COQ

Reduction of Total Cost of Quality

D M A

PROJECT CHARTER
OpEx & E2E Project Approval Form
Project Name * Project Description *
Reduction of Total Cost of Quality Reduction of In-House Machining Rejections & Penalties paid due to Customer Complaints

COQ

Champion * Finance champion * Region * Priority * Target Start Date * Actual Start Date * Problem Statement *

NV Devaraj Ritanjali Panda TFC Asia Medium 2-Mar-09 25-Dec-08

Phone Phone

+91 44 2746 6080 +91 44 2746 6080

Email Email

ndevaraj@tfca.com rpanda@tfca.com

Leader * Belt * Location * Project Type * Target End Date * Actual End Date *

V sivakumar K Karthikeyan IMSD-India Cost Improvement 1-Sep-09 28-May-09

Phone Phone

+91 44 2746 8450 +91 44 2746 8450

Email Email

Vsivakum@tfca.com kkarthik@tfca.com

Budgeted in FY09 (Yes / No) * Yes

In-house machining Rejection has appreciable scope for improvement. Customer complaints is high

Project Objectives *

Reduction of Total cost of quality thru reduction of In-House Machining Rejections & Penalties paid due to Customer Complaints

Project Benefits *
Please specify the way how the financial benefits are calculated

Cost of In-House Machining Rejection & Penalities paid to Customer complaints in Fy08 is 119K. Plan to reduce the cost from 119K to 60K

Project Scope *

Parts machining in In-House Machine shop & Penalties paid due to customer complaints In Total Cost of quality, Failure Cost only considered

Comments

Financial Metrics *
Unit: USD '000

Hard Sales Growth Projected Committed Implemented GOI Growth Projected Committed Implemented FCF Projected Committed Implemented

Annualized

Realized in FY09

Soft Sales Growth Projected Committed Implemented GOI Growth Projected Committed Implemented FCF Projected Committed Implemented

Annualized

Realized in FY09

60.00

Sign Off *
Name Champion Belt Entity controller Entity GM Asia HQ NV Devaraj K Karthikeyan Ritanjali Panda S Prabhakar Project Start - Date & Signature Project Close - Date & Signature Project Implementation - Date & Signature

D M A

TEAM MEMBERS
Role
Entity GM Champion Black Belt Finance Champion Leader Team Member Team Member Team Member

COQ

Name
S Prabhakar NV Devaraj K Karthikeyan Ritanjali Panda/S Prabhakar V Sivakumar S Kannan S Arunbabu R Ellumalai

Team Member Team Member

D M A I C

J Murugan B Velayudham

COQ
Voice of Customer & Critical To Quality
VOC CTQ Metric KUS$

Reduction of Total Reduction of InCost of Quality house Machining Rejections Reduction of Customer Complaint Debits

KUS$

D M A

COQ
Performed for Critical Process Parameters in 6 F362 Klok Body
Gage Run Chart of Measurment by Sample, Operators
G age name: D ate of study : H S hift Klok Body 08/01/09 Reported by : Tolerance: M isc: S A runbabu 0.1

MSA

15.15

O perators M urali Rajasekar T hangam

Measurment

15.10

15.05 Mean

15.00

Operators Panel variable: Sample

D M A

COQ

MSA
Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Measurment
G age name: D ate of study : H -S hift Klok Body 08/01/09
Components of Variation
400
% Contribution % Study Var % Tolerance

Reported by : Tolerance: M isc:

S A run babu 0.1

Measurment by Sample
15.12 15.06 15.00

Percent

200

Gage R&R

Repeat

Reprod

Part-to-Part

3 Sample

R Chart by Operators
Murali Rajasekar Thangam 15.12 15.06 UCL=0.01627 _ R=0.00632 LCL=0 15.00 Murali

