CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The study of quality as a branch has been in focus since the industrial revolution. Quality

guru’s like Juran and Deming have contributed their visions to the study of quality. It has

been pointed out in literature time and again that quality is a key competitive advantage for

any organization.

1.1 COMPANY PROFILE

XYZ was incorporated in the year 1984 by the collective efforts of ABC Group of India. The

company was incorporated with the objective of generating alternate power solutions and to

upgrade general living conditions in the remote areas, where electricity has not reached yet.

The company acquired the stake of PQR Company, in 2002, thus becoming one of the few

Indian companies to buy out the equity of its MNC partner. XYZ entered into the higher KV

segments of generators in 2003.

The modern manufacturing unit is established near Dehradun (Uttaranchal) in a very scenic

and serene backdrop of hills & forest, with a capacity of 125,000 Smaller Gensets and 75,000

Multi Purpose Engines & Higher KVA Gensets of 20000 units per annum. The total area of

the factory is 150000 sq. mtrs and the covered area is 17000 sq. mtrs. The connected load is

1550 KVA. Though the power availability in the region is good, Company has DG sets of

850 KVA as stand by captive power. It was the 1st Company to roll out Self Start Gensets

and became the 1st Company to launch emission compliant Generators under the brand

name – XYZ Ecogen, once again taking a step ahead, to launch low noise gensets, complying

with phase-II noise norms and entering a new era of silent technology gensets.

The company has launched power tillers under the brand name XYZ Harit. The product is

expected to be very popular in the farming community because of its reliability,

compatibility, low maintenance and low running cost.

Birla Power tied up with TMTL (Eicher) for manufacturing of DGs with Eicher brand of

Engines. Eicher Engines produces a wide range of world class air cooled & water cooled

engines ranging from 17.8 BHP to 57 BHP in technical collaboration & tie-up with 'Valtra"

Finland, 'Ricardo' England, AVL and other reputed companies. 

1.2 PRODUCT & SERVICES

At present the company is producing a wide range of products from portable generator sets to

multipurpose engines of capacities 0.5-2.5KVA and 1.5 to 4HP respectively. The Company is

presently producing a wide range of Generators catering to the power requirements of 500W

to 40K.W, being fuelled by variety of fuel options like Kerosene, Petrol, Diesel, LPG, CNG,

Biogas etc. BPSL is committed to provide Total Power Solution depending upon customer

needs by manufacturing Portable Generators, Inverters, HKVA Generators, and Home UPS.

XYZ banks upon not only advanced innovative design, best raw material, technology and

quality control but also has strong dedicated, qualified and trained work force of 535

employees, who have helped the company achieve its objectives and target outputs, with their

hard work and sense of involvement.

The BPSL mainly identify three type of following products:

Power & Allied Products: Manufacturing Higher KVA & Portable Generators,

Engines, Pumps, Inverters and Trading of Allied Products.

Electrical Appliances: Trading of Electrical appliances & Miscellaneous

Components.

Others: Wind Mill Energy Generation

The XYZ also has elite institutional clients spanning amongst the major educational

institutes, telecom operators, oil majors, banks and government organizations. Its products

are not only fully emission compliant and ISI marked but also enjoy a strong brand image.

With increasing urbanization industrial growth and per capita power consumption the

demand for power will continue to outstrip the supply. This scenario augurs well for the

manufacturers of power generating equipment manufacturers amongst which XYZ is one

of the leading players.

The company has been awarded ISO 14001 certification. XYZ recently diversified into

multipurpose engines and its application products such as pumpsets, sprayers, vibrators and

lawn mowers etc. Going ahead the company is looking at tapping the demand for higher

quality products and has entered into strategic tie-ups with companies across the globe to stay

ahead of competition in terms of technology. Apart from the domestic market the company

also has presence in international market particularly to various countries in African, Middle

East and Far East countries.

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The role of purchase department is to get right quantity of material in right quality.

Otherwise, bargaining, negotiations and procurement will be in vain, since the material

couldn’t be used. Moreover, if substandard materials are used, the end of product will lose its

creditability in market and entire organization will suffer. In addition, any quality control or

quality improvement programme will lose all its meaning if quality is not maintained, since

in majority of organizations, almost 60 percent of the manufacturing cost is contributed by

the purchased materials.

The purchased items we inspections relevant quality standards, Process data sheet and

drawings/ specification then found items lot are rejected. Company are making many

different type of product, every product for many items has purchased from market. We are

trying to reduce purchased items rejection from supplier.

