Special Address Yukihiro Ando, TQM Consultant, Lead Examiner

Daily Management
Its ROLE in our successful TQM journey,
its Promotion and how to overcome obstacles
while promoting & implementing
20th ANNIVERSARY
CII NATIONAL QUALITY SUMMIT 2012
Innovation of Quality – Quality of Innovation
TQM Consultant
Yukihiro Ando
1
Brief Profile of Yukihiro Ando
Positions:
TQM Consultant
A QC Instructor for the JUSE
A lead examiner of the Deming Prize Committee
A board member of Japanese Society of Quality control
An Honorary Adviser of the QC Circle Saitama Section
Titles:
Registered Consulting Engineer
Master of Engineering
2
2012/11/3
1

• Experience:
• 30 years of experience including consultations and lectures in a broad range of
industries, in Japan, U.S.A., Thailand, India, Singapore and etc.
– Manufacturing (steel, cement, chemicals, machinery, computers, food, automobiles
etc.),
– Service (recreational facilities, electric power, air lines, hospitals, banks, logistics etc.).
– Construction (General Contractors, equipment)
– 23 of them received the Deming Application Prize while receiving his
consulting services
.
• A Visiting Professor of Waseda University
• A Lecturer at the Tokyo Univ. of Science, Housei Univ., and Bunka Women’s
Univ.
• A Senior Consultant in Joiner Associates Inc., U.S.A.
• A member of ISO-TC176
• A board member of the Asian Network for Quality
• An Executive Director of the QC Circle Headquarters
• Deputy Adviser of the QC Circle Kanto Region
• Chairman of the International Committee of JUSE
• A Deputy Task Group Leader of ISO-TC176- SC2 WG 1.20 (ISO 9004)
• Provisional Assessor for ISO 9000
3
My English:
Typical Broken Japanglish
I can not distinguish
R L B V TH S Z
and etc.
4
2012/11/3
2

5
Level
Innovation vs.
Improvement
Time
6
2012/11/3
3

Level
Innovation vs.
Improvement
Time
7
Ievel
Importance of “Daily
management”
If “Daily Management” is poor???
All the efforts, investments
should be gone
Improvement
And/ Or
Innovation.
Month
8
2012/11/3
4

Improvement
Importance of “Daily
management”
Actual history of “Continual Improvement”
Big Improvement
Keep stable, Improve progressively
Month
• All the members must commit continuously, long term.
• No shining stories.
9
Definition of “Daily Management”
All of the activities that must be carried out
routinely in each area, in order to attain the
purpose of their job efficiently.
The activities to maintain are the major
concern,
the activities to improve are also included.
(Unofficial translation from “Terminologies committee of TQC Managers course JUSE 1989)
10
2012/11/3
5

“Daily Management” include:
Management for
• Hourly Job
• Daily Job
• Weekly Job
• Monthly Job
• Seasonal Job
• Yearly Job & etc.
A Tip
• Jobs in front line Operation.
• Supervisors job
• Section Managers Job
• Department to Top Managers Job & etc.
“Daily Management” :
Management for routine Jobs in all levels.
11
How to introduce and promote
Daily Management?
Masing Book Medal 2011
International Academy
For Quality
12
2012/11/3
6

Daily Management
- its ROLE in our successful TQM journey,
its Promotion and
how to overcome obstacles
while promoting & implementing
20th ANNIVERSARY
CII NATIONAL QUALITY SUMMIT 2012
Innovation of Quality – Quality of Innovation
TQM Consultant
Yukihiro Ando
14
2012/11/3
7

A Key Principle in Daily Mgt.: PDCA
The PDCA wheel is a simple, flexible model
that has been adapted to a broad range of situations.
The basic notion of PDCA is
so simple that when I first heard
it I felt I understood it in five
minutes.
Now, more than a decade later,
I think I might understand it
15
Brian L. Joiner, “Fourth Generation Management”, 1994
some day.
• Please
• Don’t
• Change
• Anything
C
�� Plan
�� Do
�� Check
�� Act
A P
D
16
2012/11/3
8

A Key Principle in Daily Mgt.
The basic notion of Daily Management
is so simple
that when I first heard it
I felt I understood it in five minutes.
Now, more than decades later,
I think I might understand it some day.
Modified from Brian L. Joiner, “Fourth Generation Management”, 199417
Better
Stages of Daily Management promotion
Standardization
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Visualization
+
JDI, KKD
Lose Interest
Discontinue
Stabilized + CAPD
Stage 4’
Break through
+ CAPD
2012/11/3
9

K.K.D. method.
( K.K.D. : Keiken, Kan, Dokyo.
[abbreviation of Japanese]
Experience, Intuition & Guts
Experiencia, Intuicion, Agallas
Anubhavam , Ullunarvu, Dhairyam
Prasobkarn, Sanchatayan, Seang
Levels of Problem Solving/Task achievement
Skeletonized
SQC, Sophisticated Tools
Systematic approach.
QC story
Solve problems by continuously
re-thinking them together
KKD
Solve problems by
just pondering a
moment
JDI
2012/11/3
10

Better
Stages of Daily Management promotion
Standardization
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Visualization
+
JDI, KKD
Stage 2’
Lose Interest
Discontinue
Stage 3’
Stabilized + CAPD
Stage 4’
Break through
+ CAPD
Some patterns/reasons why people go to Stage 4’
1. Mental Reasons
2. Technical Reason
2012/11/3
11

Some patterns/reasons why people go to Stage 4’
1.Mental Reasons
1.Just bored
2.Lose attention from their boss.
3.People pay attention to “Hero Jobs” only.
4.Changed the people & no successes.
New comers can not understand the importance.
5.Standards are only prepared as
documents. Nobody read carefully, no
education training, nobody follow.
Some patterns/reasons why people go to Stage 4’
2. Technical Reason
1.Scopes/objectives of the job are not suitable.
2.Standards can not be prepared by technical reasons.
3.Control Points (KPI) are not appropriate.
4.Control Methods are not suitable for the control point.
1.Apply too simple graph to “Inherently non-flat”,
“non-normal distributed process”, “Adjusted
Process”, etc..
2.Small numbers and large variety process.
3.Non manufacturing process:
e.g. Maintenance, Planning, services.
5.Too many abnormalities to analyze the root causes.
2012/11/3
12