Measurment by Operators

Sample Range

0.04 0.02 0.00

Xbar Chart by Operators

Murali Rajasekar Thangam 15.12

Rajasekar Operators

Thangam

Operators * Sample Interaction

Operators Murali Rajasekar Thangam

Sample Mean

15.12

Average

15.06 15.00

_ _ UCL=15.0443 X=15.0378 LCL=15.0313

15.06 15.00 1 2 3 Sample 4 5

D M A

COQ

MSA
Gage R&R %Contribution (of VarComp) 1.04 1.01 0.03 0.03 98.96 100.00

Source Total Gage R&R Repeatability Reproducibility Operators Part-To-Part Total Variation

VarComp 0.0000391 0.0000379 0.0000012 0.0000012 0.0037137 0.0037528

Process tolerance = 0.1 R&R < 10 % Acceptable

D M A

Baseline Capability
Pareto Chart of Rejections Mar08-Nov08
800 700 600 500 80 100

COQ

400 300 200 20 100

Product Qty Percent C um %

40

Klok body 335 43.7 43.7

Klok Disc 321 41.9 85.6

Morin Yok e 106 13.8 99.5

Other 4 0.5 100.0

D M A

Percent

Qty

60

COQ

List of Potential-Xs

Error in Process Data Sheet Improper Cutting Tools Improper Jigs & Fixtures

Erratic errors in Machine

Error in change over Improper Handling of Material Error in first off inspection report Instrument Error Incorrect Process parameter Operator Error New tool trials Non availability of measuring instruments/gauges Error in Tool Presetter

Improper cleaning of Jigs & Fixtures

Inspection method Error in CNC Program

D M A

COQ
Pareto Chart of Rejections-Mar08-Nov08
800 700 600 500
Qty

100

80

400 300 200 20 100

Product Qty Percent Cum %

40

Klok body 335 43.7 43.7

Klok Disc 321 41.9 85.6

Morin Yoke 106 13.8 99.5

Other 4 0.5 100.0

D M A

Percent

60

COQ
Pareto Chart of Klok Body Rejections
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Reasons 100 80 60 40 20 0

Across flat depth

Stem bore

Seat face

10th Reference

Flange hole

Oil Hole

Seat bore

Top pad hole

Gland bore

Qty Percent Cum %

182 54.3 54.3

26 7.8 62.1

25 7.5 69.6

21 6.3 75.8

19 5.7 81.5

16 4.8 86.3

13 3.9 90.1

9 2.7 92.8

8 16 2.4 4.8 95.2 100.0

D M A

Other

Percent

Qty

COQ
Pareto Chart of Klok Body Stem Bore
200 150 100 80 60 40 50 0 Reasons 20

100

Line mark

Vertical shift

Horizontal shift

Unwash

Ovality

Poor finish

Oversize

Damage

Qty Percent Cum %

60 33.0 33.0

60 33.0 65.9

24 13.2 79.1

9 4.9 84.1

7 3.8 87.9

6 3.3 91.2

4 2.2 93.4

4 2.2 95.6

8 4.4 100.0

D M A

Other

Percent

Qty

Cause & Effect Diagram

Causes Effect

COQ

Measurements

Materials
No identification in gauges Non availability of Dial Gauge

Men

Typo in PDS

Error in Setting (Tools & Fixture) Wrong loading of Boring bars

Recommended tools not used

Incorrect process parameters Tool mark due to power cut

Cutting chips accumulation in Finish Boring Bar HSS Drills dragging in CF8M Body

Stem Bore Rejections

Upward Pallet Movement in M-I Tool Presetter Error Y Axis Movement during power cut

Environment
D M A I C

Methods

Machines

COQ
Pareto Chart of Klok Body Rejections
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Reasons 100 80 60 40 20 0

