1

Structures Right, Customers Delight

ASQ South Asia Team Excellence Award

• In 1945 by Mr. JCB Joseph Cyril Bamford

• From a small garage in Uttoxeter, England

• Innovation started this Business which continues to be our

lifeblood

Company Introduction

2

2

….. to Global Presence

22 Plants, 750+Dealers, 2000+

Outlets, 150+Countries, 12,000+

Employees 3

5 Factories

BLB / Pune / Jaipur

5000+ Employees

8 Product Lines

48 Products

63 Dealers

650 Outlets

66+ Export Countries

Introduction – JCB India

4

Heavy Line

World’s Largest Backhoe Plant

Ballabgarh

Pune

Jaipur

India’s Largest Facility

3

Section 1:

Project & Team Selection

5

Infrastructure Deficit

PRODUCT

PROCESS

PERFORMANCE

PEOPLE

PROSPERITY

Uptime & Productivity

Safety & Environment

Quality & Reliability

Personal Touch

Growing Entrepreneurship

Growing Customer Expectations Opportunity

High Level Context

6

4

Group Service

Report

Product

Defects

A,S,D-Review

Closure &

Monitoring

Product

Warranty Cost

Closure &

Monitoring

Subsystem

Review

1.1.1-1 Who was responsible for selecting project

Online Complaints

Techweb

CRM

Care link

Warranty

T3, T12

Telematics

Live Link

Customer Visits

FOCUS Program

Voice of Customer

Group Service

Report

7

Product

Warranty Cost

Closure &

Monitoring

Subsystem

Review

1.1.1-2 What background information on the company was provided to better understand the context of the project ? 1.2.1-1 How was the gap brought to the attention of the project identification group ?

Group Service

Report

Product

Defects

A,S,D-Review

Closure &

Monitoring

Product

Warranty Cost

Closure &

Monitoring

Subsystem

Review

Online Complaints

Techweb

CRM

Care link

Warranty

T0, T3, T12

Telematics

Live Link

Customer Visits

FOCUS Program

Voice of Customer

~ 40%

8 Application Challenges in India : Almost double duty cycles/usage, variety & intensity of applications

Structure

3.2X X 2X 5X Structures

5

~ 40%

1.2.1-2 What was the gap for problem solving ?

1.2.1-3 What area of the organization had the gap ?

Problem Statement Backhoe Structures warranty cost( ~ 40 % of overall

warranty) is single largest contributor to customer

dissatisfaction

Goal Reduce the Structures warranty cost by 68% from

Current Value by Dec-2014

Backhoe

Structures

Gap to be addressed

Organization Focus Area

Specific Areas for Problem Solving

9

Quadrant 1

Quadrant 2

Quadrant 4

Quadrant 3

Qsmart

Real time defects per unit

CareLink: Call Centre data

LiveLink: Real Time Machine alerts

Customer Visits: Feedback, Expectations

Product Rating Chart

Usage Hours

Internal

External Direct Customer

Benchmark Data

1.2.2-1 What Data is generated to help select the project?

Dealer Conference Usage Hour

T0,T3,T12 Data Product Rating Chart

External Through Dealer

Techwebs : Online Compliants

SAP / Dealer Business Mgmt

System, (DBMS) T0,T3,T12 Defects and Cost

10

6

1.2.2-2 What methods or tools were used to assess or prioritize the need for

the project?

S. No. Sub-System

Warranty Cost

(SAP/DBMS)

(A)

Avg Downtime

(LiveLink)

(B)

Voice of Customer

(Carelink Surveys)

(C)

Total

Score

(A*B*C)

01 Structures 5 5 5 125

02 Transmission 3 5 4 60

03 Hydraulics 3 4 4 48

04 Engine 3 4 3 36

05 Hose 3 2 2 12

06 Electrical 2 2 3 12

07 Cab 2 2 1 4

08 Paint 2 2 1 4

Selection Prioritization Matrix

Rating Warranty Cost Downtime days VoC

5 >4000/- >10 5

4 3000-4000 5-10 4

3 2000-3000 3-5 3

2 1000-2000 1-2 2

1 <1000/- <1 1

Rating

Criteria

High Priority

Low Priority 11

1.2.2-3 Why was this method used to select the project ?