Some patterns/reasons why people go to Stage 4’
1.Mental Reasons
1.Just bored
2.Lose attention from their boss.
3.People pay attention to “Hero Jobs”
only.
2012/11/3
13

Improvement
Importance of “Daily
management”
Actual history of “Continual Improvement”
Big Improvement
by Policy Management,
Problem Solving/Task
Achieving etc.
Keep stable, Improve progressively
Month
• All the members must commit continuously, long term.
• No shining stories.
27
RMB B N (S- PL AN T) DA ILY MA N AG E ME N T
RM BB N (S - PLA NT) D AI LY MA NA GEM EN T
RMB BN ( S - PLA N T) D AI LY MA N AG EMEN T
RMB BN ( S - PLA N T) D AI LY MA N AG EMEN T
R MB BN ( S- PLAN T) DAI LY M AN AG EM ENT
RMB BN ( S - PLA N T) D AI LY MA N AG EMEN T
RMBB N ( S- PLA N T) D AI LY MA NA G EMEN T
RMB BN ( S - PLA N T) D AI LY MA N AG EMEN T
R MBB N (S- PL ANT ) D A IL Y MA NA GE MENT
F- C FIN EN ES S (A UG ' 20 06)
R MBB -2 , ( S- P LAN T) DA I LY MAN A GE ME NT
R MB B- 2 (S - P LA NT) D AIL Y MA NAGE MENT
F-C FI N ENES S (JU L' 2006)
F- C FI NEN ES S ( O CT' 2 006)
F- C FI NE NES S (D EC' 2 006)
F-C FI NE NESS ( -3. 15 mm ) FEB '200 7
F- C FI NE NE SS (S EP' 20 06)
F- C FIN EN ESS ( NO V' 2 006)
F-C FI N ENE SS ( -3. 15 mm) MA R' 2007
F- C FIN EN ES S (- 3. 15 mm) JA N' 200 7
R MBB -2 ( S- P LA NT ) DA I LY MAN A GE ME NT
9 6
F- C FIN EN ESS ( -3. 15 m m ) APR '2 007
F -C FINE NE SS (- 3. 15 mm) JU NE '2 007
9 6
9 8
9 8
1 0
9 8
9 8
1 0 0
100
F- C FI NEN ESS ( - 3.15 m m ) M AY' 2007
1 0 0
100
USL , 95. 0
UCL, 96.7
1 0 0
USL, 95.0
UCL, 9 6 .7
UCL, 9 6 .7
UCL, 9 8 .3
UCL, 9 8 .7
UCL, 98.7
9 6
9 6
98
9 6
UCL, 9 8 .3
98
U CL, 98. 3
9 4
9 6
98
9 8
UCL, 9 8 .7
9 4
9 8
UCL, 93.6
UCL , 93. 6
USL, 9 5 .0
USL, 95. 0
9 8
USL, 9 5 .0
USL, 9 5 .0
9 4
9 4
96
96
9 4
96
9 4
UCL, 9 3 .6
9 6
9 6
USL, 95.0
9 6
9 2
9 2
USL, 9 5 .0
USL, 95. 0
9 2
USL, 9 5 .0
USL, 9 5 .0
94
9 2
94
USL, 95 .0
9 2
94
9 4
X-bar, 90.7
9 2
9 4
9 4
X -b ar, 90. 7
X-bar , 92.7
X-ba r , 9 0 .7 9 0
X- bar , 90. 2
9 0
9 0
X-ba r , 9 2 .4
92
92
X- bar , 92.4
9 0
X-ba r , 9 2 .7
9 0
X-ba r , 9 0 .2
92
X- ba r, 9 2. 7
X-ba r , 9 2 .4
9 2
9 2
9 0
X-ba r , 9 0 .2
9 2
8 8
LSL, 88.0
LSL, 88.0
90
LSL, 8 8 .0
90
8 8
LSL, 8 8 .0
8 8
LCL, 87.9
LSL , 88. 0
LSL, 8 8 .0 8 8
90
LCL, 8 7 .9
9 0
9 0
Z
8 8
8 8
9 0
LSL, 88.0
8 6
88
LCL , 87. 9
88
DATA OUTSIDE CONTROL LIMI T - NI L
LSL, 88.0
LSL, 8 8 .0
8 6
DATA OUTSIDE CONTROL LIM IT - NIL
8 8
8 6
8 6
8
LSL, 8 8 .0
LSL, 8 8. 0
LCL, 86.7
8 4
8 8
LSL, 8 8 .0
8 6
DATA OUT SID E CO NTROL LIM IT - NIL
8 8
86
LCL, 83. 8
LC L, 86.5
8 6
DATA OUTSI DE CONTROL LIMI T - 2
DATA OUTSIDE CONTROL LIM IT - NIL
86
LCL, 8 6 .7
LCL, 8 6 .5
8 4
DATA OUTSIDE CONTROL LIM IT - 1 2
LCL, 8 6 .5
8 6
8 4
86
LCL, 8 6 .7
84
8 2
8 6
8 4
LCL, 8 3 .8
8 6
8 4
84
DATA OUT SI DE CONTROL LI MIT - 1 8
LCL, 8 3 .8
4- No v- 06 1 -
1 4- 15 -N ov - 1 7-N o v-0 6 2 1- No v- 06 24 -N ov -0 6 2 5- 26 -N ov - 2 7-N o v-0 6
8 4
8 2
N ov -
No v - 06
No v- 06
8 4
8 2
84
82
06
0 6
0 6
2-S e p- 06 3 -S ep -0 6 4 - 6 - 9 -S ep - 06 10 - 1 1- 1 3- 14 -S ep -0 6 15 - 16 -S ep -0 6 18 - 19 - 20 -2
2- 2 3- Se p -0 6 28 - 29 -S ep -0 6 3 0-
8 4
8 4
8 2
DAT A OUT SIDE CONTROL L I MI T - 1 2
8 2
S e p- Se p-
Se p- Se p- Se p - S ep -
S e p- Se p- S ep -S
ep -
S ep -
S ep -
5
82
DATE & SHI FT
8 2
2 - 3- De c- 06 4- 6- De c- 06 7- 8 -D ec -0 6 10 - 1 1-
15 -D e c-0 6 16 -D e c-0 6 17 -D e c- 06 24 -D e c- 06 25 - 2 6- D ec -06 2 7-
PROCESS NOT STABLE NOT CAPABLE
0 6 0 6
0 6 0 6 0 6
06
0 6 0 6 06 06
06
06
5 -Ja n 10 - 1- Ja n 1 3-J an 14 -Ja n 15 - 1 7-
19 - 21- Ja n 23 - 2 4-
29 - 3 0-
31 -
D e c- D ec -
D ec -
D e c- D ec -
De c-
De c-
2 -Ju l-0 6 3- 4 -J ul-0 6 6 - 7- Ju l-0 6 8-J ul -9
-Ju l-0 6 1 - 1 2- 1 3- Ju l- 1 4-J ul -1
5- 16 -1
7-J ul - 1 8-J ul- 2 0-J ul -
25 -2
6- Ju l- 2 7-J ul- 2 9- 30 -J ul- 31 -
1-O c t-0 6 2 -
4 -O ct -06 5- 6- O ct- 7 -O c t-0 6 9- Oc t-
1 5- 16 - 1 7- Oc t- 06 1 9-
24 - 25 - 2 6- 27 -O ct -0 62 8-
80
3
Jan
Ja n J an
Jan
Ja n Ja n
Ja n J an
Jan
0 6
06
06
0 6 0 6
0 6
0 6
82
DATE & SHI FT
8 2
J ul -
J ul-
0 6
Ju l- J ul- 0 6 06 J ul- J ul - 0 6 06
0 6
Ju l- 0 6 06
J ul- 06 Ju l-
8 2
Oc t-
O ct - 06
06
Oc t- O c t-
O ct -0 6
O c t- Oc t- O ct -0 6 O ct -
6