Across flat depth

Stem bore

Seat face

10th Reference

Flange hole

Oil Hole

Seat bore

Top pad hole

Gland bore

Qty Percent Cum %

182 54.3 54.3

26 7.8 62.1

25 7.5 69.6

21 6.3 75.8

19 5.7 81.5

16 4.8 86.3

13 3.9 90.1

9 2.7 92.8

8 16 2.4 4.8 95.2 100.0

D M A

Other

Percent

Qty

COQ
Pareto Chart of Seat Face Rejections
25 20 15 10 5 0 100

80

40

20

Reasons Qty Percent Cum %

Damage 23 88.5 88.5

Dimensional Deviation 1 3.8 92.3

Line mark 1 3.8 96.2

Other 1 3.8 100.0

D M A

Percent

Qty

60

Cause & Effect Diagram

Causes Effect

COQ

Measurements

Materials

Men
Improper cleaning of fixtures & jigs Improper Material Handling

Improper Material Handling

Seat Face Damage

Storage Method

Environment
D M A I C

Methods

Machines

COQ
Pareto Chart of Rejections-Mar08-Nov08
800 700 600 500
Qty

100

80

400 300 200 20 100

Product Qty Percent Cum %

40

Klok body 335 43.7 43.7

Klok Disc 321 41.9 85.6

Morin Yoke 106 13.8 99.5

Other 4 0.5 100.0

D M A

Percent

60

COQ
Pareto Chart of Klok Disc Rejections
350 300 250 200 150 40 100 50 20 0 100 80 60

0 Klok Disc Reasons Qty Percent Cum %

Disc profile 155 48.4 48.4

Disc Pinning 102 31.9 80.3

Stem bore 47 14.7 95.0

Other 16 5.0 100.0

D M A

Percent

COQ
Pareto Chart of Disc Profile
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 100

80 60 40 20 0 Disc Profile Qty Percent Cum % Damage 145 93.5 93.5 Line mark 10 6.5 100.0

D M A

Percent

Qty

Cause & Effect Diagram

Causes Effect

COQ

Measurements

Materials

Men
Damaged Profile cover

Improper cleaning of fixtures & jigs Improper Material Handling

Disc Profile Damage

Improper Material Handling Equipment Fixture design

Tool mark due to power cut

Storage Method

Environment
D M A I C

Methods

Machines

COQ
Pareto Chart of Klok Disc Rejections
350 300 250 200 150 40 100 50 20 0 100 80 60

0 Klok Disc Reasons Qty Percent Cum %

Disc profile 155 48.4 48.4

Disc Pinning 102 31.9 80.3

Stem bore 47 14.7 95.0

Other 16 5.0 100.0

D M A

Percent

COQ
Pareto Chart of Disc Pinning Rejections
60 50 40 100 80 60 40 20

30 20 10 Reasons 0

ca i t r Ve

ift h ls Ho
32 53.3 53.3

ta n o r iz

ift h ls

e ag m Da m Di

na o i s en

n io t a vi e lD

ke o Br l l i Dr

r he t O

Qty Percent Cum %

11 18.3 71.7

8 13.3 85.0

4 6.7 91.7

2 3.3 95.0

3 5.0 100.0

D M A

Percent

Qty

Cause & Effect Diagram

Causes Effect

COQ

Measurements

Materials
Inspection method variation between Inspectors

Men
Stem Keyway slot
No identification in reamers Stem undersize Drill Grinding angle

No proper gauge for Taper checking

Disc bore oversize

Disc pinning Rejections

Manual Drill grinding Improper tools

Insufficient Coolant PDS Error Worn-out Fixtures Center Height Variation in SPM II

DRO Error

Environment
D M A I C

Methods

Machines

Klok Body-Stem Bore Rejections

ACTION PLAN
Objective: Specific Areas to Improve: Support Team Current Situation: Problems to Overcome: Reduce In house Machining Rejection To reduce Rejection due to stem bore rejection N Gobi, R Elumalai,P Nirmal raj, J Murugan, B Velayutham, TK Murali, S Anandan, S Arunbabau 54.3% of Rejection of K Lok Body Rejection of 43.7 % (23.7% of Total Rejection) was due to stem bore rejection during FY08 Implementation Activity 1.1.Elimination of Line mark rejection due to non compliance of PDS parameters and tools Detailed Specific Actions in Sequence Process validation of PDS with actual Responsible person(s) RE Evaluation