After items lot rejection we have items send for rework and segregation. Here lot of time

consume for rework and segregation, so we cannot get good quality items then it is effecting

on product performance.

1.3 OBJECTIVE

The company has a limited inspection facility including number of machine available for

items inspection and also different skills of worker and also available every items inspection

data sheet, drawing and specification.

The company has limited investment on every product, a product for maximum items has

supply from vendor and this items we inspection as per quality specification. Our main goal

is improve inspection process for items, establish long term relation with vendor for supply a

good quality items.

The company cannot paying for rework and segregation but this process we are delay process

on production.

Thus, under this scenario, when no new invest is allowed, we have identified some of the

below mention areas where we seek improvements.

The main objective of our study comprises of the following:

To suggest acceptance sampling plans for inspection of components.

To minimize the effort of rework and segregation.

To establish long term relation with vendor.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 VENDOR SELECTION

Umit Akinc (1999) he has proposed a decision support approach to selecting vendors

under the conflicting criteria of minimizing the annual material costs, reducing the

number of suppliers and maximizing suppliers’ delivery and quality performances.

Evertt E. Adam and S. Thomas Foster (2000) both have studied to identify the

contextual variables within a firm, which affect quality performance and other

financial variables. They study was conduct in five manufacturing plants of a supplier

to many large automotive firms.

Results suggests that quality improvement is enhanced by following a process-

oriented, quality control approach to improvement, emphasizing product design, and

stressing conformance to specification. To increase the chance of improved financial

performance, the firm would follow a process-oriented, quality control approach to

improvement and introduce external quality information.

W.L. Pearn, Chin-Wei Wu (2006) both propose an effective sampling plan based on

process capability index Cpk to deal with product acceptance determination for low

fraction of defectives. This proposes method to determine the number of required

inspection units, the critical acceptance value, and make reliable decision in product

acceptance.

In this paper worked on designing Cpk acceptance sampling plans a specified OC

curve. This designing mainly depend on AQL and LTPD with consumer risk’s and

producer’s risk.

P.K. Humphreys, W. L. Li and L.Y. Chan (2003) they have examine the role of

supplier development in the context of buyer supplier performance from a buying

firm's perspective a survey was conducted of 142 electronic manufacturing

companies in Hong Kong. Factor analysis yielded eight factors including

transaction-specific supplier development and seven infrastructure factors of supplier

development: strategic goals, effective communications, long-term commitment, top

management support, supplier evaluation, supplier strategic objectives, and buyer

trust in the supplier. Correlation analysis indicated that transaction-specific supplier

development and its infrastructure factors significantly correlated with the perceived

buyer supplier performance outcomes. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses

suggested that transaction-specific supplier development, trust, supplier strategic

objectives and effective communications significantly contributed to the prediction of

buyer–supplier performance improvement.

Chung-Chi Hsieh and Yu-Te Liu (2009) both suggested a serial supply chain that

consists of one supplier and one manufacturer, each having imperfect production

and inspection processes. Both the supplier and the manufacturer invest

in quality improvement actions in their production processes to reduce defective items

being produced. In addition to quality investment, the supplier engages in

outbound inspection before sending the components to the manufacturer, and the

manufacturer engages in inbound inspection, when receiving the components from the

supplier, and outbound inspection, before sending final products to customers.

VijayWadhwa and A. Ravi Ravindran (2006) they have developed model the vendor

selection problem as a multi-objective optimization problem, where one or more

buyers order multiple products from different vendors in a multiple sourcing network.

Price, lead-time and rejects (quality) are explicitly considered as three conflicting

criteria that have to be minimized simultaneously.

In this paper Zeger Degrave, Eva Labro and Flip Roodhoot (2005) proposed to use the

concept of total cost of ownership as a basis for comparing vendor selection models.

A total cost ownership perspective mathematical programming models outperform

rating models and multiple item models generate better results than single item

models for this specific case study.

Srinivas Talluri and Ram Narasimhan (2001), this paper proposed a unique approach

for vendor selection by incorporating performance variability into the evaluation

process. The max–min approach for vendor selection presented in this paper allows

for comprehensive evaluation of vendor performance by estimating both maximum

and minimum efficiencies based on ideal targets set by the buyer. Another key

element of this approach is that groups of homogenous vendors can be identified,

which provides the buyer with effective alternative choices in making the final

selection.