2-Ju n 3-J un 5 -Jun 6- Jun 7-Ju n 8-J un 9 -Jun 10-J un 1 1-Ju n 13-J un 16 -Jun 17-J un 19- Jun 26-J un 27 -Jun 29-J un 30 -Jun
8 2
1-Fe b2 -Feb 2-F eb 2-Feb 3- Feb 3-Fe b4 -Feb 5-F eb 5-Feb 6-F eb 6-Fe b6 -Feb 7-Fe b7 -Feb 7-F eb 8-Feb 8- Feb 9-Fe b 10- 10 - 10- 1 1- 1- 1- 12 - 12- 1 2- 13- 13- 14 - 14- 1 4- 16- 1 6- 16- 17- 18 - 18- 1 8- 19 - 19- 20 - 20- 2 1- 2- 2- 2 - 23- 23 - 23- 2 5- 26 - 26- 27 - 27-
0 6
06
0 6 06
06 0 6
06
DATE & SHIFT
DATE & SHIFT
DATE & SHIFT
8 0
1- Mar 2 - 3-
4- 5-
7 -Mar 8-
1 -Mar 12 -Mar 15 -Mar 1 7-Ma r 1 8-Ma r 1 9-Ma r 21 - 2-
2 3-Ma r 24 -Mar 25 -Mar 2 6-
28 -Mar 30-
Feb Fe b Feb F eb Feb F eb Fe b Feb Fe b Feb F eb Feb Feb Fe b Feb F eb Feb Feb Fe b Feb F eb Feb F eb Feb Feb Fe b Feb F eb Feb Feb Fe b Feb F eb Feb Feb Fe b Feb
06
0 6
06 0 6
0 6 06
06
0 6
0 6
Ma r Mar M ar Mar
Mar
Ma r Mar
M ar
Mar
4
8
1- Apr 3 - 4-Ap r 5-
6-Ap r 7- 8- 8- 9- 1 0- 10- 1-A pr 12 - 13-
1 4-Ap r 15-A pr 16-
17- 18- Apr 19 - 20- 2 1- 21- 2- Apr 23 - 24- 25- Apr 2 6-Ap r 27- 27 - 28-
29-A pr 3 0-Ap r
9
7
1-Ma y 2-M ay 2-Ma y3- May 4-M ay 5-M ay 6- May 7-Ma y 8-M ay 9-Ma y 1 0-Ma y 1-
12 - 13-M ay 1 4- 1 5-Ma y 16 -
17-M ay 19 - 20- May 21-
2- 2 2- 23 - 24-M ay 2 5-
26-
27-M ay
1 - 2 -A u g- 4 - 5 -A ug - 6- Au g- 7- Au g- 8 - 10 -
1 3- 14 - 1 5- 1 6-
1 8- 1 9 - 2 2 -2
3- 24 - 25 - 2 6- 28 - 29 - 3 0-
A pr
Apr
Apr Ap rA
pr Apr A pr A pr
Ap r Apr
Apr
Apr
Ap r Apr A pr Apr
Ap rA
pr
Apr Ap r Apr
DAT E & SHIF T
DATE & SHI FT
DATE & SHIFT
DATE & SHI FT
May
Ma y
M ay
Ma y
Ma y
May
May M ay Ma y
M ay M ay
Au g- 0 6 A u g- 0 6 06 06 A u g- A ug -0 6 A ug -0 6A
u g- A u g- 06 A ug -0 6 A u g- 06 A ug - A ug -A
ug -A
u g- Au g- 06 Au g- A u g- Au g- 06 A u g- 06
0 6
06
06
06
06 06 0 6 06
0 6 06
2
DATE & SHIFT
DATE & SHIFT
1
DATE & SHI FT
12
1 0
11
- 3 . 1 5 m m
CABCA
CAB
CBCAC
ABCA
BABC
CACA
CABC
ABCA
AABCA
BCBC
ABCB
CBCB
AABC
ABCBC
ABA
BCAC
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
C
A
B
C
- 3 . 15 m m
A
B
A
B
C
B
C
A
B
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
C
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
A
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
C
A
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
Plant : Sinter Plant Indicator : Flux Crushing
Fineness %
Long term continuous
efforts created great
improvement
C
A
B
C
A
B
- 3 . 1 5 m m
A
BC
A
CB
C
AB
C
AC
AB
A
BC
C
AB
C
BC
CC
A
AC
A
BC
B
CA
BB
C
BC
B
AC
A
CA
BA
B
CA
C
CB
A
B
C
C
- 3 . 1 5 m m
C
AA
B
CA
B
CA
B
CA
C
AB
C
A
CA
BB
C
A
BC
A
BC
A
BC
B
CB
C
CC
B
BC
A
BC
A
CA
B
CA
B
CB
July 2006
A
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
A
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
B
- 3 . 1 5 m m %
C
A
B
C
A
C
C
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
C
B
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
A
B
C
A
C
B
C
B
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
A
C
B
C
C
B
C
B
C
B
A
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
- 3 . 1 5 m m %
A
B
C
A
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
C
C
A
B
C
A
B
B
C
A
C
A
B
A
B
C
A
B
A
B
C
A
C
- 3 . 1 5 m m %
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
B
C
A
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
A
C
A
B
C
A
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
A
C
A
- 3 . 1 5 m m
B
C A
BC
A
BC
A
BB
CBC A
A
BC
A
B A
BC
AA
BC
C A
BCBC A
A
C
AAA
C A
BCBBCB A
C
A
BC
B A
- 3 . 1 5 m m
C
C
A
B
C
B
B
B
A
B
B
C
A
C
A
B
A
B
C
B
C
B
C
C
A
B
C
C
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
A
B
C
C
B
C
- 3 . 1 5 m m %
A
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
A
C
B
C
A
B
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
C
B
C
A
B
C
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
C
B
C
May 2007
Z
- 3 . 1 5 m m %
C
C
A
C
B
C
C
A
A
B
C
B
A
B
C
A
B
A
A
C
C
A
A
B
C
C
A
A
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
- 3 . 1 5 m m %
A
B
B
C
A
A
C
A
C
A
A
C
B
A
C
A
B
C
A
C
C
A
B
C
A
A
B
A
C
A
B
C
B
A
B
C
A
C
B
C
A
A
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
B
C
84
DATA OU TSIDE CONTROL LIMIT - 18
82 Low Spikes
80
disappeared
Reduction in variation led to better quality of flux meeting customer
specifications and resulting into improved quality of sinter
UCL, 98.7
LCL, 86.7
2012/11/3
Better
14