COQ

Time Line
02-02-09

Resources Required

Expected Outcome/Evidences
Process Validation Report

Date 02-02-09

Result 1.Bore size is not achieved as per PDS of 12" Body, because YKM Finish Boring bar is mentioned in PDS which is not running since the tool is not available. Completed Completed Completed Defered now to avoid capital expenditure

Process revalidation after procurement of tool 1.2.Elimination of line mark due to wrong loading of boring bar in spindle 1.3.Eimination of Rejection due to line mark caused by upward movement of pallet. 1.4.Elimination of Rejection due to Y axis movement During powercut in Mazak II Visual display for loading method Pallet seal kit to be replacement and observation UPS Feasibilty to be studied

RE PN NG NG

10-03-09 08-01-09

Boring Bar

Process Validation Report One Point Lesson Seal Kit Changed

19-03-09 18-02-09 25-12-08

TBD

UPS required for 4 HMCS. Total Cost of UPS is 80K Process changed & updated 17-02-09 in PDS Implemented for all gauges 20-01-09

1.5.Elimination of Rejection due to Line marks caused Combination Boring Eliminated & One additional by Burr accumulation BB added for Gland Bore 2.1. Elimination Rejection due to Oversize by wrong Gauge Usage due to no identication on Gauge Guage Identification to be Done for All gauges 2.2.Elimination of Rejection due to oversize due to Error in presetter Values for different machines 2.3. Elimination of Rejection due to Oversize because of burr inclusion in Finish boring Opn. (in Combination Boring) 2.4. Elimination of Rejection due to Oversize because of non usage of bore dial during repass due to non availability of Bore dial Gauges. 3. Elimination of Stem bore Unwash due to drag caused by improper grinding Estabish the list of values to be set in presetter for individual boring bar.

JM/RE S Anandan/ S.Arunbabu RE JM/RE

09-01-09 25-12-08

Completed Completed

15-03-09 09-01-09 Boring Bar

Combination Boring Eliminated & One additional BB added for Gland Bore Procurement of Bore Dial Gauges to meet our requirement Procurement of "Drill Point Grinder" to ensure proper grinding

List displayed to refer and 02-04-09 set for the size required Stem bore line mark 17-02-09 elimination Updated in PDS Boring bar procured & implemented 24-04-09

Completed Completed

S Anandan/ S.Arunbabu VSK

06-01-09

Dial gauge - 3 Nos size from 10mm-65mm Procurement of new drill point grinder - 3K

Completed

TBD

To avoid investment, 23-01-09 Resharpening arrangement made with M/s Avenzer Tools up to the procurement of "Drill Point Grinder" One Point Lesson Displayed 17-02-09 in Workstation

Completed

4.Elimination of Stembore Damage by burr inclusion during loading of Components Comments: Signatures of Support Team

One point lesson is to be displayed

PN

07-01-09

Completed

V.Sivakumar
Signature of Originator

D M A

Klok Body-Stem Bore Rejections

ACTION PLAN
Objective: Specific Areas to Improve: Support Team Current Situation: Problems to Overcome: Reduce In house Machining Rejection

COQ
Date: 2/2/09

To reduce Rejection due to Line mark in Stem bore- in K Lok Body Machining in 30th Opn.
TK Murali, Arunbabu, M.Madhavraja, Paranthaman.R Elumalai, Boresize not achieved when cutting parameters are maintained as per PDS for 10" &12" G1 Body Approval on Tool Inspection can be only justified after taking trial Implementation Evaluation Responsible person(s) RE

Activity

Detailed Specific Actions in Sequence

Time Line
02-02-09

Resources Required

Expected Outcome/Evidences
Process Validation Report

Date 02-02-09

Result 1.Bore size is not achieved as per PDS, because YKM Finish Boring bar is mentioned in PDS which is not running since the tool is not available. 2.Combination rough boring new insert Grinding and Shim packing because insert clearnce is not given(Tool Design mistake) 3.Program Seqence is mismatch 4.WCMX 080412 1020 GRADE Stock nill(old stock insert runing)

