1
Continuous Improvement Project: Overall Equipment Effectiveness Improvement in Horlicks Manufacturing Value Stream
ASQ South Asia Team Excellence Award (SATEA), 2018
Site: Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, India
1
Note: 1) All the financial figures are mentioned in the British Pound (GBP) units. 2) Business confidential information is not produced during the course of the
presentation
Section 0: Organizational Infrastructure
In this section, we will cover the Site information. This will
include:
• Site capacity details
• Technology used
• Major products manufactured
• Certifications.
We will then cover the details of the Operational Excellence
Model at GSK.
2
2
3
Products
Plant :
Operations start : 1973
Land Area : 50
acres
Construction area : 10 acres
Operations :
Capacity : 43 KT
Operation : 24 X 7
Technology : Tray Drying
Employee :
Permanent employees : 870
Temporary employees : 172
Contractor Employees : 400
Safety
Environmen
t
Quality
Food
Safety
ISO
Site Information
395
382 372
360
380
400
2015 2016 2017
Opex / Ton (GBP)
4
The GSK Production System
The GSK Production System (GPS)
0.18 0.20
0.04
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
2015 2016 2017
RIIR
5.42
4.00
1.62
0
2
4
6
2015 2016 2017
Manufacturing Deviations %
Safety Quality Cost
3
Section 1: Project Background and Purpose
In this section, we will discuss how GSK ‘does’ project
planning, project identification and selection
(prioritization)
We will then cover specifics of why this project was
picked along with Goals, Benefits and Success
Measures. (Timing will be discussed later.)
5
1.01 Organizational Approach to Project Planning
Key Business Drivers
Benchmark Last Year Performance &
Financial Updates
Set Direction
And Inspire
I am clear on my site
strategy
I coach and help
leaders to drive CIFs
aligned to site
strategy and wastes
CIF
Step One
Goal
translation
Step Two
Current state
opportunities
Step Three
Next target
condition
Step Four
Execution and
problem
solving
` `
GT CC NTC PS Cycle GT CC NTC PS Cycle GT CC NTC PS Cycle GT CC NTC PS Cycle
GT CC NTC PS Cycle GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles
GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles
GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles
ACT HERE
GT CC NTC PS Cycles GT CC NTC PS Cycles
Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus :
Leader: Jody GPS: Lukasz Leader: David GPS: Rayan Leader: Simon GPS: Shane
Leader: Kirk GPS: Stephen
Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2
Drive to engaging
safety cul ture in 2016 &
reduce reportable from
6 to 4
Reduce deviations from
2400 to 1920 in 2016
Del iver a P&L
improvement of £18m
(from £53M loss to
£35m) in 2016
Del iver a 50% reduction
in finished pack cycle
time ( 30 to 7 day
s tretch in tabs pack) in
2016
Leader: Anna GPS: Alli
Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2
From 30 LIR & nRFT per
month to 15 per month
by end Q2
Drive cycle time to 7
days in tab pack year
end
1. Independent PS for PDCA
cycles
2. Driving problems to so lution
by Oms
3. Zone understanding of real
issues & levers
Kaizen event to resolve
EM by End Q2
Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus :
Improve recoveries from
£125k / wk to £165k per
week in April, £205k in May
& £210 in June
25 deviations per week
to 7 deviations per
week by 30th June
Move from £107k
recoveries / wk to £112
k recoveries / wk (SM) &
£69k / wk to £96k / wk
(SP)
El iminate PCCE, Rogues
& HVAC
Deliver P&L improvement
of £4.8m in 2016
Del iver safe day
Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2
Leader: Carlo GPS: Lukasz Leader: Marc GPS: Lukasz Leader: Amr GPS: Rayan Leader: Mark GPS: Matt
From 19000 per shi ft to
35000 per shi ft
From 6.1 per week to < 3
per week by June
From 31.2 bx per week
to 35 bx per week
El iminate PCCE &
Implement HVAC CAPA
372 bottles per week to
620 by end Q2
El iminate Rogues &
Implement HVAC CAPA
Priori ty Improvement 1
Leader: Robin GPS: Rayan Leader: Emma GPS: AlliLeader: Gary GPS: Lukasz Leader: Sophie GPS: Shane
Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2
Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus :
Drive cycle time to 7
days in tab pack by year
end
1. rapid problem solving
capabilities in TLs & techs
2. P lanning capabilities in TLs
3. create improvement
framework & structured plan
Problem solving capability 1. rapid problem solving
capabilities in TLs
2. TLs to be able to identify &
drive problem solving
Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus :
Move to an engaging
safety cul ture
Reduce MUV from
£0.88m to £0.06m
From 600k pack to 900K
pack run rate by end
May
Reduce MUV from £1.2
to £0.5m & COPQ from
£2.4 to £1m
From 30 LIR & nRFT per
month to 15 per month
by end Q2
Suspens ions lead time
from 28 to 10 by year
end
From 3.8 bxs of blend
YTD to 9 bx in may to 11
bx in June
From 7.5 per week to < 3
per week by June
x to y by:
Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus :
Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus :
Leader: GPS: Alli Leader: Greg GPS: Alli
Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2 Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2
Leader: Tracy GPS: Al l i
Priori ty Improvement 1 Priori ty Improvement 2
x to y by: x to y by:
Capabi l i ty Focus : Capabi l i ty Focus :
Cycle time 28 days to 10
by year end
x to y by: x to y by:
Improve X to Y by Z
•Translate the site goal into a meaningful team goal• Defining the right lagging KPIs for the PM system
•Improve the visual control that is relevant to the current improvement cycle
Team Goals & Challenge
P
D
A
C
P
D
A
C
P
D
A
C
Xxxxxx
• A simple description of what the team will see in place (the deliverables) as the next step towards achieving their target(s).
• These will be the team’s indication of success - the team
propose that by focusing on these deliverables they will positively impact their target(s)
• This next step is realistic in scope, but significant – so that the team can quickly gain momentum, confidence & capability in making improvement, and recognise real progress.
• Define the next target condition and leading indicators./ KPIs.
Xxxxxx
•Using LSW to understanding of the current conditions
•Engage and interview key people in scope, including FLLS and team members•Quickly walk their areas to see the location, processes and
products•Take a coach, peer or subject matter expert along to get an
additional perspective•Compare findings to personal experience and available benchmarks
•Consider the 4Ms & 7 Wastes•Building understanding of the obstacles and opportunities
Current State
Next Target Condition
Problems to Solve
Improvement Framework
Xxxxxx
•What critical, few problems will need to be solved to put the
NTC deliverables into place?•The problems must be expressed as good problem statements,
to provide a good starting point for effective problem solving. Include the problem situation plus the impact.•To demonstrate effective problem solving closure, the site will
need a visible system for managing the steps of problem solving to the point of confirmed closure.