How to sustain
this never ending journey
Management of
“Daily Management”
(Named by Dr. Noriaki Kano)
How to rotate PDCA as an total
department/division/company?
Business Result
2x2 Matrix
vs.
Process
Assessment
2012/11/3
15

DM Evaluation Criteria – Operations Function (Rev 02)
SN Steps Evaluation Criteria
1
2
DM Stage # 1 :
Documentation to identify &
plan monitoring of key
performance indicators and
standard operating
procedures
Have all the Daily Management documents e.g., Roles & Objectives, Process
Flow Chart, Process Failure Mode & Effect Analysis (FMEA), Control Plan,
Management System Chart, Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Tracker etc. (as
required) of the department been prepared, reviewed and revised (as per need)
for all the sections of the department? Have the KPIs as identified in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with customers been selected for
monitoring in Control Plan/KPI Tracker?
Have the relevant Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)/Decision Trees been
prepared as indicated in the Control Plan/KPI Tracker? Are the above
documents and SOPs are included as a part of the prevailing Quality
Management System (QMS) of the department? Are these documents
(including SOPs & Charts) readily available at the point of use?
3 5
4
5
6
7
DM Stage # 2 : Monitoring of
Key Performance Indicators
& Identification of
abnormalities/ deviations
DM Stage # 3 : Taking
Corrective & Preventive
actions (Rotation of PDCA)
and revision of standard
operating procedures
Stage # 4 : Horizontal
Deployment and Knowledge
Sharing
Are all the KPIs being monitored as planned in the Control Plan/KPI Tracker
with Control Chart/Trend Chart/Check sheet etc., as appropriate?
Are the abnormalities/deviations being identified with reasons and documented,
as relevant, while monitoring these KPIs?
Does the department follows a structured review process for daily management
implementation considering the inputs such as visualization of KPIs in the form
of Stability-Capability (2*2) matrix, trend of abnormalities/deviations, etc. as
applicable and are appropriate actions being initiated as a result of these
reviews?
8 10
9 10
10
11 5
12 5
Maximum
Score
Overall Score 100
10
10
5
10
10
15
5
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
JWQC Daily Management Assessment Score
Percent
59.93
69.43
65.51
68.96
45.86 59.00
Target : => 60 % in Qr 1 2009
76.50 74.86
68.71
73.27
70.83 68.35
63.00 68.17 63.41
This slide is not
included in the
provided file
Good
55.63
78.00 75.24 72.29
64.61
51.06
Raw Materials Coke Sinter & Iron Long Products Flat Products Shared Services Corporate Function
Avg. 2008 Qr 4 08 Qr 1 09 Avg 2008 Avg Qr 4 08 Avg. Qr 1 09
2012/11/3
16

“Item by Item” and “Total (including communications)”
Horizontal and Vertical
Management of Daily Management as A Manager
Item a
Item b
Item c
Total
J a n F e b M a r A p r May J u n
Item by Item
Monthly
2012/11/3
17

“Item by Item” and “Total (including communications)”
Horizontal and Vertical
Item a
Item b
Item c
Total
Lower Manager
Jan Feb Mar A p r May Jun
Item A
Item B
Item C
Total
Higher Manager
Jan Feb Mar A p r May Jun
2012/11/3
18

Discussion points:
1.Technical Reason
B) Control Points are not appropriate.
Scopes/objectives of the job are not suitable.
A Control Point of process B : Production Volume
Shortage
by A
Stack in C
Stack in C
Shortage
by A
Yes, Every abnormalities are cased from the others!
We are perfect!
Graph for Excuse
E P
C D
2012/11/3
19

An example of a hopeless “control point”
P P
C D
Monthly
Sales
Amount
Info. Negotiation Quotation Order Construction Sales
I n f o . N e g o t i a t i o n Q u o t a t i o n O r d e r C o n s t r u c t i o n S a l e s
Info. Negotiation Quotation Order Construction Sales
I n f o . N e g o t i a t i o n Q uo t a t i o n O r d e r C o n s t r u c t i o n S a l e s
I n f o . N e g o t i a t i o n Q u o t a t i o n O r d e r C o n s t r u c t i o n S a l e s
Info. Negotiation Quotation Order Construction Sales
Ne g o tiation Q uota tion O rde r C o ns truc tion S a l es
Month
Managing sales amount in the case of a business cycle is long
Similar Examples: Claim, Complaint, MTBF, Down Time
39
2012/11/3
20