Enhanced Product Reliability

Improved Perceived Value

Brand Quality Image

Increased Market Share

A: Warranty Cost

Uptime & Productivity

Higher MTTR

Customer Satisfaction

Loyal, Repeat Customers

B: Machine Down

Time

C: Voice of

Customer

Severity

Severity

Occurrence

Detection

Selection Prioritization Matrix is a combination of Performance Data & Customer Perception

12

7

JCB’s Strategic Vision

1.2.3 -1 What goals(organizational an/or local), performance measures, and/ or strategies were the project expected to impact?

1.2.3 -2 What was the relationship between the stated measures and perceived gap in 1.2.1?

1.2.3-3 What was the project objective statement that expresses where the organization wanted to be at the end of the project ?

Project Impact Linked to Business Strategies

13

14

Suppliers Input Process Output Customer

Laser Cutting

Sub-assembly Welding

Machining

Heat Treatment

Welded sub-assembly

Laser cut parts

Bosses

Machined parts

Bent parts

Weld Shop

Tacking

Pre-weld

Manual/Robotic weld

Post-weld

Inspection

WA Mainframe

WA Boom

WA Dipper

WA Loader arm

WA Buckets

Finance

Assembly Shop

Product Support

Dealers

End Users

1.3.1-1 How were the stakeholder groups identified?

1.3.1-2 What or who were the stakeholder groups?

Problem Solving- 6σ

Iden

tifi

ed

Skill

Metallurgy

Weld Process/Robotics

Finite Element Analysis

Machining

Jig/Fixture Design

CMM Operation

Program Management

Stakeholders were

identified through

SIPOC

Purchase

Design

Materials

Weld Shop

Assembly

Product Support

Finance

Global & India EXEC

Supplier Quality

General Manager

General Manager

General Manager

Vice President

Vice President

General Manager

AVP

Directors & EVPs

General Manager

Function Who

Sta

keh

old

ers

Users Customers

SIP

OC

Inputs

8

Core Team

15

P.M

ah

ara

na

CM

Mani

P.Y

adav

H.M

alik

R. M

ishra

D. S

eth

i

L.P

andey

A.A

rora

A.G

auta

m

S.C

houdhary

V.V

allia

pan

T. S

harm

a

Monid

eepa

1.3.2-1 What knowledge or skill sets were determined to be necessary for successful completion of the project?

1.3.2-2 To what extent did the existing stakeholder group have the required knowledge or skill?

1.3.2-3 What additional knowledge and skills were brought into make the project successful ?

Additional Skills & Knowledge

1. FEA: India Design Centre

2. Weld SME- Mr. Seth Adams,

3. Stake holder Management :

Ms. Monideepa Roy

Additional Skills

I

L

U

O

Training required

Can complete task under supervision

Can complete task without supervision

Can train others

Legends

16

Skill Matrix for Project Team

Skills Where Are We

Nam

e

L. Pan

dey

V. V

alliap

pan

R.M

ishra

P.M

ahar

ana

S. C

hau

dhar

y

T. Shar

ma

P. Y

adav

A. G

auta

m

C.M

Man

i

H. M

alik

D. Seth

i

A. A

rora

Po

siti

on

Pro

ject

Le

ad

er,

AV

P

We

ld E

xp

ert

, D

GM

Su

pp

lie

r Q

uali

ty ,M

CM

M E

xp

ert

, D

M

Mach

inin

g E

xp

ert

,GM

Me

tall

urg

ist,

AG

M

Mast

er

Bla

ck

be

lt

Pu

rch

ase

, SM

We

ld S

ho

p,

DG

M

We

ld S

ho

p, M

De

sign

, SM

Pro

du

ct

Su

pp

ort

, SM

Metallurgy O U L L L O L L L L U I

Wedling Process

and RoboticsL O L U L L L L U U U L

Jig-Fixture

DesigningL U L U L L L L U L L L

Machining U L L U O U U U U U U L

CMM Operation L U U O U L L L L I L L

Problem Solving -

6 SigmaU U I I U L O L L I L L

Finite Element

AnalysisI I I I I I I I I I L I

O L I I U U L U L L L U

U U L L O U U L L L U L

O L L L U L L L U L L L

* Domain Experts available within the team

Skills

Time Mangement

Stra

tegi

cT

ech

inca

l

Program

Management

Change Management

* Domain Experts available

* New Skill - External support taken from JCB

Design Center ,

* Exisitng skill - Team is well equipped

* Domain Expert available within Team

* Domain Expert available but additional

support taken from JCB Group Weld Expert

* Domain Expert available within Team but

external support taken from Adroit -Pune.