Site Challenge:
Improvement Owner:
Improvement Leader:
Start Date:
Align & Assign
CI Frameworks & GwP
I COACH AND HELP LEADERS TO DRIVE CIFs
ALIGNED TO SITE STRATEGY AND WASTES IN
SYSTEM
Strategy Map
Align and Assign – Continuous Improvement Framework (CIF)
VSM and Waste Mapping
I know the wastes
in site processes
and challenge site
to improve
VSM & Waste Mapping Approach
Select Product & Agree VSM
Scope
Map Out theCurrent State& Gather Data
Analyse &Identify
ImprovementOpportunities
Map Out theFuture State& Expected
Impact
SufficiencyCheck &
ImprovementPlan
Value Stream Maps
Annual Improvement Plan
Raw Materials & Inputs
Process
3
Process
8I I I
Supplier
Logistics Weekly
Planning (OFM)
Forecast
Warehouse /
Good In Store
Distribution
Supply Review(Forecasting)
Global SCRM
Order Profile
VA Days
NVA Days
VA Days
NVA Days
VA Days
NVA Days
VA Days
I
Actual L/T
Planned L/T
Plan C/T
Actual C/T
ATS = XX%
EE = XX%
C/O P vs A
Yield = XX%
RFT = X%
No. Bxs or Kg
Value £’s
Available Kg
Min/Max Kg
No. Bxs or Kg
Value £’s
Available Kg
Min/Max Kg
No. Bxs or Kg
Value £’s
Available Kg
Min/Max Kg
I
Test & OQ
Labs C/T
Labs Actual
Labs RFT
OQ C/T
OQ Actual
OQ RFT
3
Test & OQ
Labs C/T
Labs Actual
Labs RFT
OQ C/T
OQ Actual
OQ RFT
5
Plan C/T
Actual C/T
ATS = XX%
EE = XX%
C/O P vs A
Yield = XX%
RFT = X%
Priority Improvement Targets
KPI X to Y When Who
D2D
WIP
C/O
Dev
RFT
Yield
I understand
the lean tools
& principles
Use of productivity guides and lean toolI UNDERSTAND THE LEAN TOOLS & PRINCIPLES
07/11/2017The GPS Town Hall 7
Lean Tools
4
1.02 – 1.03 Project Identification and Selection Process (General)
7
(1/4)
1.02 – 1.03 Project Identification and Selection Process (General)
8
(2/4)
5
1.02 – 1.03 Project Identification and Selection Process (General)
9
(3/4)
1.02 – 1.03 Project Identification and Selection Process (General)
10
(4/4)
Leader Standard Work
Planned time for reactive and procative elements
6
1.04 Project Selection Process (Specific)
11
Project PVSK SR VMK MG SMK Score Electricity
reduction10 7 7 9 7 40
OEE
Improvement 9 10 9 10 9 47
Condensate
Recovery6 9 10 7 9 41
Yield
improvement 8 8 10 8 10 44
Reduction in
water
consumption
7 5 6 5 8 31
Changeover time
reduction5 6 5 6 5 27
IPT CI Title Dept
Performance Improve OEE from 79 % to 83 % Mfg.
PerformanceImprove Yield by 10% i.e. from 1331 kg to 1342 kg
by Oct’18. Mfg.
PerformanceReduce Electricity units by 20% i.e. from 131 Lac
units to 118 Lac units by Sep'18.Eng.
PerformanceImprove condensate recovery from 70% to 78% by
Aug’18.Eng.
PerformanceReduce water consumption by 3% i.e. from 850
KL/day to 700 KL/day by Sep'18.EHS
PerformanceReduce dry side changeover time by 25% i.e. from
24hr to 18hr by Sep’18.GPS
TrustImprove ppk value of pH across all the products to
1 by Dec'18.Tech.
TrustImprove ppk value of Ash / FPT across all the
products to 1 by Dec'18.Tech.
TrustReduce repeat deviations by 30% i.e. from 55 to
39 by Oct’18.QA
TrustReduce foreign matter contamination issues by
50% i.e. from 24 to 12 by Nov'18.QA
Trust Improve DI Score in QRM from 62 to 70 by Sep'18. QA
TrustReduce RIV on pest infestation issues in GMP
section from 16 to 9 by Nov'18.QA
TrustImprove bottom three factors GSK survey score by
10% by Sep'18HR
Trust
Improve site capability improvement > 10 % /
technical capability score of MES from 80% to
85% by Nov’18.
HR
Trust
Reduction of workplace transport red risks by
100% i.e. from 10 red risks to amber risks by
Dec'18.
EHS
TrustReduction of electrical safety red risks by 100%
i.e. from 4 red risks to amber risks by Nov'18.Eng.
TrustImprove PTW & LOTO compliance from 85% to
95% by Oct'18.EHS
TrustImprove ppk value of SEE Cycle time across all the
products to 1 by Dec'18.Tech.
TrustImprove ppk value of SEE Solids Percentage across
all the products to 1 by Dec'18.Tech.