Discussion points:
1. Technical Reason
A) Control Methods are not suitable:
Apply too simple graph to “Inherently non-flat”,
“non-normal distributed process”, “Adjusted
Process” and etc..
• Analyze the inherent tendencies and the nature of “error”.
• Regression Analysis / DOE
• Control Based on “Residual”.
Page - 42
1 Meter
Definition of Weight Tolerance
Weight tolerance is the term used in rebar industry to quantify the deviation in weight
per unit length from its nominal value
Transverse
Ribs
Weight = w
Nominal Weight for per unit length for 8mm rebar ( IS1786) = 0.395 Kg
Deviation in Weight per unit length= ((w-0.395)/0.395) x 100 %
Acceptable limits for deviation (Tolerance)
As per IS 1786 -7% to 7%
TISCON USP (Brand Promise) 0% to -2%
Longitudinal
Rib
While maintaining Wt. tolerance LRH( Longitudinal Rib Height ) also needs to be maintained
as it is another parameter associated with the product.
2012/11/3
21

Weight tolerance of past data (Sep’09) shows that the process is neither stable nor
conforming.
0.5 I-Chart (Sep’09)
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Page - 43
MR -Chart (Sep’09)
Analysis of Past Data
USL
UCL
LSL
LCL
UCL
Frequency
Out of Specification
Sep-2009 Mean: -1.3801
Specifications: LSL=-2.0000 Nominal=-1.4000 USL=0.00000
Normal: Cp=1.434 Cpk=.8888 Cpl=.8888 Cpu=1.979
-3.s(T) LSL NOMINAL +3.s(T) USL
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-2.6 -2.4 -2.2 -2.0 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2
Page - 44
Standardisation of Adjustment
Process for
Weight Tolerance
at WRM, Tata Steel
2012/11/3
22

During rolling, the groove
wears, requiring adjustment
to maintain bar dimension.
Input
Billets - 130mmX130mmX12m
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Concrete Electric poles
Furnace Roughing Mill Intermediate
Mill
PFM
Looper
14 15
Sleeper
Stands – 16 to 25
NTM
Water
Boxes
PFM
Adjustment locations
Stand 15,16 and 23
Material flow
Pinch Rolls
Laying
Head
Stelmor
Conveyor
Reform
Tub
Conceptual model of the inherent tendency
Variation within a short period of time
The wear situation
of the rolls.
46
2012/11/3
23

Steps taken in the standardization of adjustment process
(Where, How Much & When to Adjust)
c) The following Regression equations were derived from the experiments:
Y 1 = 0.007+0.872 X 1+0.054 X 2+0.012 X 3; Y1 = Change in Wt. tolerance; Adj. R 2 = 0.94
Z 1 = - 0.005+0.058 X 1 + 0.004 X 2-0.010 X 3; Z1 = Change in LRH; Adj. R 2 = 0.68
X 1, X 2 & X 3 are adjustments at stands 15, 16 and 23
Hence, it was decided to use the regression equations
for defining the adjustment actions.
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
-0.50%
-1.00%
-1.50%
-2.00%
Residual Control Chart for Weight tolerance
Wt Tolerance (Predicted-Actual)
November'11 to May'12
This control chart is used for:
1) Monitoring SOP compliance - Identify training issues (Immediate actions)
2) Monitoring adequacy of SOPs of preceding process steps – Initiate CAPA (Medium term actions)
and
3) Determine inadequacies in Excel based SOP for adjustment process – Initiate CAPA involving
deeper analysis, DOE, etc (Medium to long term actions)
2012/11/3
24

0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
-1.40
-1.60
-1.80
-2.00
-2.20
-2.40
-2.60
Page - 49
DAP
Effects
POST DAP: DECISION CHART
Wt.Tol UCL X BAR LCL
POST DAP: ADJUSTED PROCESS
Oct 2008 Sep 2009
Oct 2010 Oct 2011
Significant improvement observed with new SOP for adjustment
Images if the Basic model v.s. Adjusted Processes in Daily Management
Inputs Process
Outputs
Stable
Non-Stable
Stable Constant
Unstable conditions
+ Adjustment
Variety
2012/11/3
50
25

5900
5800
X -
5700
5600
A STUDY ON AN APPLICATION OF C.C.
WHERE THE CHARACTERISTIC HAVE INHERENT TRENDS
5500
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
500
400
R 300
200
100
n=3
群の残り=0
0
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
X bar-R C.C.
constructed according
to procedures
described in basic
textbooks
UCL:5894.53
CL :5734.98
LCL:5575.43
UCL:401.6
CL :156.0
8 0
7 0
6 0
5 0
4 0
3 0
2 0
1 0
0
C M2
C M1
C M1
C M2
CM 1
C M1
1 6 11 1 6 2 1 2 6 3 1 36 4 1 4 6 51 5 6 6 1 66 7 1 76 8 1 8 6 9 1 9 6 1 0 1 1 0 6 1 11 1 1 6 1 2 1 1 2 6 1 3 1 1 36 14 1 1 4 6 1 51 15 6 1 6 1 1 6 6 17 1 1 7 6 18 1 1 8 6 1 9 1 19 6 2 0 1 2 0 6 21 1 2 1 6 2 2 1 2 26 2 3 1 23 6
The conceptual model
of the process
y � b � ax � C
CM2
Regression Analysis
ij
C M1
C M1
C M2
CM1
j
C M1
200
100
X
0
-100
-200
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
300
200
R
100
0
n=1
群の残り=0
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
UCL:135.7548
CL :63.4003
LCL:-8.9543
UCL:88.8990
CL :27.2112
X-Rs C.C. constructed
with residuals
2012/11/3
26

Some patterns/reasons why people go to Stage 4’
2. Technical Reason
6
4. Control Methods are not suitable for
5
the control point.
4
3. Non manufacturing process: ex.
3
2
Maintenance, 1
1
Differential Pressure (PSI)
0
Daily Management in Maintenance
(Condition monitoring)
Monitoring of Differential Pressure (Gradall - 24)
2
3
5
Filter
Changed
Apr'11 May'11 June'11 July'11 Aug'11 Sept'11 Oct'11 Nov'11
The differential pressure across the filter was monitored monthly . As soon
as the pressure reaches more than 4 Kg , the filter is changed.
1
3
4
5
2012/11/3
27

The differential pressure
Daily Management in Maintenance
(Condition monitoring)
Filter
Changed
The differential pressure across the filter was monitored weekly .
As soon as the pressure reaches more than XX Kg ,
the filter is changed.
• Please
• Don’t
• Change
• Anything
�� Plan
�� Do
�� Check
�� Act
A P
C
D
�� Plan
�� Do
�� Check
�� Adjust
2012/11/3
56
28