Daniel R. Krause, Robert B. Handfield and Thomas V. Scannell (1999), In an

exploratory study based on data collected from 84 companies, the authors develop a

process model for supplier development. Using this process model as a framework,

the authors then compare two approaches buying firms use in supplier development:

1. Reactive efforts to increase the performance of laggard suppliers,

2. Strategic efforts to increase the capabilities of the supply base to enhance

the buying firm’s long-term competitive advantage.

Strategic efforts were found to significantly increase the buying company’s

involvement in suppliers’ processes, and required greater dedication of resources,

personnel and communication.

Ashutosh Sarkarand and Pratap K.J. Mohapatra (2006), they both have proposed a

systematic framework for reducing the supply base to a predefined level and

considered many a number of supplier-related factors in the evaluation process and

have classified them into short-term performance factors and long-term capability

factors based their effects on the achievement of supply chain objectives. They use

fuzzy set approach to overcome the difficulty of measurement imprecision associated

with qualitative factors.

Qing Caoa and Qiong Wang (2006), they have focused on vendor selection, one of the

two basic issues of vendor management in outsourcing. Due to the limitation of the

classic one-stage vendor selection model, they propose a two-stage vendor selection

research framework in outsourcing. The first stage is a trial phase that helps the client

to find the best match between the vendor and the outsourced project. In the second

stage, the client employs the chosen vendor for the full implementation of the project.

Decision making approach for purchase materials

Kyle A. Crawford and Osama K. Eyada (1998), when quality assurance programs in

several instance have failed to stop the influx of fraudulent materials. In many cases

only physical inspection and test can guard against defective purchased materials.

They both have solved how knowledge engineering techniques can be applied to

assist in solving this problem. By formulating commonly available and diverse

industry information, a knowledge based system becomes a tool that allows users to

focus quality verification efforts on highly suspect materials.

Douglas K. Macbeth (1996) this paper aims to explore the nature of partnership

sourcing or partnering and the implications for the changing role of the purchasing

function in the new situation. Partnering has evolved as a solution to changing market

requirements. The change to collaboration as the operating paradigm changes the

required operational job roles within the purchasing function. The paper concludes

that purchasing becomes central to the whole cost-reducing, innovation-enhancing,

market-competitive positioning of an organization.

Ajay Das and Robert B. Handfield (2000), they both that dissertation research in

purchasing is still largely exploratory, lacking in dominant paradigms and unifying

theories. On a more positive note, our analysis reveals an encouraging trend towards

casual and confirmatory research design and the growing use of organizational,

marketing and economic theory to explain purchasing phenomena.

Linda L. Stanley and Joel D. Wisner (2002) they both are researched about in this

paper analyze internal communication patterns, service quality initiatives, supplier

management strategies and internal performance in organizations providing high

levels of service quality to their external customers. Both have concluded that greater

implementation of strategic supplier activities will lead to higher levels of

performance. Additionally, they found a higher level of service quality among internal

suppliers and internal customers linked to better external service quality.

Javier Gonza´lez-Benitoa, Angel R. Martı´nez-Lorente and Barrie G. Dale (2002), the

objective of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it analyses the relationship between

different purchasing system variables and supplier quality assurance practices.

Secondly, it explores both the connections between supplier quality assurance

practices and other quality assurance practices used for internal processes, and

examines the relationship of such practices with supply operational results.

Ding-zhong Feng, Lei-lei Chen and Mei-xian Jiang (2001), this paper, based on fuzzy

decision theory and characteristics of supply chain management, proposes a

comprehensive evaluation method for optimal combination selection among candidate

vendors and outsourced parts.

At first, some useless information is filtered bp the judgment of process and

production capacities. Then a hierarchical fuzzy model for vendor selection is

developed. At the same time, a progressively-simplified approach is presented to deal

with the order-combination optimization problem.

L.B.Foker (2003) he has researched about the inconsistent association between

practice and performance is accounted for by considering the process view of quality

management. Process management links quality management with process

optimization to address both effectiveness and efficiency concerns. Performance is

also affected by transaction-specific investments (asset specificity) in the

buyer/supplier relationship that lead to poorer component quality and higher

transaction costs. Asset specificity and organizational efficiency at implementing

Total Quality Management hold great promise for resolving the mixed practice-

performance findings in the quality management literature.

Cees J. Gelderman, and Janjaap Semeijn(2006), little work has been undertaken to

examine the organizational mechanisms used by MNC headquarters for knowledge

leveraging across subsidiaries, especially in the area of purchasing and supply

management. Based on an in-depth case study, focusing on a chemical company, the

actual buying systems for managing the global supply base are explored. Kraljic’s

purchasing portfolio approach appears useful, both for developing effective

purchasing strategies as well as for managing a global supply base.