Site Transformational Goals- Impacting most
of Business CTQs
Identify Key Projects/Continuous Improvement
Frameworks(CIFs) to Achieve the
Transformational Goals
Ca
tch
ba
ll &
Assig
n
Resp
on
sib
ility
Funneling down the project through Effort/Impact Analysis North
Star/Wildly
important
Goal
Commitment
l
>5% Improvement in Technical capability of the
site l l m m m m l m m m m m
l >60 GPS Maturity Score with CI Framework l m m m m m m m m l m
l Sustenance of FLL Framework l l m m m m m l m m l m
l Engagement Score & Diversity l l
l
l In place in use of Site Learning Zone l m m m m m l m m m m m
l Commercialize 2 new blends from Site l m m m m m m m m m m l
l 20% Reduction in OPEX cost/kg l m m m m m m l m m m m
Part B Commercialization at Site by 2018 l l m m m m m m m m m m
l
Reduction in Utilities Buying Cost & Rationalize
Contracts with a saving of ~ 4.0 Cr by Q4
2017l m m l m m m m m m m m
l
Energy Cost Reduction by 5% at Site
Limit Energy Consumption to (+1.6%)l m l m m m m m m m m m
l 15% Reduction in Cost of Poor Quality l l m m l m m m m m m m
l
Reduce Overall Inventory as per target
(RM, Bulk, PM, Spares,Fuel)l m m m m m m m l m m m
l
Drive efficiencies (AR&PR & Yield) in VBD
stream to an OEE of 86 % by Dec'2017 (with an
aspiration of 87%)
l l l m m m m m m m m m m
l
Drive efficiencies (AR&PR & Yield) in SD stream
to an OEE of 81% (with an aspiration of 83%)l l l m m m m m m m m m m
l 95% Conformance to plan l l m m m m l m m m
l 90% Conformance to Release l l l m m l m m m m m
l
Improve Process Capability of Critical CPPs viz
Whey Powder Dispensing; Mash Bath 2
temperature SD, IFBD Air Temperature, EFBD 1-
2 Air temperature PpK >1
l m m m m m m l
l
Improve Process Capability of Critical IPC &
CQAs viz Finamul dispensing; Mash & Mix pH in
both streams >3 sigma
l l m m m m m m
l
Reduce deviation rate by 17% and repeat
deviations by 10% l l m m m l m m m
l
Enhance focus on renewable energy
(including biomass substitution) water efficiency
& recharge through Community Partnership
l l m l m m m m m m
l
Reduce First Aid & MTIs through employee
engagementl l l m m m m l m m m m m m
Bui
ld T
echn
ical
and
Pro
blem
sol
ving
capa
bilit
y to
driv
e pe
rfor
man
ce a
t site
Eng
agem
ent f
or P
erfo
rman
ce -
Dev
elop
men
t
& D
eplo
ymen
t of L
ocal
eng
agem
ent s
trat
egy
Tra
nsf
orm
to
Mu
ltip
le p
rod
uct
fac
ility
Red
uce
OP
EX
/kg
co
st b
y 20
% b
y 20
17
(fro
m R
s 50
/kg
to
Rs
40/k
g)
OE
E im
pro
vem
ent
in b
oth
VB
D &
SD
stre
ams
by
6 %
On
time
Man
ufac
turin
g &
Rel
ease
of B
atch
es
Red
uct
ion
of
Pro
du
ce n
o D
efec
ts b
y 17
%
ove
r 20
16
Lim
it C
arbo
n em
issi
on t
o 1.
7% a
nd R
educ
e
Wat
er C
onsu
mpt
ion
by
2 %
Inci
den
t (F
A/L
TI/M
TI)
Red
uct
ion
by
30%
ove
r 20
16 Z
ero
maj
or
adve
rse
even
t
No.
of I
ncid
ents
at S
ite (8
)
ZA
P c
lose
d pe
r em
ploy
ee (
8 pe
r em
ploy
ee )
Beh
avio
ural
ZA
Ps
clos
ed p
er e
mpl
oyee
(3 p
er
empl
oyee
)
% A
dh
eren
ce to
Saf
ety
Pla
n
Tar
get
100
%
Lim
it C
O2
emis
sion
to +
1.7%
ove
r 201
6
Red
uctio
n of
wat
er b
y 2%
ove
r FY
2016
(Abs
olut
e
quan
tity
of w
ater
con
sum
ed/ m
onth
)
"P
rod
uce
No
Def
ect"
to 4
.73%
10%
redu
ctio
n in
Rep
eat D
evia
tions
(Bas
elin
e in
Q1
2016
)
PpK
>1
for V
BD
WP
Dis
pens
ing,
Fin
amul
Dis
pens
ing,
EF
BD
Tem
pera
ture
, Mas
h B
ath
2 te
mpe
ratu
re S
D,
IFB
D A
ir T
empe
ratu
re, M
ash
& M
ix p
H
95%
Con
form
ance
to V
olum
e
90%
Con
form
ance
to R
elea
se
95%
Con
form
ance
to P
lan
OE
E im
pro
vem
ents
fro
m c
urr
ent l
evel
to
81%
in
SD
OE
E im
pro
vem
ents
fro
m c
urr
ent l
evel
to
86%
in
VB
D
Yie
ld im
pro
vem
ent i
n S
D s
trea
m to
368
0 kg
/bat
ch
Yie
ld im
pro
vem
ent i
n V
BD
str
eam
to 1
170k
g/b
atch
Inve
ntor
y at
Site
Tar
get I
NR
40.
3 C
r
Red
uctio
n in
Cos
t of P
oor Q
ualit
y (1
5%)
(Abs
olut
e va
lue
of C
OP
Q)
Co
st in
volv
ed in
En
erg
y C
on
sum
ptio
n
(Co
st S
avin
g 3
.2C
r)
Uti
litie
s B
uyi
ng
Co
st s
avin
gs
(INR
Cr)
Hor
licks
Par
t B M
anuf
actu
ring
at S
ite b
y 20
18
OP
EX
/kg
at s
ite (2
0% R
edu
ctio
n a
gai
nst
pla
n)
No
. of C
om
mer
cial
Ble
nd
s (T
arg
et 4
)
SLZ
Util
izat
ion
Sco
re (
100%
)
Em
ploy
ee E
ngag
emen
t Sco
re (
75%
)
Div
ersi
ty H
iring
(20
)
5% Im
prov
emen
t in
FLL
Cap
abili
ty
Site
FLL
90%
Adh
eren
ce to
Lea
der
Sta
ndar
d
Wor
k
100%
SLT
& S
LT-1
com
plet
ed e
xecu
tion
of 1
CI
Fra
mew
ork
with
mul
tiple
pro
blem
sol
ving
cyc
les
% Im
prov
emen
t in
Site
Tec
hnic
al C
apab
ility
(>
5%
over
201
6)
R S
reed
har
Par
deep
Kum
ar
Dee
pak
Pur
i
Nav
deep
Kum
ar M
onga
Roh
it Ja
in
Man
pree
t Sod
hi
Kum
ar G
aura
v
Tap
as R
oy
Yuv
raj D
atta
Laba
nga
Bha
ttach
arya
Ris
hi C
haw
la
l Accident reduction and Zero major adverse event
lFocused effort towards carbon neutrality, water reduction
and recharge enhancement
lQuality Improvement through PnD reduced to 3%
consistently throughout the period
Be the First choice of our customers by on time delivery
l lDeliver Cost Reduction in OPEX/kg from Rs 50/kg- Rs
30/kg
lMake Site Flexible to utilize 100% of available
production days
l lDevelop highly capable team to deliver best in class
efficiency and quality of product
RAJAHMUNDHRY ANNUAL STRATEGY 2018
OWNER - Sreedhar Routh (Site Director)
m Secondary Responsibility
l Primary Responsibility
Resources
RAJAHMUNDHRY -Mother Strategies -
2018
Strategic Target / Metrics - 2018
RAJAHMUNDHRY - True North 2018-20
RAJAHMUNDHRY -True North
- 2018
Strategy Map X- Matrix
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Imp
act
Effort
PICK Chart
Implement
Possible
Challenge
Kill
1.05 Project Goals and Benefits
12
Priority Project Goals UOM Target (Current State to Desired State)
Gap / Benefit
Innovation Capacity Enhancement KT 32 to 40 8 KT
Performance
Cost Savings kGBP 0 to 700 700 kGBP
Availability Rate % 88.3 to 91.5 3.2% Performance Rate % 90.5 to 94 3.5% Quality Rate % 98.8 to 99 0.2%
Trust
Conformance to Plan % 90 to 95 5% Conformance to Volume
% 92 to 95 3%
Conformance to Release
% 89 to 95 6%
7
1.06 Success Measures/Criteria Identified
13
Identified Success Measures: 1. Increased OEE & Reduced Operational expenditures. 2. 100% adherence to the GSK’s change control procedure while incorporating any type of change
and modification in the process, resources and materials.