* Exisitng skill - Team is well equipped

* Domain Expert available within Team

* Exisitng skill - Team is well equipped

* Domain Expert available within Team

Where Are We

Ver-01

9

1.3.3-1 Before the project started, what specific training was done?

1.3.3-2 Before the project started, what was done to prepare the team to work together as a team?

Forming : Created Sense of Urgency, Buy-in

Critical

Success

Factor:

Structures

Failures

Team

Regis

tere

d #

P454 Storming : Individuals presented their approach

Ap

pro

ach

Fin

alized

Tra

inin

g N

eed

s

Norming : Knowledge Sharing Performing : Team Objectives aligned to Project

Sh

are

d C

om

mit

men

t

17

Roles & Expectations

D M A I C

Pro

ble

m D

efi

nit

ion

Base

lin

e S

tud

y

Targ

et

Sett

ing

Data

Co

llecti

on

Ro

ot

Cau

se A

naly

sis

/Valid

ati

on

Gen

era

tin

g S

olu

tio

ns

Valid

ate

/ I

mp

lem

en

t

solu

tio

n

Sta

nd

ard

izati

on

Ch

an

ge M

an

agem

en

t

Co

mm

un

icati

on

Team

Reco

gn

itio

n

Lokesh Pandey A C A C C C C C A A A

Valliappan R A R A A A A A C R R

Rishi Mishra C R C R R R R R R I I

P. Maharana C R C R R R R R R I I

Sanjay Chaudhary R C R C R C C C C C R

Tarun Sharma C C I C R R R C I I C

Parveen Yadav I R I R R C C C C I I

A.Gautam I I I I C C R R R I I

C.M Mani R R C R C C C R C C C

H.Malik C C I R C R R R R I I

D. Sethi I I I I C R R C R I I

Amit Arora C R I R I I I I I C I

1.3.4-1 What roles and expectations were determined ahead of projects ?

1.3.4-2 What deadlines, deliverables did the team have to consider ahead of actually starting the

project?

Deliverables

Responsibility R

Accountability A

Consulted C

Informed I

Legend

Deadlines & Deliverables

Action

18

10

19

Team Routines & Communication

Activity Routine How Recorded Responsibility

Project Team Meeting Weekly Project Tracker

Timeline/ Milestone Chart Project Leader

Project Review Meeting Monthly Objectives vs Achievements Project Leader

Management Review Meeting Monthly Project Template Project Sponsor

Specific Functional/Stakeholder

Reviews Monthly Functional Trackers Project Leader

Change Management Meeting Fortnightly Change Review MoM GM- Quality

Shop floor/ Supplier Gemba As Required MoM through e-mail Project Members

Tracker Photo ???

Team Meeting Field Tracker Project Review Gemba

1.3.4-3 Before the project started, what team routines, including communication were established?

20

Section 2:

Current Situation &

Root Cause Analysis

11

2.1.1-1 What specific goals and /or measures was the team trying to achieve with the project?

2.1.1-2 What additional potential benefits, other than the specific goals and/ or measures, was the

project expected to impact?

Problem Statement

Backhoe Structures warranty cost( ~ 40 % of

overall warranty) is single largest contributor to

customer dissatisfaction.

Specific Goal

Reduce the Structures warranty cost by 68%

(50% of best achievement so far) from Current

Value by Dec-2014

Project Scope

In Scope:- All structural parts in Backhoe

machine

Out of Scope – Other JCB Models

D

M

A

I

C

Target Dates Key Deliverables

10- Jun 2014

28-Mar 2014

5-Mar 2014

15-Nov 2014

30-Oct 2014

Hold the gains

Solution & validation

Root Cause

Data collection: baseline

Project charter signoff

Additional Potential Benefits

Area Tangible Benefits

Reliability (T12) + 25%

Part Inventory - 20%

MTTF + 40%

Market Share <2%

Intangible Benefits

Customer Delight

Skill Development

Team Morale

21 Confidential absolute values not shared

2.2.1 -1 What methods and / or tools were used to identify possible RCs/ Improvement opportunities?

2.2.1 -2 Why were these methods and / or tools selected (to identify possible Rcs/ Improvement opportunities?

2.2.1 -3 How was the team prepared to use these methods/tools [used to identify the possible root

causes/improvement opportunities]?