Henrik Brandes (2001) In this study two important strategic tracks are identified and

the underlying causes analyzed. The first track entails an increased degree of

purchasing, following from make-or-buy decisions: so-called outsourcing. The second

track entails decentralization of and coordination within the purchasing function.

Chih-Hsiung Wang, Tadashi Dohi and W.C. Tsai (2010), they investigate integrating

the acquisition of input materials, material inspection and production planning, where

type I and type II inspection errors are allowed, and the unit acquisition cost is

dependent on the average quality level. This study aims to find an optimal purchase

lot size (or here, equivalently, the fixed production rate multiplied by the production

run time), input quality level and the associated inspection policy that minimize the

total cost per item including the order cost, materials purchase cost, setup cost,

inventory holding cost, and the quality-related cost. Furthermore, the boundaries,

conditions and properties for the optimal production run time are obtained under an

optimal inspection policy when the input material quality level is fixed. These

findings will facilitate the establishing of an efficient algorithm for an optimal

solution.

John F. Affisco, M. Javad Paknejad and Farrokh Nasri (2002) this paper relaxes this

assumption and proposes a quality-adjusted JELS (joint economic lot sizes) model. In

addition, classical optimization methods are used to derive models for the cases of

setup cost reduction, quality improvement, and simultaneous setup cost reduction and

quality improvement for the quality-adjusted JELS. This suggests a synergistic impact

of continuous improvement programs that focus on both setup and quality

improvement of the vendor’s production process. Sensitivity analysis indicates that

the simultaneous model is robust and representative of practice.

Zhiying Liao and Jens Rittscher (2006), this paper studies the integration of the

supplier selection, the procurement lot sizing and the carrier selection decisions under

dynamic demand conditions. A multi-objective programming model is developed to

help to decide when and how much to order in dynamic demand case, which supplier

to select and how much to order from the selected suppliers in each replenishment

cycle and which carrier to select for the selected supplier in each replenishment cycle.

William Ho, Xiaowei Xu, and Prasanta K. Dey (2010), this paper is based on a

literature review on the multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier

evaluation and selection from 2000 to 2008. First, it was found that numerous

individual and integrated approaches were proposed to solve the supplier selection

problem. They are all capable of handling multiple quantitative and qualitative

factors.

Ceyhun Araz_, Irem OzkarahanIn(2007) this paper, they have been proposed a

supplier evaluation and management methodology for the product development

process, in which suppliers are categorized and compared according to their

performances on several design based criteria, potential reasons for differences in

suppliers’ performances are identified, and performances of the suppliers are

improved by applying supplier development programs.

CHAPTER III

3.1 STUDY OF EXSITING SYSTEM

Whenever a new order comes for products, it goes through different departments and some

value addition is done at each department. Each department process the order, does its

corresponding task, review it and send it to the next department in the hierarchy. If in the

review, some error is caught, it again assigns the task to the same department. If the error is

caused for some previous departments in the hierarchy, it returns it back to that previous

department.

The following step are using a product complete

1. Order placed by purchase department- This department order taken by marketing

department how much products we produces.

2. Store & PPC- All types of raw material are stored in the stores. Castings, forgings,

plastics, rubber, hardware, chemicals and items for Maintenance are kept in the stores.

Production planning and co-ordination (PPC) with the respective shop have done by

PPC.

3. Quality assurance is carried out at the incoming material stage, in process

manufacturing stage and the final assembly stage. Inspection at the various stages is

done against relevant quality standards, Process data sheets and drawings/

specifications.

4. In house production consists more departments like generator shop, m/c shop, paint

shop, welding shop etc.

5. Assembly shop consists of conveyorised 4-Stroke lines where 4-Stroke generators are

assembled respectively.

The following are the major parameters tested in assembly shop by Quality

Assurance –

a. Frequency

b. Voltage at no load and rated load

c. Current at no load and rated load

d. Starting and stopping of generators / engines

e. Oil warning function

f. Abnormal sound

g. Aesthetics etc.

3.2 Quality Assurance Department

The work of QAD is focused, first of all, on preventing the claims from customers. In case of

receiving such claims on quality of provided products and services, the department starts

searching the reasons and effects of the revealed discrepancies. Quality Assurance means the

completion of a project in accordance with the previously agreed specification and

functionality required without defects and possible problems.

The BPSL at QAD is responsible for a set of procedures and processes which minimize

unintentional errors and occurrence of defective goods. Because of the importance of quality

assurance department, it takes the central role in structure of the enterprise.