3. Project should get completed with in 5% deviation of the project schedule.
4. Project should get completed with in the planned financial & resource requirements.
Identified Counter Metrics:
S.No. Counter / Consequence Metrics Target
1 Total Manufacturing Deviations < 2%
2 Average Water Consumption 700 KL / day
3 Material Yield 99%
4 Reportable Safety Incidents zero
Section 2: Project Framework
In this section, we will cover almost all project ‘charter’
information that was not already discussed, including:
1. A formal Project Statement
2. Type of Project
3. A Scope Statement
4. Assumptions and Expectations
5. Project Schedule
6. Resource & Financial Budget and
7. Risk Management Concerns
14
8
Project Framework / Charter
15
2.01 Concise Project Statement
16
The current condition of the Overall Equipment Effectiveness
(OEE) at Oven Operations (Bottleneck area) of Direct Value
Stream is at 79 % by the end of 2016. The desired future
state is to achieve OEE of 85 % by Dec'17 at Oven
Operations. The gap is to achieve 8 % improvement in OEE
of Direct Value Stream.
9
2.02 Type of Project
17
This project used a four step Continuous Improvement Framework (CIF) developed
by GSK.
Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal.
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities.
Step 3: Define the Next Target Condition.
Step 4: Solve the Critical Few problems.
GSK has developed its own production system (GPS) for achieving Zero Accidents,
Zero Defects & Zero Wastes. GPS has been used across all sites in the world for
dealing continuous improvement projects by using one of its standard called
Continuous Improvement Framework.
Basis for type of Project Methodology used
Transformational Goals Tactical Implementation Plan
Step Change in Systems contributing to Site Objectives
Continuous Improvement Framework (CIFs)
Capital expenditure is requirement CAPEX Project
Recurring issues at shop floor 6 Step Problem Solving
2.03 Scope Statement
18
S.No. In Scope Out of Scope / Limitations
1 All Horlicks Commercial Variants manufactured at Rajahmundry Site.
R&D Trial products and Non-commercial products
2 OEE at Oven Operations which is a bottleneck area.
OEE at Mashing section, Evaporation , Grinding and Mixing Section
3 Product manufactured at all three shifts.
4 OEE is considered for the existing 54 ovens New Ovens under trial phase
5 Unavailability of utilities is considered as breakdown loss (Equipment availability)
6 Non availability of the Malt (other than breakdown) is considered as performance loss
7 Quality defects are considered for Horlicks Commercial Variants
R&D Trial products and Non-commercial products
10
2.04 Assumptions / Expectations
19
1. For any modification or changes, appropriate funding to be provided by the Site
Leadership team.
Approver: Site director has approved for the same while signing project charter.
2. In-process parameters data on every shift to be collected as per the agreed method. In-
process parameters include Food per tray, Oven No. of Charging's, Oven Cycle time, No.
of Ovens operated, Solids Percentage and the CpK should be improved/ maintained.
Approver: Project Lead himself being the Manufacturing lead will ensure the same.
2.05 Project Schedule / High level Plan
20
Description Who 1/20 1/25 2/7 2/18 2/27 3/10 3/19 3/30 4/15 4/30 5/7 5/20 5/29 6/12 6/24 7/2 7/19 8/30
Team formation & Project charter preparation
PVSK
Step 1: Project Charter approval
SD
Step 2: Gemba Walk
Team
Step 2: Data Collection
Team
Step 2: Value Stream Map
Team
Step 2: Hypothesis formation & testing
Team
Step 3: Define the next target condition
Team
Step 4: PDCA Team
Step 4: Sustainability Measures
Team
Step 4: Sharing Lesson learn card
GPS Team
Repeat the cycle Team
11
2.06 Budget (Financial or Resource)
21
1. MIS people to collect the in-process parameters data on every shift as
per the agreed method.
2. All other resources are primarily workmen, operators and technicians
who will carry out their regular activities.
3. Approximate fabrication works for line modification is 1000 kGBP.
2.07 Risk Management
22
S.No. Risk Mitigation Approach
1
Risks are while carrying out modifications in the processes to improve the overall equipment effectiveness, there is always a possibility of potential quality and safety failures.
All changes / modifications in the process or process equipment will be routed only through GSK's Robust Change Control Procedure. Change control procedure will take care of quality, safety and compliance related issues before initiating the change.
2 Lack of resources and funds at the appropriate time will result in delay of the project schedule.
Key resource requirement and funds requirement are discussed and agreed before finalizing the project charter and are included in the project charter. Approvals from Site Director, Finance lead and HR Lead are taken in the form of signatures in project charter. The status of the resource and funds utilization are discussed during the regular tollgate reviews with the project champion.
12
Section 3: Project Stakeholders and the Project
Team • In this section, we will cover basic information
about our stakeholders: specifically our sponsor,
but also other stakeholders in general.
• We will then cover who was on the project team
and how they were prepared to work together as a
team, including team routines.
23
3.01 Stakeholders and How Identified
24
Suppliers Input Process Output Customers
1. Project Lead. 2. Team members. 3. GPS Coach 4. Project Sponsor 5. GSK Management
a) Benchmarking (with other sites)
b) Subject Matter Experts (1-3)
c) Training on GPS standards & other lean tools (3)
d) Continuous Improvement Framework process flow and methodology (3)
e) Site Leadership sponsorship and communication of the project (4-5)
A) Translate the site goal into a meaningful team goal.
B) Identify current state obstacles and opportunities.
C) Define the Next target condition.