Too Low then Increase
Too High then Decrease
No Analysis of the causes
No Idea to prevent
A Cause
A Cause
Adjust Action
A Cause
Adjust
The
Problem
When Out of control
Immediate Remedy
Analyze the causes
Prevention
A Action Cause
A Cause
Action
Copyright T.Ikezawa 1998
Action
A Cause
The
Problem
57
FC
Daily Management in Maintenance
(Condition monitoring)
The differential pressure across the filter was monitored weekly .
As soon as the pressure reaches more than XX Kg ,
the filter is changed.
FC
2012/11/3
29

2012/11/3
30

1) Measure
3) Plot
data
Out of
control
control
limit line
Central
line
control limit line
Concept of
control charts
4) Judge
and Take
action
Immediate
Remedy
Recurrence
Prevention
2)
Width
of the
control
limits
2012/11/3
31

Discussion points:
1. Technical Reason
C) Too many abnormalities to analyze the root causes.
A) Textbook says that upon an abnormality, “Recurrence
Prevention” must be done as well as “Immediate
Remedy”.
B) Especially, a key success factor for the “Recurrence
Prevention” is “Deep Analysis”.
C) However, when the numbers of “abnormalities” becomes
too many, majority of the analysis becomes superficial.
D) “Abnormal handling” itself become the objective.
E) We suggest “official give up” system for abnormalities.
RMB B N (S- PL AN T) DA ILY MA N AG E ME N T
RM BB N (S - PLA NT) D AI LY MA NA GEM EN T
RMB BN ( S - PLA N T) D AI LY MA N AG EMEN T
RMB BN ( S - PLA N T) D AI LY MA N AG EMEN T
R MB BN ( S- PLAN T) DAI LY M AN AG EM ENT
RMB BN ( S - PLA N T) D AI LY MA N AG EMEN T
RMBB N ( S- PLA N T) D AI LY MA NA G EMEN T
RMB BN ( S - PLA N T) D AI LY MA N AG EMEN T
R MBB N (S- PL ANT ) D A IL Y MA NA GE MENT
F- C FIN EN ES S (A UG ' 20 06)
R MBB -2 , ( S- P LAN T) DA I LY MAN A GE ME NT
R MB B- 2 (S - P LA NT) D AIL Y MA NAGE MENT
F-C FI N ENES S (JU L' 2006)
F- C FI NEN ES S ( O CT' 2 006)
F- C FI NE NES S (D EC' 2 006)
F-C FI NE NESS ( -3. 15 mm ) FEB '200 7
F- C FI NE NE SS (S EP' 20 06)
F- C FIN EN ESS ( NO V' 2 006)
F-C FI N ENE SS ( -3. 15 mm) MA R' 2007
F- C FIN EN ES S (- 3. 15 mm) JA N' 200 7
R MBB -2 ( S- P LA NT ) DA I LY MAN A GE ME NT
9 6
F- C FIN EN ESS ( -3. 15 m m ) APR '2 007
F -C FINE NE SS (- 3. 15 mm) JU NE '2 007
9 6
9 8
9 8
1 0
9 8
9 8
1 0 0
100
F- C FI NEN ESS ( - 3.15 m m ) M AY' 2007
1 0 0
100
USL , 95. 0
UCL, 96.7
1 0 0
USL, 95.0
UCL, 9 6 .7
UCL, 9 6 .7
UCL, 9 8 .3
UCL, 9 8 .7
UCL, 98.7
9 6
9 6
98
9 6
UCL, 9 8 .3
98
U CL, 98. 3
9 4
9 6
98
9 8
UCL, 9 8 .7
9 4
9 8
UCL, 93.6
UCL , 93. 6
USL, 9 5 .0
USL, 95. 0
9 8
USL, 9 5 .0
USL, 9 5 .0
9 4
9 4
96
96
9 4
96
9 4
UCL, 9 3 .6
9 6
9 6
USL, 95.0
9 6
9 2
9 2
USL, 9 5 .0
USL, 95. 0
9 2
USL, 9 5 .0
USL, 9 5 .0
94
9 2
94
USL, 95 .0
9 2
94
9 4
X-bar, 90.7
9 2
9 4
9 4
X -b ar, 90. 7
X-bar , 92.7
X-ba r , 9 0 .7 9 0
X- bar , 90. 2
9 0
9 0
X-ba r , 9 2 .4
92
92
X- bar , 92.4
9 0
X-ba r , 9 2 .7
9 0
X-ba r , 9 0 .2
92
X- ba r, 9 2. 7
X-ba r , 9 2 .4
9 2
9 2
9 0
X-ba r , 9 0 .2
9 2
8 8
LSL, 88.0
LSL, 88.0
90
LSL, 8 8 .0
90
8 8
LSL, 8 8 .0
8 8
LCL, 87.9
LSL , 88. 0
LSL, 8 8 .0 8 8
90
LCL, 8 7 .9
9 0
9 0
Z
8 8
8 8
9 0
LSL, 88.0
8 6
88
LCL , 87. 9
88
DATA OUTSIDE CONTROL LIMI T - NI L
LSL, 88.0
LSL, 8 8 .0
8 6
DATA OUTSIDE CONTROL LIM IT - NIL
8 8
8 6
8 6
8
LSL, 8 8 .0
LSL, 8 8. 0
LCL, 86.7
8 4
8 8
LSL, 8 8 .0
8 6
DATA OUT SID E CO NTROL LIM IT - NIL
8 8
86
LCL, 83. 8
LC L, 86.5
8 6
DATA OUTSI DE CONTROL LIMI T - 2
DATA OUTSIDE CONTROL LIM IT - NIL
86
LCL, 8 6 .7
LCL, 8 6 .5
8 4
DATA OUTSIDE CONTROL LIM IT - 1 2
LCL, 8 6 .5
8 6
8 4
86
LCL, 8 6 .7
84
8 2
8 6
8 4
LCL, 8 3 .8
8 6
8 4
84
DATA OUT SI DE CONTROL LI MIT - 1 8
LCL, 8 3 .8
4- No v- 06 1 -
1 4- 15 -N ov - 1 7-N o v-0 6 2 1- No v- 06 24 -N ov -0 6 2 5- 26 -N ov - 2 7-N o v-0 6
8 4
8 2
N ov -
No v - 06
No v- 06
8 4
8 2
84
82
06
0 6
0 6
2-S e p- 06 3 -S ep -0 6 4 - 6 - 9 -S ep - 06 10 - 1 1- 1 3- 14 -S ep -0 6 15 - 16 -S ep -0 6 18 - 19 - 20 -2
2- 2 3- Se p -0 6 28 - 29 -S ep -0 6 3 0-
8 4
8 4
8 2
DAT A OUT SIDE CONTROL L I MI T - 1 2
8 2
S e p- Se p-
Se p- Se p- Se p - S ep -
S e p- Se p- S ep -S
ep -
S ep -
S ep -
5
82
DATE & SHI FT
8 2
2 - 3- De c- 06 4- 6- De c- 06 7- 8 -D ec -0 6 10 - 1 1-
15 -D e c-0 6 16 -D e c-0 6 17 -D e c- 06 24 -D e c- 06 25 - 2 6- D ec -06 2 7-
PROCESS NOT STABLE NOT CAPABLE
0 6 0 6
0 6 0 6 0 6
06
0 6 0 6 06 06
06
06
5 -Ja n 10 - 1- Ja n 1 3-J an 14 -Ja n 15 - 1 7-
19 - 21- Ja n 23 - 2 4-
29 - 3 0-
31 -
D e c- D ec -
D ec -
D e c- D ec -
De c-
De c-
2 -Ju l-0 6 3- 4 -J ul-0 6 6 - 7- Ju l-0 6 8-J ul -9
-Ju l-0 6 1 - 1 2- 1 3- Ju l- 1 4-J ul -1
5- 16 -1
7-J ul - 1 8-J ul- 2 0-J ul -