Identified Tools/Methods Purpose of Tools/Methods How team was trained on these

tools/methods

Scoping Tree

Pareto Chart

Cause and Effect Diagram

o To generate list of possible

causes against all failure

modes

o To identify all types of

Failure mode

Trained by Black Belt on

- When to use

- How to use

o To finding out major

contributing failure modes

Case Studies/ Examples –

Reviewed

Basic training on “Welding

Process & Potential Failure

Modes”

22

12

A S D

2.2.2-1 What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the possible root cause

/Improvement opportunities?

Data Generated Data Analyzed Top Failure Modes-

Identified

DATA Sources:

External Data – T3,T12

Warranty Cost Structure Failures Mode

Scoping Tree

Weld

joint

Gaps/Fit

-ups

Sheet

Material

Moving

Parts Joint

Weld

esthetic

Child Part

missing

A

Butt T-

Joint

D

Manufacturing

Process

S

Supplier

Design

Pareto Chart-Cost-wise T0,T3,T12 Data

S

D

A

23

2.2.2-2 What were the possible root causes ?

Failed Part Analysis

Less weld penetration

Spec- 10%

Actual- 4%

Loader Arm Knee Joint

Cause & Effect Validation

Matrix Main Cause Probable Causes Conformance Requirement Checking Method Confirmation of potectial causeStatus

Weld sequence adherence As per SOP Audit 100% compliance OK

Robotic programing skil l Certified programmer Verification Skill Level OK OK

Weld Parameter - Current,

Voltage, Gas flowTo meet the processs spec

Iteration with different

parameters

Current process

parameters gives

satisfactory results

OK

Weld Parameter - Wire

Speed, Gas FlowTo meet the processs spec

Iteration with different

parameters

Validated during welding

and meets the specOK

Spatters on Nozzle Functioning of cleaning unit Visual verification

No spatters. Cleaning

unit functioning as per

desired frequency

OK

Manipulator Locking pin Mis

alignmentPin to align with part bore Visual verification

3 out of 50 parts pin not

qualifyingNOT OK

Robot Tool Centering Point

outTCP should be zero-zero

Position validation thro "I"

mark for all axis with

respect to the Reference

Meets the Zero position

every time

OK

Weld Bead center l ine shiftAs per weld specification

requiredTeach pendent

20 out of 50 nos - Bead

center l ine shift noticed

in cut section review

NOT OK

Backing strip positionDistribution of total length in

3 equal division (8mm) Positon found ok in the tiralsNo shift observed OK

Spatters in searching area at

Knee joint

Searching area must be

spatter free

No spatters found during

vlaidation

Function a sper desired

frequencyOK

Part Cleaniness Free from Oily and Rusty Clean parts observedNo oily and rusted

surfaceOK

Properties To meet the speciifcation Meets the specTested with external lab

and meets the specOK

Height of inter lever boss 7.5 ± 0.5 mm 7~8 mm No abnormality found OK

Height variation in rear

channel and front

channel

Within 1mm With in 1mm With in 1mm OK

Weld weaving pattern To cover the fit up gap Un covered noticed End gap noticed at Joint

in 3 out of 50 piecesNOT OK

Weaving pattrenTo meet the process

specificationMeeting the process spec

Z pattern meets the

process specOK

Man

Material

Machine

Method

Cause & Effect Diagram- Less Weld

Penetration

----- Possible Root Causes -----

24

13

Front

Channel

Rear

Channel

25

Knee Joint – 6 mm plates joined by

Square butt joint with backing strip

2.2.2-2 What were the possible root causes ?

Possible Cause #1 Weld bead center line shift

Bow in plate can lead to weld bead shift

Weld Zig-Zag Pattern

Possible Cause #2 Weld weaving pattern

Possible Cause #3 Pin

misalignment leads to shifting of channel

2.3.1-1 What methods and / or tools were used to identify final RCs/ Improvement opportunities?

2.3.1-2 Why were these methods and / or tools selected (to identify final Rcs/ Improvement opportunities?

• Weld bead center line

shift

• Weld weaving pattern

• Manipulator locking

pin misalignment

Final Root Causes Reason

To establish effects of various

factors on weld bead center line

shift

Factors:

• Channel Length-Front

• Channel Length-Rear

• Channel Bow

Response: Channel root gap

To establish difference between

various Weaving pattern for weld

penetration

To find the root cause for

locking pin misalignment

Tools Identified

Box Plot

Why-Why

Analysis

Main Effect

26

14

2.3.1-3 How was the team prepared to use these methods/tools [used to identify the final root

causes/improvement opportunities?