D) Action plan for the critical few problems using PDCA methodology.
i) Cost savings (I – II) ii) Operational
Excellence / GPS culture. (III)
iii) Capability building on driving continuous improvement projects. (III)
iv) Sharing with other sites through lessons learned cards. (I – III)
I. Project Sponsor II. GSK Management III. ISC GPS Lead
Process Stakeholders include all value stream members: Manufacturing Lead
Quality & Assurance Lead
Engineering Lead
Human Resource Lead
Technical Lead
Environmental Health & Safety Lead
13
3.01 Stakeholders and How Identified
25
Stakeholder Project Impact
Level of Influence
Level of importance
Current attitude
Action Plan
Project Sponsor High 5 5 5 Continuous Collaboration meetings.
GSK Management Medium 5 3 3 Involving the stakeholders during reviews
Manufacturing Lead High 5 5 5 Project Lead.
QA Lead Medium 3 3 3 Continuous monitoring planned.
Engineering Lead High 3 5 3 Protecting & defending during interaction
HR Lead Medium 3 3 1 Continuous monitoring planned.
Technical Lead Low 3 3 3 Continuous monitoring planned.
EHS Lead Low 3 3 1 Continuous monitoring planned.
GPS Coach High 5 3 5 Involving the stakeholders during reviews
Scale for Level of influence / level of importance / current attitude 1 – Low 3 - Medium 5 - High
Stakeholder Analysis & Strategy
3.02 Project Champion
26
Who delivers What message To Whom By What method How often
Team leader Progress report Project sponsor Face-to-face presentation
Second Thursday of each month
Team leader Progress report Project sponsor Team members
E-mail Second Friday of each month
The director of the Rajahmundry site is the Project Sponsor /
Project Champion.
Communication Plan
14
3.03 Project Team Selection
27
Skills required
Man
ufa
ctu
rin
g Le
ad
Engi
nee
rin
g Le
ad
QA
Le
ad
HR
Le
ad
Tech
nic
al L
ead
Fin
ance
Lea
d
EHS
Lead
Understanding of Continuous Improvement Framework Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Understanding of 6 step problem solving methodology Y Y Y Y Y Y Y OEE Understanding Y Y Y N N N N
Understanding of Performance Management GPS Standard Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Lean Tools knowledge Y N N N N N N Technical & process skills and knowledge Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Gaps are identified in OEE Understanding & Lean Tools knowledge in few of the team members. Basis the
skill gaps, we have planned different training sessions on the required skills. We had also organized
refresher training sessions on all the skills before kickstarting the project.
3.04 Team Preparation
28 Project Kick-off meeting
Team Brainstorming
session Training on skills
requirement
Team Reward &
Recognition
Continuous improvement
framework
• Goal translation
• Analyze the current condition
• Hypothesis Testing
• Next target condition
• Coaching
6 Step Problem Solving Methodology
• Is/ Is not
• Process flow diagram
• SIPOC
• Cause and effect analysis
• 5 Why analysis
• Action prioritization
Performance management
• Analyze the chronic and sporadic problems
• Trend analysis
• Lead & Lag KPIs
OEE
• Basics of OEE calculation
• Capacity utilization
• Availability rate
• Performance Rate
• Quality Rate
• Losses
Lean Tools
• Value stream mapping
• 7 Wastes
• VA / NVA activities
TRAINING ON ABOVE TOOLS
Team
Lunch /
Dinner
15
3.05 Team Routines
29
• Leader Standard Work (LSW) which is one of the GPS standard is used in GSK for
daily team routines.
• As a mandatory requirement of GPS, every one has to spend at least 10% of their
week’s time on continuous improvement activities.
• Continuous improvement framework leaders will interlock their time with the team
members.
Team Routine Who By What Method How often
Project discussions & review Team Leader Team Members
Meetings Gemba Walk
Daily: A Shift – 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM B Shift - 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM
Progress report discussion Team Leader Project Sponsor
Face-to-face presentation
Second Thursday of each month
Progress report communication
Team Leader Project Sponsor Team Members
E-mail Second Friday of each month
Team evaluation with coach Team Members Coach
Face to face Fourth Thursday of each month
Lessons Learned card Team leader GSK Fraternity
E-mail, GPS knowledge base
Post-completing the project
Section 4: Project Overview
• In this section, we will cover details of how the
project was run. This will include:
• Project Approach
• Tools Used to Complete the Project
• Tool (Data) Output Needed for Decisions
• Team Preparation for Tool Usage
• Dealing with Project Risk
• Resistance as a Type of Risk
• Stakeholder Involvement in the Project
30
16
4.01 Project Approach
31
• As discussed in section 2.02, the project used a four step Continuous Improvement
Framework (CIF) developed by GSK.
Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal.
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities.
Step 3: Define the Next Target Condition.
Step 4: Solve the Critical Few problems using PDCA methodology.
• Steps 2,3 and 4 are repeated to progressively close the performance gaps via a
series of next target conditions and rapid improvement cycles.
4.01 Project Approach - Template
32
17
4.02 Tools Used Throughout Project
33
Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities
Step 3: Define Next Target Condition
Step 4: Solve the Critical Few Problems
SIPOC to capture process, interactions and stakeholders
GEMBA Walk to identify obstacles and opportunities
Lag & Lead KPIs to
monitor performance. PDCA to solve critical few problems
Stakeholder Analysis to prioritize stakeholders
Value Stream Mapping to identify wastes & NVA’s in the system.
6 Step Problem Solving Methodology to arrive at CAPA.
Benchmarking to establish the best performance for the given process
Analyze 4M to identify obstacles & opportunities w.r.to Man, Machine, Material & Method.
Ishikawa Diagram to identify potential causes
Communication Plan to communicate with all stakeholders
Hypothesis testing to test all the obstacles & opportunities
5 Whys to arrive at root causes
LSW interlocking to support and enhance team / meeting routines
Lessons Learned Cards to share lessons learned across GSK.
Project Charter as a formal contract between the Champion and GPS Coach
4.03 Tools Output at Different Stages of Project
34
Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities
Step 3: Define Next Target Condition
Step 4: Solve the Critical Few Problems
SIPOC: Stakeholders & interactions
GEMBA Walk: Obstacles & opportunities
Lag & Lead KPIs: Lag & Lead KPIs
PDCA: Methodology to solve problems
Stakeholder Analysis: Strategy & Importance
Value Stream Mapping: Wastes & NVA’s
6 Step Problem Solving Methodology: CAPA
Benchmarking: Best performance of other sites.
Analyze 4M: Obstacles & opportunities
Ishikawa Diagram: Potential causes
Communication Plan: Stakeholders communication
Hypothesis testing: Impact of identified obstacles & opportunities
5 Whys: Root causes
LSW interlocking: Team / meeting routines
Lessons Learned Cards: Sharing of lessons
Project Charter: Formal contract
18
4.04 How Team was Prepared to Use the Tools
35
• Gaps w.r.to usage of the tools
were identified for all the team
members as shown in the table.