At BPSL how to material inspection incoming quality (parts inspection)

a. RAW MATERIAL

Test certificates received from suppliers

b. PARTS / COMPONENTS

DEMENISONAL

Few selected in direct on line category based on minimum rejection

rates good quality in past.

Few parts selected to check as per specified inspection plans and

sampling.

Other parts selected to check as per specified inspection plans and

sampling.

Test certificates/reports are received from vendors for critical

components.

Visual inspection is done on most of the items.

Fitment verification are done where it is important.

Functional test done when considered necessary ie in electrical item.

Proper packing verified at the time of receipt.

c. SAMPLE INSPECTION

Done thoroughly as per drawing, standards and fitment, endurance performance

trials are carried out wherever it is necessary.

INSPECTION OF BOUGHT PARTS

Inspection activities are divided into 3 categories

DIRECT ON LINE COMPONENTS

A list of 90 selected components is enclosed which are passed directly. Only audit is

done time to time.

CONTROLLED COMPONENTS-

A list of 100 selected components is enclosed which are to be checked as per quality

standards.

OTHER COMPONENTS-

All components are only to be verified for quality parameters. There is no need of

specific inspection plan. Reports are not mandatory.

INSPECTION / AUDIT

The quality assurance department responsible for audit inspection on machine shop, welding shop, paint shop, and finally assembly shop.

A. Machine Shop

Components checked – Machined Castings & Forgings

e.g. 1. Crank Case

2. Crank Shaft etc.

Inspection reports generated -

First of Piece inspection report

Verification of In process Inspection Report

Daily Audit Report

Monthly Audit Report

Rejection reports (verified by QA)

Monitoring of rejections on monthly basis

Disposal of Non conforming parts –

Rejection sent to Rejection stores after QA verification

Verification and authorization of rework able material

Audit of scrap being sold / dispatched to scrap dealers

B. Paint Shop

Components checked – All painted items

e.g. Painted fuel tanks, Case Fan, Frame Assy., Air Shroud etc.

Inspection reports generated -

1. Daily audit report of painted parts

2. Titration of pre treatment chemicals e.g. point age of de greasing solution, de rusting

solution, phosphating solution etc.

3. Monitoring of paint shop conveyor speed and temperature of baking oven.

4. Salt spray testing of painted parts

5. Film thickness, pencil hardness testing, checker testing, gasoline resistance testing, alkali

resistance testing of painted parts

6. Rejection reports (verified by QA)

Disposal of non conforming parts-

Rejection sent to rejection store after QA verification

Verification and authorization of rework able material

3.2 PRODUCT STRUCTURE

Product structure is a hierarchical decomposition of a product, typically known as the bill of

materials (BOM). As business becomes more responsive to unique consumer tastes and

derivative products grow to meet the unique configurations, BOM management can become

unmanageable.

Advanced modelling techniques are necessary to cope with configurable products where

changing a small part of a product can have multiple impacts on other product structure

models. Concepts within this entry are all caps locked in order to indicate these concepts.

We know our products, so first we are making product structure of every product then find

out all products for how much components are required.

This product structure mainly depend BOM list of product.

First we make product structure for EG 2800.This is main structure of Birla Ecogen EG2800,

that is consume 335 component same structure I have make different subassembly.

Figure Product Structure

1. Engine Assembly (102)

Engine assembly one of the very important parts of the product so here these

subassembly using 102 types of components.

2. Generator Assembly (45)

This generator subassembly consists 45 types of components.

3. Control System Assembly (37)

Control system assembly mainly electrical type of components so it is using 37 types

of materials.

4. Fuel Tank Assembly (20)

This subassembly assembles very few components oil tank are here main materials.

5. Body or Hood(103)

6. Packing(14)

This product structure we find out which assembly parts of components maximum

rejected.

CHAPTER IV

4.1 DATA COLLECTION

Mainly these five products consume 543 type of component and this component supplied 126

vendors, so we make list vendor versus items. We have collected BOM list for every product.

We have collected product wise data how many components are required one product.

Listed every product how much component required.

S.No. Product Name

No. of Components

Required

1 Birla Ecogen EG 3000A 405

2 Birla Ecogen EG 2800A 335

3 Pump Set Birla Ecoshakti 225

(2WS2020K)

4 Multi-Purpose Engine 180K 218

5 Birla Ecogen EG 700 278

We have collected last six month data for how much component lots are coming then how

many components lots inspection in rejected.