Case study presentations Sessions with JCB Global Weld

Expert

6σ Training by in-house

Master Black Belt

Training conducted on

Minitab for the use of

various statistical tools

Best Practices: Welding

Process Standardization

Benchmarking

Robotics

Weld Training School

27

2.3.2-1 What data was generated and how was the data analyzed in order to identify the final root

causes and improvement opportunities?

2.3.2-2 What are the specific examples that led to the analysis of the final root cause

Data Generated Examples Analysis Done

Data collection was done for 50

samples to see the significance of

various factors on weld penetration.

• Weld bead center line shift

• Weld weaving pattern

• Manipulator locking pin

misalignment

Weld penetration specification is

min10% of sheet thickness

• Main effects showed strong effect

of channel bow on weld bead

shift

• Box plot showed significant

difference between Zig-zag

pattern, Box pattern and Double-J

pattern

• Special cause –Pin misalignment is

due to usage of unhardened pin

28

15

2.3.2-3 What was (were) the final root cause(s) identified?

2.3.3-1 How were the final root cause validated?

2.3.3-2 What evidence showed that the final cause were validated prior to solution development?

Failure Modes Final Root Causes Final Root cause

Validation Evidence of RC Validation

• Weld bead centre line shift due to

Channel bow

• Ineffective weld weaving pattern

• Manipulator locking pin

misalignment

• 2p test showed that channel

bow has got significant effect

on center line shift

• Fit up gap process capability

• Box Plot showed difference

between Zig-Zag , Box &

Double J pattern

• Special cause – Pin Hardness

issue verified

Weld Joint failure

• Incorrect bore ID tolerance with

respect to International

standard(40micron instead of

30micron)

• Bore ID capability study

• Rig Validation for 100 hrs

Part failed at 85hrs during

accelerated rig testing

• High stress area during harsh

application

• FEA showed stress

concentration zones at failed

area.

Sheet Material Failure

D

Moving Parts Joint failure

S

A

Similarly, for other failure modes root causes were validated

29

2.4.1-1 How was the correctness of the initial project scope, deliverables, and timing confirmed,(or What

changes were made)?

2.4.1-2 How were stakeholders involved and /or communicated with during root cause phase of the project?

Scope (No Change) Deliverables & Timelines (No Change)

In Scope:- All structural parts in Backhoe

machine

Out of Scope – Other JCB Models

Stakeholder Involvement

30

16

2.4.1-3 What stakeholder resistance was identified and /or addressed in this phase of project?

2.4.1-4 How was the appropriateness of the initial team membership and management routines confirmed(or

what changes were made) ?

Resistance

From

Resistant

To

Type of

Resistance How Identified How Addressed

Weld Shop High Interest &

Medium Power

Cut Section Analysis

( Destructive Tests)

Passive Project Team

Meeting

Convinced stakeholder that

NDT not possible

Made aware of impact on

project goals

Stakeholder Resistance

Team Routines & Communication ( Coaching Sessions added )

Activity Routine How Recorded Responsibility

Project Team Meeting Weekly Project Tracker

Timeline/ Milestone Chart Project Leader

Project Review Meeting Monthly Objectives vs Achievements Project Leader

Management Review Meeting Monthly Project Template Project Sponsor

Specific Functional/Stakeholder

Reviews Monthly Functional Trackers Project Leader

Change Management Meeting Fortnightly Change Review MoM GM- Quality

Shop floor/ Supplier Gemba As Required MoM through e-mail Project Members

Coaching Sessions to help

individuals cross barriers As Required

Informal Meetings with

individuals Functional Heads

31

Section 3:

Solution/Improvement

Development

32

17

3.1.1-1 What methods and / or tools were used to identify possible solutions ?

3.1.1-2 Why were these methods and / or tools selected (to identify possible solution ) ?

3.1.1-3 How was the team prepared to use these methods/tools [used to identify the possible solution ?

Identified Tools/Methods Purpose of Tools/Methods How team was trained on these

tools/method

Brainstorming

Interaction Plot

DOE

Response Optimizer

Finite Element Analysis

o To see the interaction between

factors and conclude its

significance

o To generate best possible

solution model

o To verify significance of Main

and Interaction effects for

solution generation

o To verify and validate solution

o To generate list of possible

solutions Trained by Black Belt on

- When to use

- How to use

Training on Finite Element

Analysis- IDC Pune

33

3.1.2-1 What data was generated and how was

the data analyzed to identify the possible solutions ?