(Before Training)
• Understanding & usage of tools
of the team members was
improved with an extensive
training approach.
• Site GPS team with an
experienced Black Belts &
Master Black Belts trained the
team through ‘teach’ and then
‘do and coach’ approach.
• Evaluations are done with after
the training questionnaires and
on the job exercises. The results
of after training are evident in the
table.
• Once in every six months, all the
team members will go through
the refresher training sessions
on Tools usage.
4.05 Dealing with Project Risk
36
• As discussed in section 2.07, the key project risk is while carrying out modifications in the processes to improve the overall equipment effectiveness, there is always a possibility of potential quality and safety failures. Mitigation approach: All changes / modifications in the process or process equipment will be
routed only through GSK's Robust Change Control Procedure. Change control procedure will take care of quality, safety and compliance related issues before initiating the change.
• The next anticipated risk was lack of resources and funds at the appropriate time will result in the
delay of the project schedule. Mitigation approach: Key resource requirement and funds requirement are discussed and
agreed before finalizing the project charter and are included in the project charter. Approvals from Site Director, Finance lead and HR Lead are taken in the form of signatures in project charter. The status of the resource and funds utilization are discussed during the regular tollgate reviews with the project champion.
19
4.06 Encountering and Handling resistance as a Risk
37
Project Step Type of Resistance How it was Identified How it was addressed
Step1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal
Conflict in agreeing to the scope of the project
Not agreeing on the stretched target
Catch ball session delivery target
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities
Data collection and analysis Delay in the data collection and analysis
Periodic reviews with Project sponsor & GPS Coach
Step 3: Define the Next Target Condition
NA NA NA
Step 4: Solve the Critical Few Problems
Delay in CAPA execution Postponing the execution of CAPA actions
Track all CAPA points through tiered accountability board and review it by owner and target date.
Addressing the Sustenance of the project
Action Sustenance Process confirmation by first line leaders in every shift.
4.07 Stakeholder Involvement in Project
38
Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities
Step 3: Define Next Target Condition
Step 4: Solve the Critical Few Problems
SIPOC: Team members
GEMBA Walk: Team members
Lag & Lead KPIs: Team members & GPS coach
PDCA: Team members
Stakeholder Analysis: Team members
Value Stream Mapping: Team members & GPS coach
6 Step Problem Solving Methodology: Team members
Benchmarking: Project Sponsor, GPS Coach & GSK Management
Analyze 4M: Team members
Ishikawa Diagram: Team members
Communication Plan: Team members & GPS Coach
Hypothesis testing: Team members & GPS coach
5 Whys: Team members
LSW interlocking: Team members & GPS Coach
Lessons Learned Cards: Team members & GPS coach
Project Charter: Team members, project sponsor, GPS coach & GSK management
20
Section 5: Project Walkthrough
• In this section, we will stage-by-stage walk through
the project and the specific tool output, showing how
each tool fed into the next and drove us to the
conclusions we reached.
• We will then review some ‘little detail’ such as project
Validation, Justification, and review of Results,
among other details.
39
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
40
Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities
Step 3: Define Next Target Condition
Step 4: Solve the Critical Few Problems
SIPOC: Stakeholders & interactions
GEMBA Walk: Obstacles & opportunities
Lag & Lead KPIs: Lag & Lead KPIs
PDCA: Methodology to solve problems
Stakeholder Analysis: Strategy & Importance
Value Stream Mapping: Wastes & NVA’s
6 Step Problem Solving Methodology: CAPA
Benchmarking: Best performance of other sites.
Analyze 4M: Obstacles & opportunities
Ishikawa Diagram: Potential causes
Communication Plan: Stakeholders communication
Hypothesis testing: Impact of identified obstacles & opportunities
5 Whys: Root causes
LSW interlocking: Team / meeting routines
Lessons Learned Cards: Sharing of lessons
Project Charter: Formal contract
Items in Green bold above are the General Tool
outputs. We will shortly walk through the
detailed tool results.
(1/26)
21
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
41
(2/26)
Over the next few
slides we will look
at the tools, tool
outputs, and
conclusions from
each of the four
project steps
Step 1 was mostly
covered in sections
2 to 4. It will be
briefly reviewed in
next few slides
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
42
(3/26)
Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal: SIPOC
22
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
43
(4/26)
Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal: Stakeholder Analysis
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
44
(5/26)
Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal: Benchmarking
• Internal benchmarking is done for the Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) with the other two sites operating with similar processes.
83.00% 82.00%
79.00%
76.00%
78.00%
80.00%
82.00%
84.00%
Site 1 Site2 Rajahmundry Site
OEE%
• Benchmarking reveals that Rajahmundry site is operating at the lowest OEE% among the Indian Sub Continent (ISC) sites. Hence, we have taken a stretched target of 85% to meet the best performance standards.
• Rajahmundry site goal for 2017 is to deliver 1.2 mGBP cost savings. Improving OEE from 79% to 85% will result in a savings of 700 kGBP which itself is a 60% of the total site goal.
23
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
45
(6/26)
Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal: Communication Plan
Who delivers What message To Whom By What method
How often
Team leader Progress report Project sponsor
Face-to-face presentation
Second Thursday of each month
Team leader Progress report Project sponsor Team members
E-mail Second Friday of each month
Coach Team evaluation
Team members Face to face Fourth Thursday of each month
Team leader Lessons Learned Card
All GSK Fraternity
GPS Knowledge Base E-mail
Post-completing the project
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
46
(7/26)
Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal: LSW Interlocking
• Leader Standard Work (LSW) which is one of the GPS standard is used in GSK for
daily team routines.
• As a mandatory requirement of GPS, every one has to spend at least 10% of their
week’s time on continuous improvement activities.
• Continuous improvement framework leaders will interlock their time with the team
members. Team Routine Who By What Method How often
Project discussions & review
Team Leader Team Members
Meetings Gemba Walk
Daily: A Shift – 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM B Shift - 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM
Progress report discussion
Team Leader Project Sponsor
Face-to-face presentation
Second Thursday of each month
Progress report communication
Team Leader Project Sponsor Team Members
E-mail Second Friday of each month
Team evaluation with coach
Team Members Coach
Face to face Fourth Thursday of each month
24
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
47
(8/26)
Step 1: Translate the Site Goal into a Meaningful Team Goal: Project Charter
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
48
(9/26)
25
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
49
(10/26)
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities: GEMBA Walk
GEMBA Walk Plan Where will you go ? SEE Area, Ovens area and Grinding & Packing area When will you go ? 05/02/2017; 20/02/2017 What will you observe ? Obstacles & opportunities w.r.to OEE improvement Who will you interview ? Operator, Store Operator, Scrapping workmen
What key questions will you ask ?