Month

Items lots

come Rejected

April 1367 38

May 1245 41

Jun 1456 60

July 1345 57

August 1132 32

Sep. 1235 47

4.2 METHODOLOGY

First we are doing pareto analysis at QAD all types components of supplied by the supplier,

So we can determine which supplier supplied poor quality materials.

Pareto analysis: Pareto Analysis is a statistical technique in decision making that is used for

the selection of a limited number of tasks that produce significant overall effect. It uses the

Pareto Principle (also known as the 80/20 rule) the idea that by doing 20% of the work you

can generate 80% of the benefit of doing the whole job. Or in terms of quality improvement,

a large majority of problems (80%) are produced by a few key causes (20%). This is also

known as the vital few and the trivial many.

First we pareto analysis for final product, In this analysis we seen which product demand

more in market.

In this table we show which product consists number of components,

Model Name No. of Set Sold

Fre. No. of Set Sold

Cumm. No. of Set

SoldEG700 1103 26.94 26.94EG2800A 760 18.78 45.72EG3000A 735 18.16 63.88EG2000A 514 12.70 76.58Multi-Purpose Engine 180K

345 8.52 85.11

EGD15EICA1 266 6.57 91.68EGD5LDMM 1 Portable 232 5.73 97.41Pump Set Ecoshakti (2WS2020K)

139 3.43 100.00

First we make pareto chart for rejection of items lots,

S.NO. Items Name&Model Total Fre.of

lot(%)

Cum.Fre.of

lot (%)

1 ARM GOVERNER 76T 28 15.135 15.135

2 CRANK CASE CASTING 76T 18 9.730 24.865

3 PISTON All GRADE 17 9.189 34.054

4 CAM SHAFT FINISH 76R 15 8.108 36.216

5 CAM SHAFT FINISH 76T 14 7.568 49.730

6 ARM GOVERNER 76R 13 7.027 56.757

7 CAM SHAFT FOR 700K 11 5.946 62.703

8 ARM GOVERNOR 76U 9 4.865 67.568

9 All Piston rings 9 4.865 72.432

10CONNECTING ROD J/W

FINISHED 700K8 4.324 76.757

11 COLLER(76R 1917) 6 3.243 80.000

12 CRANK CASE CASTING 76R 6 3.243 83.243

13 GEAR RING 76TS 4 2.162 85.405

14 FORK GOVERNER 76R 4 2.162 87.568

15HEAD CYLINDER CASTING

76T4 2.162 89.730

16COVER CRANK CASE

CASTING 76T4 2.162 91.892

17CRANK CASE CASTING

700K3 1.622 93.514

18 PIPE EXHAUST BAR 3 1.622 95.135

19 PIPE EXHAUST - I (YB) 2 1.081 96.216

20 COVER CRANK CASE 1 0.541 96.757

CASTING 700K

21COVER CRANK CASE

CASTING 76R1 0.541 97.297

22CIRCUIT BREAKER DC 15 A

76M1 0.541 97.838

23 GEAR DRIVE 76R 1 0.541 98.378

24 GEAR DRIVE 76T 1 0.541 98.919

25 GEAR DRIVE FOR 700K 1 0.541 99.459

26 WIRE HARNESS FOR 700K 1 0.541 100.000

We can see here first 11 components lot rejection more from other components.

We make Pareto chart for vendor supplied lot rejection components, here we consist all

components supplied by vendor.

S.NO.

VENDOR

NAME

NO. OF SUPPLIED

ITEMS

FRE.OF

ITEMS(%)

CUM.FR.of

ITEMS(%)

1 RAXMECH IND. 13 10.16 10.16

2 GLIDE ENGG. 12 9.38 19.53

3

VENUS MFG.