1.Validating the process of 12"370 G1 K LOK Body as Process validation per PDS

2.Purchase of Finish boring bar

2.1.Tool Design 2.2.PR Creation 2.3.PO Creation 2.4.Tool Purchase 2.5.Tool inspection

RE RE TKM TKM RE RE RE TKM TKM RE RE RE Paranthaman

05-02-09 05-02-09

Tool Dwg No KHT 214 PR No 9040000207 PO No 9030000737

05-02-09 05-02-09 13-02-09 05-03-09 10-03-09

Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed

09-03-09

Mat Doc # 5000007437

3.Purchase of Combination Rough boring bar

3.1.Tool Design 3.2.PR Creation 3.3.PO Creation 3.4.Tool Purchase 3.5.Tool inspection

23-01-09 06-02-09

Tool Dwg No KHT 241 PR No 9040000195 PO No 9030000710 Mat Doc # 5000007672

23-01-09 06-02-09 13-02-09 13-03-09 19-03-09

4.Program Seqence mismatch

4.1.Program to be modified 4.2. PDS Revision

06-02-09 10-02-09

Cadem Prg , PDS-0036-30-Rev2

06-02-09 10-02-09

5.WCMX 080412 1020 GRADE prequre

5.1. Maintaing Stock Level at store

Non moving insert WCMX 08 04 12 R53 4025 is being used.Qty 10 as on 2/4/09

6.Process Revalidation Comments: Signatures of Support Team Signature of Originator Process validation RE 10-03-09 Bore Dial Gauge Process Validation Report 19-03-09 Completed

Process validation result found satisfactory. 36+11 nos in Job 0rder # 3437 & 3259 are prodcued without line mark. After Consumption of WCMX 080412 R53 4025, Insert as per PDS (ie. WCMX 080412 1020) will be made stock

V.Sivakumar

D M A

Klok Body-Stem Bore Rejections

ACTION PLAN
Objective: Specific Areas to Improve: Support Team Current Situation: Problems to Overcome: Reduce In house Machining Rejection

COQ
Date: 4/2/09

To reduce Rejection due to Oversize in Stem bore- in K Lok Body Machining in 30th Opn.
M Madhavaraja,J Murugan,B Velayutham Lack of confidence in applying compensation for tools in Tool Pre Setter and lead first job rejection during setting Due to the above reason variation with Presetter value and Actual bore size . This variation varies with Tool length and Machine. Same tool produce different dimension when interchange between workcenters

Implementation
Activity Detailed Specific Actions in Sequence Responsible person(s)

Evaluation
Time Line
Resources Required

Expected Outcome/Evidences

Date

Result

1.Estabish the list of values to be set in presetter for individual boring bar.

1.1 Preparation of list of Sizes of Boring bars used RE in KIA,Mazak I & Mazak II

04-02-09

List of Boring Bars for all sizes prepared for Kia, M-I, 04-02-09 & M-II

Completed. 36 Sizes /each machine identified,

1.2. Collection of data for list given whenever doing RE setting

15-03-09

Actual Values against 02-04-09 Boring Bar Sizes Required

Completed.

1.3.Compensation value arrived for the above boring bars

RE

15-03-09

First Time Right in Bore sizes during setting

02-04-09

Completed

2. Presetter Runout (0.06) to be rectified

2.2. Finding the root cause &Salvaging the problem RE

03-04-09

Ridges found in BT 50 Taper corrected

03-01-09

Completed

Comments:

V.Sivakumar
Signature of Originator

Signatures of Support Team

D M A

Klok Body Rejections Trend

Klok Body Rejections
120 100
Qty (Nos.)