1. What are the major issues related to Ovens, SEE & other equipment machinery? 2. Which machine is giving repeated failures? 3. What are the possible causes for the failures at each machine? 3. How do you measure losses? 4. How do you handle issues? 5. Quick wins to eliminate issues at each area?
What do you expect to see at each point ?
1. Amount of wastage being generated at each point. 2. Possible causes for wastage at each point.
What benchmarks can help you ? Major losses at Nabha & Sonepat sites Who can help you on this walk ? CI Project Team Members
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
50
(11/26)
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities: GEMBA Walk
S.No. Major Opportunities & Obstacles identified from the GEMBA Walk Observed by
1 Frequent line Jamming at the Mashing section. Operator
2 Manual dumping of raw materials resulting in the misinterpretation of levels at the slurry tank.
Team member
3 Frequent breakdowns at the slurry tank. Technician
4 Frequent breakdowns at the husk separator area. Operator
5 Frequent vapor locks and cooling tower water fluctuations at the Second Effect Evaporator (SEE) area.
Operator
6 Frequent gland leakage issues at the second effect evaporator area Technician
7 Frequent no malt situations at the Second effect evaporator area Team member
26
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
51
(12/26)
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities: Value Stream Mapping
A consolidated snapshot of the Current State Map Working
• Total Process Cycle Time 3 hours
• Lead time 3 days
• Total HC involved 750
• Customer Demand (averaged) 990 Batches / Month
Digitized Current State Value Stream Map for Horlicks manufacturing
Other Key Elements Covered
• Inventory – Before & After Each Stage
• Yield, Reject & All Material Wastage
• Overtime, Shift Pattern
• Information Flow
• Capacity, Availability & Utilization
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
52
(13/26)
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities: Value Stream Mapping
A consolidated snapshot of the Future State Map Working
• Total Process Cycle Time 2.1 hours (from 3 hours – 30% Reduction)
• Lead time 2.4 Days (from 3 Days – 20% Reduction)
• Total HC involved 700 (from 750 – 9% Reduction)
Digitized Future State Value Stream Map for Horlicks Manufacturing
Improvements will also be reflected in :
• Inventory (for 2 days in Lead Time Reduction)
• Material Losses Reduction (Quality Lab)
• Capacity & CAPEX Alignment
• Overtime & Shift Pattern
• Standardized Information Flow
27
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
53
(14/26)
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities: Analyze 4M
Man : Lack of computer SCADA operations in
Second stage Lack of knowledge addressing the
vapor locks Oven loading & unloading time Partial loading at ovens Manual Operations
Machine : process jamming's at mashing and
evaporators (SSE) Spreading of less Food per tray High oven cycle time High cycle time at second effect
evaporators High pumping time No visual alerts for the abnormalities in
SCADA programing
Material :
Product stickiness at ovens
Low solids from SSE
Method : Standard calculation for the OEE SOP is not available No procedure for the solids monitoring
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
54
(15/26)
Step 2: Understand Current State Obstacles and Opportunities: Hypothesis Testing
S.No. Hypothesis formation Type
1 Frequent jamming and breakdowns at the husk separator area is affecting the availability rate.
Opportunity
2 Reduction of Mash cycle time from 2 hours to 1 hr. 50 min will improve the performance rate
Opportunity
3 Frequent breakdowns at the slurry tank is affecting the availability rate. Opportunity
4 Inconsistent food weight at the spreading machine is affecting the performance rate.
Opportunity
5 Frequent vapor locks and cooling tower water fluctuations at the Second Effect Evaporator (SEE) area is effecting performance rate.
Opportunity
6 Improving the heat transfer rate at the second effect evaporator will improve the Performance rate
Opportunity
7 Manual dumping of raw materials is resulting in the misinterpretation of levels at the slurry tank.
Obstacle
8 Frequent no malt situation at the Product holding tank is affecting the Performance rate.
Obstacle
9 High oven cycle time is affecting the performance rate Opportunity
10 High SEE cycle time is affecting the performance rate. Opportunity
28
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
55
(16/26)
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
56
(17/26)
Step 3: Define the Next Target Condition (NTC): Identification of Lead and Lag KPIs
NTC 1: Four weeks from Feb’17, there should be no breakdowns at the Husk Separator area.
Lag KPI: Availability Rate (%)
Lead KPI: Husk Separator Breakdowns (hrs.)
NTC 2: Three weeks from Mar’17, there should be no breakdowns at the Slurry Tank area.
Lag KPI: Availability Rate (%)
Lead KPI: Slurry Tank Breakdowns (hrs.)
NTC 3: Two weeks from Apr’17, Mashing cycle time must be 1hr 50 min instead of 2hr
Lag KPI: Performance Rate (%)
Lead KPI: Mashing Cycle time (hrs.)
NTC 4: Four weeks from May’17, there should be zero cooling tower water fluctuations and
vapor locks
Lag KPI: Performance Rate (%)
Lead KPI: No. of vapor locks (Nos.)
NTC 5: Four weeks from June’17, SEE cycle time must be 2.1 hrs. instead of 3 hrs.
Lag KPI: Performance Rate (%)
Lead KPI: SEE cycle time (hrs.)
29
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
57
(18/26)
Step 3: Define the Next Target Condition (NTC): Identification of Lead and Lag KPIs
Value Stream members
Lag & Lead KPIs tracking at Value Stream Performance management Board
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
58
(19/26)
30
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
59
(20/26)
Step 4: Solve the Critical few Problems: PDCA Methodology
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
60
(21/26)
Step 4: Solve the Critical few Problems: 6 Step Problem Solving Methodology
31
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
61
(22/26)
Step 4: Solve the Critical few Problems: Ishikawa Diagram
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
62
(23/26)
Step 4: Solve the Critical few Problems: Ishikawa Diagram
Ishikawa Diagram for NTC1
32
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
63
(24/26)
Step 4: Solve the Critical few Problems: Ishikawa Diagram
Ishikawa Diagram for NTC2
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
64
(25/26)
Step 4: Solve the Critical few Problems: 5 Whys
S.No. Next Target Condition
Root causes from 5 Whys CAPA
1 Reduction of Husk separator area breakdowns
1. There is no spare husk separator available to manage Mashing operations. 2. Slurry tank pump is starting before the husk separator is reaching its desired rpm.
1. Permanent position created for the spare husk separator. 2. Logic is modified at the SCADA, where the pumping operation will start only after the husk separator reaches its desired rpm.