25 -2
6- Ju l- 2 7-J ul- 2 9- 30 -J ul- 31 -
1-O c t-0 6 2 -
4 -O ct -06 5- 6- O ct- 7 -O c t-0 6 9- Oc t-
1 5- 16 - 1 7- Oc t- 06 1 9-
24 - 25 - 2 6- 27 -O ct -0 62 8-
80
3
Jan
Ja n J an
Jan
Ja n Ja n
Ja n J an
Jan
0 6
06
06
0 6 0 6
0 6
0 6
82
DATE & SHI FT
8 2
J ul -
J ul-
0 6
Ju l- J ul- 0 6 06 J ul- J ul - 0 6 06
0 6
Ju l- 0 6 06
J ul- 06 Ju l-
8 2
Oc t-
O ct - 06
06
Oc t- O c t-
O ct -0 6
O c t- Oc t- O ct -0 6 O ct -
6
2-Ju n 3-J un 5 -Jun 6- Jun 7-Ju n 8-J un 9 -Jun 10-J un 1 1-Ju n 13-J un 16 -Jun 17-J un 19- Jun 26-J un 27 -Jun 29-J un 30 -Jun
8 2
1-Fe b2 -Feb 2-F eb 2-Feb 3- Feb 3-Fe b4 -Feb 5-F eb 5-Feb 6-F eb 6-Fe b6 -Feb 7-Fe b7 -Feb 7-F eb 8-Feb 8- Feb 9-Fe b 10- 10 - 10- 1 1- 1- 1- 12 - 12- 1 2- 13- 13- 14 - 14- 1 4- 16- 1 6- 16- 17- 18 - 18- 1 8- 19 - 19- 20 - 20- 2 1- 2- 2- 2 - 23- 23 - 23- 2 5- 26 - 26- 27 - 27-
0 6
06
0 6 06
06 0 6
06
DATE & SHIFT
DATE & SHIFT
DATE & SHIFT
8 0
1- Mar 2 - 3-
4- 5-
7 -Mar 8-
1 -Mar 12 -Mar 15 -Mar 1 7-Ma r 1 8-Ma r 1 9-Ma r 21 - 2-
2 3-Ma r 24 -Mar 25 -Mar 2 6-
28 -Mar 30-
Feb Fe b Feb F eb Feb F eb Fe b Feb Fe b Feb F eb Feb Feb Fe b Feb F eb Feb Feb Fe b Feb F eb Feb F eb Feb Feb Fe b Feb F eb Feb Feb Fe b Feb F eb Feb Feb Fe b Feb
06
0 6
06 0 6
0 6 06
06
0 6
0 6
Ma r Mar M ar Mar
Mar
Ma r Mar
M ar
Mar
4
8
1- Apr 3 - 4-Ap r 5-
6-Ap r 7- 8- 8- 9- 1 0- 10- 1-A pr 12 - 13-
1 4-Ap r 15-A pr 16-
17- 18- Apr 19 - 20- 2 1- 21- 2- Apr 23 - 24- 25- Apr 2 6-Ap r 27- 27 - 28-
29-A pr 3 0-Ap r
9
7
1-Ma y 2-M ay 2-Ma y3- May 4-M ay 5-M ay 6- May 7-Ma y 8-M ay 9-Ma y 1 0-Ma y 1-
12 - 13-M ay 1 4- 1 5-Ma y 16 -
17-M ay 19 - 20- May 21-
2- 2 2- 23 - 24-M ay 2 5-
26-
27-M ay
1 - 2 -A u g- 4 - 5 -A ug - 6- Au g- 7- Au g- 8 - 10 -
1 3- 14 - 1 5- 1 6-
1 8- 1 9 - 2 2 -2
3- 24 - 25 - 2 6- 28 - 29 - 3 0-
A pr
Apr
Apr Ap rA
pr Apr A pr A pr
Ap r Apr
Apr
Apr
Ap r Apr A pr Apr
Ap rA
pr
Apr Ap r Apr
DAT E & SHIF T
DATE & SHI FT
DATE & SHIFT
DATE & SHI FT
May
Ma y
M ay
Ma y
Ma y
May
May M ay Ma y
M ay M ay
Au g- 0 6 A u g- 0 6 06 06 A u g- A ug -0 6 A ug -0 6A
u g- A u g- 06 A ug -0 6 A u g- 06 A ug - A ug -A
ug -A
u g- Au g- 06 Au g- A u g- Au g- 06 A u g- 06
0 6
06
06
06
06 06 0 6 06
0 6 06
2
DATE & SHIFT
DATE & SHIFT
1
DATE & SHI FT
12
1 0
11
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
- 3 . 1 5 m m
CABCA
CAB
CBCAC
ABCA
BABC
CACA
CABC
ABCA
AABCA
BCBC
ABCB
CBCB
AABC
ABCBC
ABA
BCAC
- 3 . 15 m m
A
B
A
B
C
B
C
A
B
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
C
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
A
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
C
Plant : Sinter Plant Indicator : Flux Crushing Fineness %
Long term continuous efforts
created great improvement
- 3 . 1 5 m m
A
BC
A
CB
C
AB
C
AC
AB
A
BC
C
AB
C
BC
CC
A
AC
A
BC
B
CA
BB
C
BC
B
AC
A
CA
BA
B
CA
C
CB
- 3 . 1 5 m m
C
AA
B
CA
B
CA
B
CA
C
AB
C
A
CA
BB
C
A
BC
A
BC
A
BC
B
CB
C
CC
B
BC
A
BC
A
CA
B
CA
B
CB
July 2006
DATA OUTS IDE CONTROL LIMIT - 18
- 3 . 1 5 m m %
C
A
B
C
A
C
C
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
C
B
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
A
B
C
A
C
B
C
B
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
A
C
B
C
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
A
B
C
C
A
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
A
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
B
C
B
C
B
C
B
A
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
B
A
B
C
A
C
- 3 . 1 5 m m %
A
B
C
A
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
C
C
A
B
C
A
B
B
C
A
C
A
B
A
B
- 3 . 1 5 m m %
B
C
A
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
A
C
A
B
C
A
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
A
C
A
- 3 . 1 5 m m
B
C A
BC
A
BC
A
BB
CBC A
A
BC
A
B A
BC
AA
BC
C A
BCBC A
A
A Case in Tata Steel : Sinter Plant
100
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
82
80
C
AAA
C A
BCBBCB A
C
A
BC
B A
- 3 . 1 5 m m
C
C
A
B
C
B
B
B
A
B
B
C
A
C
A
B
A
B
C
B
C
B
C
C
A
B
C
C
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
A
B
A
B
C
C
B
C
- 3 . 1 5 m m %
A
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
A
C
B
C
A
B
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
C
B
C
A
B
C
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
C
C
A
B
C
B
C
A
C
B
C
May 2007
Low Spikes
disappeared
Z
- 3 . 1 5 m m %
C
C
A
C
B
C
C
A
A
B
C
B
A
B
C
A
B
A
A
C
C
A
A
B
C
C
A
A
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
- 3 . 1 5 m m %
A
B
B
C
A
A
C
A
C
A
A
C
B
A
C
A
B
C
A
C
C
A
B
C
A
A
B
A
C
A
B
C
B
A
B
C
A
C
B
C
A
A
B
C
A
C
A
C
A
B
C
2012/11/3
Better
LCL, 86.7
32