COQ

Stem bore Total Body

80 60 40 20 0

Jul-08

May-08

Mar-09

D M A

May-09

Sep-08

Jun-08

Dec-08

Feb-09

Oct-08

Jan-09

Aug-08

Nov-08

Apr-09

Klok Disc Profile Damage Rejections

ACTION PLAN
Objective: Specific Areas to Improve: Support Team Current Situation: Problems to Overcome: Reduce In house Machining Rejection To reduce Rejection due to Disc Profile Damage K Karthikeyan,J Madhvaraja, A K Ravichandran TK Murali,Arunbabu 48.4% of Rejection of K Lok Disc Rejection of 41.9 % (20.27% of Total Rejection) is due to Disc profile Damage Training of material handlers & trainee operators Implementation Activity 1.Elimination of rejection due to Loading of Component in fixture with burr 2.Elimination of Rejection due to improper Material Handling Detailed Specific Actions in Sequence Operator Training Elimination of Material Handiling without protector. Removal of Wornout & damaged end caps Responsible Resources Time Line person(s) Required JM On going MM/JM/BV On going JM/BV On going Evaluation

COQ

Date: 2/2/09

Expected Outcome/Evidences
One Point Lesson

Date 17-02-09

Result

OJT provided to Operators 17-02-09 & Material Handlers

Replacement of scrap wornout & damaged 26-05-09 wornout endcaps end caps

Rejection due to profile damage drastically reduced

Comments:

V.Sivakumar
Signatures of Support Team Signature of Originator

D M A

Klok Disc Profile Rejection Trend

Klok Disc Rejections
60 50
Qty (Nos.)

COQ

40 30 20 10 0 Profile Damage Total Disc

May-08

Jul-08

D M A

May-09

Aug-08

Nov-08

Mar-09

Sep-08

Jun-08

Dec-08

Feb-09

Oct-08

Jan-09

Apr-09

Klok Disc Pinning Rejections

ACTION PLAN
Objective: Specific Areas to Improve: Support Team Current Situation: Problems to Overcome: Reduce In house Machining Rejection To reduce Rejection due to Disc pinning Operation P.Nirmal Raj, R Elumamalai, J Murugan, B Velayutham TK Murali, Ananadan,Arunbabu 31.9% of Rejection of K Lok Disc Rejection of 41.9 % (13.36% of Total Rejection) is due to Disc pinning Rejection Disc Pinning Fixtures recondition Implementation Activity Detailed Specific Actions in Sequence Responsible person(s) NG SAB Evaluation

COQ
Date: 28/01/2009

Time Line
22-01-09 27-03-09

Resources Required

Expected Outcome/Evidences
Same Fixture Can be used in both machines Taper gauge which is easy to check in online Elimination of Manual Grinding

Date 24-01-09 03-04-09 Completed

Result

1. Elimination of Rejection due to Centre Ht. Variation Both Machines are made to Same Ht. of Both SPM I &II 2. Elimination of Rejection due to difficult checking method by using Pin Implementation Taper Gauge. 3.Elimination of rejection due Manual Grinding leading to Drill Drag Drill Point Grinder is to be implemented to avoid manual grinding

Gauge

Completed for 4"Fig 370 & horizontal deployment to other sizes To avoid investment, Resharpening arrangement made with M/s Avenzer Tools up to the procurement of "Drill Point Grinder"

VSK

09-06-09

Procurement of new drill point grinder - 3K

4. Avoid usage of tools without identification & tools Separate tool location are provided to avoid tools mixup mixup. Part number engraving on tools

JM

04-02-09

Part Number engraved on Tools. Separate tools location provided

23-01-09 04-02-09

Completed

5.Elimination of Rejection due to Wornout Fixtures

Replacement of worn out parts in fixtures

PN

27-02-09

Reconditioned fixtures

05-05-09

Replacement of individual parts does not produced the desired result. Design Completed & procurement action inprogress for 4" fixture

New Fixture Design & Development

RE

05-08-09

New Fixtures for 4" Fixture procurement will 8 sizes complete in june 3rd week

Validation of all new Pinning Fixtures Comments:

RE

28-08-09

New Fixtures for Completion of all Fixture 8 sizes validation

V.Sivakumar
Signatures of Support Team Signature of Originator

D M A

COQ

Customer Complaints
Customer Complaint Debit
8000 7000 6000 5000
USD

4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Casting Packing Machining

Value

Note: All Non Conformance debit from slurry product line only
D M A I C

COQ

Customer Complaints
ACTION PLAN
Objective: Specific Areas to Improve: Support Team Current Situation: Problems to Overcome: To reduce Non conformance Complaint from customers Supply of the Castings to be improved NV Devaraj, S Kannan, P Mohan Rangan, T senthil, T Murugan Casting failure at customer end in NDT Casting failures in Slurry valves from 3 key foundries Implementation Activity 1. Existing stock to be send to foundry for inspection Detailed Specific Actions in Sequence Responsible person(s) Resources Required Evaluation

Expected Outcome/Evidences
Casting free from non conformance

Date

Result

Radiography test to be done in foundry & repair if SK/PMR/TS needed Action plan to get the quality castings from the existing foundries

Feb-09
No support from the foudry to improve the quality of castings

2. Improve the quality of castings

SK/PMR/TS

Jan-09

3. Develop New Foundries

Develop New foundry and shift tyco patterns from NVD/TM/PMR existing foundry without affecting production

Development of new suppliers

Apr-09

In Phase-1 Seven patterns shifted & developed at new source. In Phase -2 twenty patterns shifted to new foundries. Phase-3 in progress for 23 Patterns

Comments:

NV Devaraj
Signatures of Support Team Signature of Originator

D M A

COQ

Customer Complaints Packing

Implementation of End covers to avoid serration damages at all stages including from supplier end, transit and packing of FG

Machining
Supplier audit done for machining process & Measuring instruments
Implementation of one point lessons at supplier end To avoid further customer complaints, critical parameters are re-inspected for the components in stock, which is machined at supplier. Supplier rationalization is in progress to avoid continuous quality issues

D M A

COQ In-house Machining Rejection Trend

2.50% 2.09% 1.52% 1.63% 1.52%

2.00%

1.50%

1.19% 0.67% 0.74%

1.00% 0.77% 0.50% 0.82%

0.00%
FY-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09

FY-08

Inhouse Rejection %

D M A

Project Initiated in Jan-09

COQ

Customer Complaints
30.0 25.0
24.7 24.7 24.7

20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0

8.2 8.2 8.2

18.3

19.6 20.3

10.0

4.4 1.3 0.7 Feb'09 Mar'09

0.0
Oct'08

0.0 Nov'08 Dec'08 Jan'09

0.0 Apr'09

0.0 May'09 Jun'09 Jul'09 Aug'09 Sep'09

NCR Debit Value KUS$

Cumulative FY09 KUS$

Project Initiated in Jan-09 D M A I C

Cost of Quality Trend

12000 9951 9,784

COQ

10000

Value in US$

8000 5,546 6,293 FY-08 COQ 4000 1,701 3,304

6000

2000

0
FY-08 Monthly Avg Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09

Project Initiated in Jan-09 D M A I C

Control Measures for In-house Machining Rejections

Control Measures Daily Review of In-house machining rejections Random Process Audit at in-house machine shop Revalidation of Fixtures Monitoring Standard cycle time (Noted in PDS) to ensure process parameters are not altered Ensuring all CNC programs downloaded from DNC Replacement of all worn out Protective Covers / End Caps Training of new employees VS RE / SAB RE JM JM BV VS & Team

COQ
Responsibility

D M A

COQ Control Measures for Customer Complaints

Control Measures Customer Complaints Review & Effective CAPA Responsibility SK & PLMs

Ensure Periodic process audit at both suppliers & in-house

Strengthen Development of New Products Strengthen Development of New Suppliers

SK & Team
QM & Buyers QM & Buyers

D M A