2 Reduction of Slurry Tank breakdowns
1. Slurry tank 2 agitator design is not compatible and is different from other 2 slurry tanks. 2. Level sensor found malfunctioning.
1. Modified the slurry tank 2 agitator as per the other two slurry tank designs. 2. Level sensor adjusted and included the check in preventive maintenance.
3 Decrease the mashing cycle time from 2 hrs. to 1hr 50 min.
1. Low capability of operators to run SCADA operations 2. Mashing process to be redesigned to ensure starch conversion.
1. Training provided to all operators to run SCADA operations, equipment functioning and trouble shooting. 2. Mashing process redesigned after confirming with R&D team.
4 Reduce cooling tower water fluctuations and vapor locks at SEE
1. Number of bends are very high in the cooling tower water connecting lines. 2. Vacuum setpoint at the boiling stage to be improved to minimize vapor locks.
1. Number of bends in the connecting lines were reduced. 2. Vacuum setpoint interlock provided and program changed in SCADA.
5 Reduce SEE cycle time from 3 hrs. to 2.1 hrs.
1. Heat transfer is not happening effectively in all the evaporators. 2. Delayed cycle time due to SCADA logic issues.
1. Individual steam trap for the drum & Jacket provided to improve the heat transfer rate. 2. SEE logics were modified after consulting OEM.
NOTE: All CAPA solutions are routed only through GSK’s Change Control Procedure
33
5.01 Data-Driven Project Flow
65
(26/26)
Step 4: Solve the Critical few Problems: Lessons Learned Cards
5.02 Solution Validation
66
Solution Validation Criteria
Proposed Solutions
Spare Husk Separator & modification
Slurry tank 2 agitator modification
Operators training
Reduction in number of bends
Individual steam trap
Project Goals
Capacity Enhancement (43 KT)
OPEX Cost (372 GBP/kg)
Availability Rate (91.5%)
Performance Rate (94.5%)
Quality Rate (99%)
CTP (95%)
CTV (95%)
CTR (95%)
Success Measures
Change Control Procedure Adherence
Project Schedule Adherence
Budget violations
Counter metrics
Reportable incidents (Zero)
Manufacturing deviations (<2%)
Water consumption (700 KL/day)
Material Yield (99%)
Positive Impact No Impact / Not Applicable Negative Impact
34
5.03 Solution Justification
67
Financial Details
Proposed Solutions Spare Husk Separator & modification
Slurry tank 2 agitator
modification
Operators training
Reduction in number of
bends
Individual steam traps
Total
Expenses for modifications [kGBP]
200 50 0 0 100 350
Pay back period (months) 12 1 NA NA 5 NA
• Expenses incurred for all proposed solutions are 350 kGBP, which is with in the range of the approved budget of 1000 kGBP.
• Organization norm for pay back period is 24 months. The maximum payback period for the proposed solutions is 12 months which is well within the acceptable range.
• Basis the solution validation criteria and financial details, we had received approvals from project sponsor and finance lead to go ahead with the implementation of the solutions.
5.04 Results
68
5.3
6.55
5.05
5.1
1.55
1.1
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17
Ho
ur
Break Down - Husk Seperator Hours
Solution 1: Husk Separator Modification
Before After Result 1: Downtime reduced by 80%
Solution 2: Slurry Tank Agitator Modification
0
8.55
5
1 1
00.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 May-17 Jun-17
Hour
Slurry Tanks Break Down Hours
Result 2: Downtime reduced by 100%
35
5.04 Results
69
Solution 3: Husk Separator Modification
Result 3: Mashing Cycle time reduced by 10%
Solution 4: Reduction in number of bends
Result 4: Cooling tower water
fluctuations incidents reduced by
100%
Before After
5.04 Results
70
Solution 5: Individual Steam traps arrangement
Result 5: Second Effect Evaporator cycle time reduced by 8%
36
5.04 Results
71
72.7
81.1
83.4 83.5
80.02
86.43
82.78 83.64
86.40
65.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
April'17 May'17 June'17 July'17 Aug'17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17
OEE %
84.4
92.1 93.0 93.4 89.40
93.1 91.4 93.9 95.3
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
Performance Rate %
87.4 89.2
90.5 92.3
90.5
94.2
91.9 90.2
91.7
85.0
90.0
95.0
Availability Rate %
98.6 98.7
99.2 99.4
99.00
98.5 98.5 98.7 98.8
97.5
98.0
98.5
99.0
99.5
100.0
Quality Rate %
Project Goals
87.08 87.41 86.93
85.14
82.98
85.57 85.19 86.23
88.20 89.46
78.00
80.00
82.00
84.00
86.00
88.00
90.00
Jan'18 Feb'18 Mar'18 Apr'18 May'18 Jun'18 Jul'18 Aug'18 Sep'18 Oct'18
OEE (%)
5.04 Results
72
85 90
95.5
50
70
90
2015 2016 2017
CTP (%))
87 92
95.5
50
70
90
2015 2016 2017
CTV (%))
82 89
96
50
70
90
2015 2016 2017
CTR (%))
Project Goals
28 32 33 34
41
10
30
50
2015 2016 2017 YTD 2018 LE 2018
Production Volumes (KT))
37
5.04 Results
73
Success Measures
Success Measure Target Achieved Adherence to Change Control Procedure 100% 100% Project Schedule deviation 5% 0% Budget 1000 kGBP 350 kGBP
Counter Metrics
Counter Metrics Target Achieved Reportable incidents Zero Zero Manufacturing deviations <2% 1.60% Water consumption 700 KL/day 690 KL/day Material Yield 99% 99.30%
5.04 Results
74
Overall Benefits
Benefits Target Achieved Cost Savings 700 kGBP 780 kGBP Production Volumes 40 KT 41 KT Yield Savings Zero 25% Absenteeism 8% 6%
38
5.05 Maintaining the Gains
75
• Lag & Lead KPIs are identified and
monitored at value stream performance
management board by the value stream
members on daily basis to ensure
sustenance of the gains obtained from
this project.
87.08 87.41
86.93
85.14
82.98
85.57 85.19
86.23
88.20
89.46
78.00
80.00
82.00
84.00
86.00
88.00
90.00
Jan'18 Feb'18 Mar'18 Apr'18 May'18 Jun'18 Jul'18 Aug'18 Sep'18 Oct'18
OEE (%)
5.06 Project Communication
76
• As discussed in the communication
plan, post the completion of the project
Lessons Learned Cards (LLCs)
shared with all GPS Fraternity and
LLCs were uploaded in the GSK
Knowledge Base.
• We have nominated our project for the
internal Business Excellence Awards
at GSK and received award under
performance category.
39
Thank You
77