CO.12 9.38 28.91

4

TABSONS

AUTO6 4.69

33.59

5

SUPER AUTO

ELE.5 3.91 37.50

6 MANU MOULD 5 3.91 41.41

7

UMRAO

PRECISION T.5 3.91 45.31

8

PARISHUDH

MACHINES4 3.13 48.44

9

SAMKRG

PISTONS4 3.13 51.56

10

SUNRISE

TOOLING4 3.13

54.69

11

KAPSONS

INDUSTRIES4 3.13 57.81

Poorest

Poor

12

SPIKE

CONTROL4 3.13 60.94

13 FRIENDS AUTO 4 3.13 64.06

14 ANIL TECHNO 3 2.34 66.41

15

STAR SINTER

D.A3 2.34 68.75

16

RAJA

FORGINGS3 2.34 71.09

17

SUPER AUTO

INDIA3 2.34 73.44

18

KUNDAN

INDUSTRIAL3 2.34 75.78

19

PEE CEE

CASTING3 2.34 78.13

20

CHAND

INDUSTRY3 2.34 80.47

21 ARKEY ENGG. 3 2.34 82.81

22

JAY CEE

STEELS

GHAZIABAD

3 2.34 85.16

23 SENS IND. 3 2.34 87.50

24

RUBBER

UDYOG VIKAS3 2.34

89.84

25

NATIONAL

ENGINEERING2 1.56 91.41

Fair

26 ELETROSPARK 2 1.56 92.97

27

AUTO MATE

PRODUCT2 1.56 94.53

28

DYNAMIC

INDIAN2 1.56 96.09

29

UCAL FUEL

SYSTEM LTD2 1.56 97.66

30 SUPER ALLOY 1 0.78 98.44

31 MAHEE ENGG. 1 0.78 99.22

32

BIRLA

ACCUCAST

LTD

1 0.78 100.00

This pareto chart based we consider three major categories of vendor make categories of

vendors, this categories are following.

1. Poorest supplied items lots

a. Raxmech Ind.

b. Glide Engg.

c. Venus MFG. Co.

2. Poor supplied items lots

a. Tabsons Auto.

b. Super Auto ELE.

c. Manu Mould

d. Umaro P. Recision T.

e. Samkrg Pistons.

f. Sunrise Tooling.

g. Kapsons Industries

h. Spike Control

i. Friends

3. Fair items supplied lots

a. Anil techno.

b. Star Sinter D.A.

c. Raja Forging

d. Super Auto India

e. Kundan Industrial

f. Pee Cee Casting

g. Chand Industrial

h. Arkey Engg.

i. Jay Cee Steels

j. Sens. Ind.

k. Rubber Udyog Vikas.

This categories based we found why items lots are many time rejected.

Poorest Performance categories

In this categories components are some special specification are required like

components of hardness, surface roughness, specification performance, fitment

problem, co-ordination of hole, and other dimensional like height, width

Poor performance categories

These categories components are fitment problem, clean or unclean problem, height

and width of components big or small.

Fair performance categories

These categories component main problem fitment

4.3 FUTER WORK

We have done only data analysis of rejection components and identify why components are

rejected. Our next phase we will make cause and effect diagram for every rejected

components. Also use some special tool for quality improvement of items lot rejections.

REFERNCES

1. Everett E. Adam and S. Thomas Foster (2000), “Quality improvement approach and

performance: multisite analysis within a firm”, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 5, pp.

144-158.

2. Ding-zhong Feng, Lei-lei Chen and Mei-xian Jiang(2000) “Vendor Selection in Supply Chain

System: an Approach Using Fuzzy Decision and AHP”, Journal of Integrated Supply

Manugenrent.1(1), pp. 64-78,

1. S. Balamurali, Chi-Hyuck Jun (2006), “Multiple dependent state sampling plans for lot

acceptance based on measurement data”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.

180, pp.1221-1230.

2. Edward P. Markowski, Carol A. Markowski(2002), “improved attribute acceptance sampling

plans in the presence of misclassification error”, European Journal of Operational Research,

Vol.139, pp. 501-510.

3. P.k. Humphreys, W.L. Li, L.Y. Chan (2003), “The impact of supplier development on buyer-

supplier performance”, The International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 32, pp. 131-

143.

4. Samuel B.Graves, David C. Murphy, Jeffrey L. Ringuest (2000), “Acceptance sampling and

reliability: the tradeoffs between component quality and redundancy”, Journal of Computer

Science & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 38, pp. 79-91.

5. Chung-Chi Hsieh, Yu-Te Liu(2009), “Quality investment and inspection policy in a supplier-

manufacturer supply chain”, European journal of Operational Research, Vol.202, pp. 717-

729.

6. Zeger Degraeve, Eva Labro and Filip Roodhooft (2003), “An evaluation of vendor selection

models from a total cost of ownership perspective”, European Journal of Operational

Research, vol. 125, pp.34-58.

7. William Ho, Xiaowei Xu, and Prasanta K. Dey (2010), “Multi-criteria decision making

approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review”, European Journal of

Operational Research vol. 202, pp.16–24.

8. Ashutosh Sarkar and Pratap K.J. Mohapatra (2006), “Evaluation of supplier capability and

performance: A method for supply base reduction”, Journal of Purchasing & Supply

Management vol.12, pp.148–163.