Actions after identified an Abnormal
Immediate Remedy
As per the Standard J.D.I. and keep the records
Beyond the
Standard
Recurrence Prevention
Identify the Causes
Give up to
Identify the Causes
Build systems to decide who and
how to discuss and decide the
actions, and keep the record.
Prevent the Causes
Give up to Prevent
Resister and Put aside to Identify the Causes
2012/11/3
33

Some patterns/reasons why people go to Stage 4’
1.Mental Reasons
5. Standards are only prepared as
documents. Nobody read carefully, no
education training, nobody follow.
What comes to mind
when you hear “standard”?
• An individual’s sensitivity is important.
• Something wearisome
• Something unnecessary
• Tough to develop.
• Only for the manufacturing processes
Is it really so?
C Fukumaru Management Techno Corp.
Noriyoshi Fukumaru, Representative Director68
2012/11/3
34

For whom is the standardized?
• For the company ?
• For the supervisor ?
• For oneself ?
• For customers ?
• For auditors ?
69
Means for standardizing work
• Flow chart
• Video
• PowerPoint
• Photo
• Picture
• Document
What
tools
do you
choose?
70
2012/11/3
35

Case : SOP Management in mining in Tata Steel
Case :
Customization of SOP Management in mining
due to low literacy level
Background of SOP Management
• Jharia produces Raw Coal from semi mechanized underground
mines and is labor intensive.
• Employees are also recruited as part of land settlement and
rehabilitation.
• Same workers have been trained and engaged to take up
mechanized operations.
• Jharia has maximum number of employees with low literacy and
skill mix.
• In underground mines SOP compliance is very important to
ensure safety. Therefore SOP Compliance is of utmost priority
Current Condition
SOP Compliance Score of Jharia
Analysis
Working Condition parameter in Underground Mining
Parameter Moderate Difficult Very
difficult
Temperature ( O Cent) < 28 28-30.5 >33
Humidity 90%
Depth (in Meter) 500
Gradient (in Degree) 10
Travelling distance(KM) 1.0 -1.5 1.5 - 2.5 >2.5
SOP Compliance is 70%
at Underground Mining
Activities.
SOP compliance was not enough in
activities which involve mostly
illiterate employees and are
performed under “very difficult” or
“difficult” working conditions
2012/11/3
36

Countermeasure Taken : Revised - Visual SOP Display
2012/11/3
37

Stages of Daily Management promotion
Better
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
Standardi
zation
Visualization +
JDI, KKD
Lose Interest
Discontinue
Stabilized +
CAPD
Stage 4’
Better
Break through
+ CAPD
Discussion point
Mental Reasons
A) Back ground of the difficulties.
B) Some efforts to over come:
Visualization of the status of “Management of Daily
Management”
• Result 2x2 Matrix
• Process Assessment
2012/11/3
38

Un-managed (Un-stabled)
Reject/ Bad Accept/Good Managed or Un-managed
Managed (Stabled)
v.s. Good or Bad
77
Control Limit vs. Specification Limits
Control Limit Specification Limit
Inherent to the process External to the process
Calculated from data gathered
during the process
Given by customer
( incl: internal customer)
To judge the Stability To judge acceptability
Basic Idea can be applicable for all of the KPIs.
Use for improvement, not for punishment.
2012/11/3
39

How can we understand the structure of the populations?
Ex.Time to the completion of cutting at a grinding process
Variation after changing
the tool.
Variation within a short period of time
The wear situation
of the tool.
Explain with several populations or apply regression model?
Variation at the ○th
after the change
Life of the tool
79
2012/11/3
40

Innovation vs. Improvement?
ISO 9004:2009
9. Improvement, innovation and learning
9.1 General
Depending on the organization’s environment,
improvement (of its current products, processes, etc.) and
innovation (to develop new products, processes, etc.) could
be necessary for sustained success.
2012/11/3
41