single piece flow implementation.

 Delivery lead time is found to be the second largest contributor for the total time taken,

 Methodology derived for maintaining FIFO during delivery of components.

37
Control Result summary
Metrics
Actual Targeted
Metrics Before Present
Improvement improvement

Lead time from Dock to Stock 4.41 Days 3.0 Days 30% 30%

Inspection aging (Waiting time) 132.67 hrs. 26.66 hrs 79.9% 40%

Inspection time (Process) 68.8 hrs. 28.05 hrs 59.1% 30%

Material delivery to Stock 28.05 hrs. 32.53 hrs 45.9% 30%

Receipt traveler generation 12 hrs. 12 hrs. No Diff No Diff

Other benefits:
•Multi skilling of Inspectors resulted in better utilization of resources
and Knowledge transfer ,
•Increased efficiency of the Inspection and overall receiving process.
•Improved morale of employees
•Direct Cost savings of $ 12000 Per Annum realized

38
Control - Lessons learnt
• Importance of Tools like data capturing
Define • Breakdown of complex processes into activities
and sub activities

• Use of Value stream mapping as a Mapping tool

Measure • Importance of validation of sample data against
Population

• Importance of validating the Root causes using

Analyze various tools like 5 Why analysis
• Use of Queue theory

Improve • Use of Hypothesis testing as a validating tool

Control • NIL

OTHER • Use of graphical representations as a

LEARNINGS presentation tool.

39
Control – Way forward
Reduce the requirement of inspection by improving the process @ Source.
Shift of focus from product control to process assurance.
Reduce manual intervention in entire process.

Metrics Before Present Way forward

Lead time from Dock to Stock 4.41 Days 3.0 Days 1 Day
Inspection aging (Waiting time) 132.67 hrs. 26.66 hrs 14 hrs

Inspection time (Process) 68.8 hrs. 28.05 hrs 6 hrs

Material delivery to Stock 28.05 hrs. 32.53 hrs 6 hrs

Receipt traveler generation 12 hrs. 12 hrs. 4 hrs

40
LSS Strategy
CIP + LSS Culture = Business Excellence 2017 Focus area

Six Sigma Competence

Business Excellence
2015 • LSS Business Excellence Model Create YB : 20%
Create GB : 30%
• Deployment of LSS with Suppliers
Create BB : 15%
Strengthen Innovation
• Six Sigma Culture Employee Participation
2014 • Improve CIP Participation
Done Continual Improvement Projects
•R&R
Six Sigma Tools Hand Book
LSS Initiation :
Training Programs for DL/IDL
• Define Six Sigma Steering Committee CIP Magazine / Emails ,
2012
• Implement LSS Projects
2013 Done
Posters
• Create White Belt & Green Belts
LSS Events
Set up CIP Culture :- Cost Saving
• Introduction of idea System
• Kaizen Implementation Cost Saving through Proejcts
2011
• Awareness on Quality tools and CIP Done

41
Q & A Session

42