9. L.B. Forker (2003), “Factors affecting supplier quality performance”, Journal of Operations

Management vol.15, pp. 243-269.

10. Andreas Eggert and Wolfgang Ulaga (2010), “Managing customer share in key supplier

relationships”, International Journal of Industrial Marketing Management vol.67, pp.123-

133.

11. Qing Caoa and QiongWang (2006), “Optimizing vendor selection in a two-stage outsourcing

process”, Journal of Computers & Operations Research vol.34, pp. 3757 – 3768.

12. Douglas K. Macbeth (1996), “The role of purchasing in a partnering relationship”, European

Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management vol (1), pp. 19-25.

13. Ceyhun Araz and Irem Ozkarahan (2007), “Supplier evaluation and management system for

strategic sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure”, International Journal of

Production Economics vol.(106) pp.585–606.

14. Zhiying Liaoa and Jens Rittscherb (2007), “Integration of supplier selection, procurement lot

sizing and carrier selection under dynamic demand conditions”, International Journal

Production Economics vol.107 pp.502–510.

15. Gary L. Holstrum and James E. Hunton (1996), “New Forms of Assurance Services for New

Forms of Information: The Global Challenge for Accounting Educators”, International

Journal of Accounting, Vol. 33, pp. 347-358.

16. Linda L. Stanleya and Joel D. Wisnerb (2002), “The determinants of service quality: issues

for purchasing”, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management vol.8, pp. 97–109.

17. Henrik Brandes (2001), ”Strategic change in purchasing”, European Journal of Purchasing

and Management vol. 11(2), pp.77-87.

18. Cees J. Gelderman, and Janjaap Semeijn (2006), “Managing the global supply base through

purchasing portfolio management”, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management vol.12, pp.

209–217.

19. Kyle A. Crawford and Osama K. Eyada (1998), “A Knowledge-based Decision Support Tool

to Increase the Effectiveness of Purchased Material Quality Verifications”, Journal of

Computers science and industrial engineering Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 415-421.

20. Chih-Hsiung Wang, Tadashi Dohi and W.C.Tsai (2010), “Coordinated

procurement/inspection and production model under inspection errors”, Journal of Computers

Science & Industrial Engineering vol.59, pp. 473–478.

21. Javier Gonza´lez-Benitoa, Angel R. Martı´nez-Lorente and Barrie G. Dale (2002), “A study

of the purchasing management system with respect to total quality management”, Journal of

Industrial Marketing Management vol.32, pp. 443– 454.

22. Ajay Das and Robert B. Handfield (2000), “A meta-analysis of doctoral dissertations in

purchasing”, Journal of Operations Management vol.15, pp. 101-121.

23. Najla Aissaouia, Mohamed Haouaria and Elkafi Hassinib (2007), “Supplier selection and

order lot sizing modeling: A review”, Journal of Computers & Operations Management,

vol.34, pp. 3516 – 3540.

24. Tony Lin and Michael D. Holbrook (1998), “Reliability Demonstration Test and OC Curves

for Attribute Data”, Journal of Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 20, pp. 1-16.

25. Jonathan Moules (2009), “Suffering material losses from imports”, Financial Times,

News Jul 18, 2009,  pg. 29.

26. Auguston and Karen A . (1999), “Vendor Partnering Pays Off for Pillsbury”, Modern

Materials Handling. Boston, Vol. 47, Iss. 9; pp. 47-51.

27. C.S. Tapiero, Yield and control in a supplier customer relationship (2001), International

Journal of Production Research, vol.39 (7), pp. 1505-1515.

28. Franka Piskar, (2006). Quality audits and their value added. International Journal of Services

and Standards, 2(1).

29. Freiesleben, J. (2004), “On the Limited Value of Cost of Quality Models” Total Quality

Management, 15(7), pp. 959–969.

30. Fugee Tsung (2000), “Impact of Information Sharing on Statistical Quality Control” IEEE

Transactions on Systems, Man And Cybernetics—Part A: Systems And Humans, 30(2).

31. Gionata Carmignani (2008), “Modified QFD and Problem-solving Techniques Integrated

Approach Implementing Corrective Actions: A Case Study in an Italian Manufacturing

Plant”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International (2008), DOI: 10.1002/qre.967.

32. John L. Reffett(2000), “A Vendor-Customer Relation to Improve Product Quality”, AT&T Bell

Laboratories.

33. Jacques Bhasshini (1993), “Perturbational aspects in correspondence analysis”,

Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, vol. 15, pp. 393-410.