34

Root Cause #1 : Weld bead centre line shift due to

Front Channel bow

Stage of Bow

generation

Straightening process added after profile

cutting to control bow within limits

Bow Capability Study Data Comparison

Process Map

Before: Cpk- 0.8

After Cpk- 2.2

18

3.1.2-1 What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the possible solutions ?

Continued on next slide….. 35

Root Cause #2 : Ineffective weld weaving pattern

Possible Solution Generation: Evaluation of

alternate weaving patterns along with other

optimized weld parameters

Double J Box Weave

Brainstorming

BC

C

A

AB

B

AC

E

876543210

Te

rm

Standardized Effect

2.306

A V oltage

B C urrent

C Trav el speed

E Weav ing pattern

Factor Name

Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects(response is Average Penetration, Alpha = 0.05)

The generated solution needs to be evaluated for its

feasibility for implementation and suitable outcome

Voltage, V Current, Amp Travel Speed,

cm/min Weaving Pattern

28 280 30 Double J

3.1.2-1 What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the possible solutions ?

3.1.2-2 What were the possible solutions and improvements ?

3.1.2-3 What evidence showed that the solution/improvements were possible instead of final ?

36

19

3.1.2-1 What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the possible solutions ?

37

Root Cause #3 : Manipulator locking pin

misalignment (Special Cause)

Possible Solution Generation:

#1: Include Pin check in Preventive Maintenance plan

#2: Change Pin raw material from EN1A to EN8 with induction hardening

(Hardness: 55-58 HRC) to avoid bending

Brainstorming (With Fixture Expert)

PIN

3.2.1-1 What methods and/ or tools were used to identify the final solutions / Improvements?

3.2.1-2 Why were these methods and/ or tools selected (to identify the final solutions/improvements)?

3.2.1-3 How was the team prepared to use these methods/ or tools (to identify the final solutions)?

3.2.2-1How were the methods and/ or tools used to determine the final solutions/ improvements?

Identified Tools/Methods Tools/Methods Selected How team was trained on these

tools/method

Weld Subject Matter Expert

Benchmarking

o To get expert opinion to

identify best and simpler

solution

o To generate solution in line

with JCB standard

Got Group Weld Expert’s

opinion and deliberation on • Failure Modes

• Possible Causes

• Possible Solutions

Got access to JCB group

standard portal

38

Finite Element Analysis

o To verify and validate solution

20

3.2.2-2 What were the final solutions/ improvements?

Failure Modes Final Root Causes Final Solution

• Weld bead centre line shift

due to Channel bow

• Ineffective weld weaving

pattern

• Manipulator locking pin

misalignment

• Straightening process added after profile cutting to control

bow within limits

• Weld weaving pattern changed from Zig-Zag to Double J

profile

• Locking pin raw material changed from EN1A to EN8 with

induction hardening Weld Joint failure

• Incorrect bore ID tolerance

with respect to International

standard(40µm instead of

30µm)

• Drawing tolerance to be corrected as per International

Standard

• High stress area during harsh

application • Part design changed- Gusset plate added to strengthen

the design

Sheet Material Failure

D

Moving Parts Joint failure

S

A

Similarly, for other failure modes Final Solutions were decided

39

3.2.3-1 How were the final solutions/ improvements validated?

3.2.3-2 What evidence showed that validation was performed prior to implementation?

4%

14%

Failed Part Improved Part

Final Solutions

Straightening process added after profile cutting to

control bow within limits

Weld weaving pattern changed from Zig-Zag to Double

J profile

Locking pin raw material changed from EN1A to EN8

with induction hardening

Validation Results (Before Implementation)

1. Penetration Results

2. Rig Testing (Simulating harsh applications) –

Qualified 500 hr before implementation

40

Validation Plan

• 30 samples were made for validation, with above

corrections.

• 10 samples were checked for weld penetration

• 3 samples were subjected to accelerated testing for

500 hrs(equivalent to 1yr of field hours) at JCB Test

Site

Accelerated Testing @ JCB Test Site Rig Testing

21

3.2.4-1 What additional potential benefits were anticipated from the final solution(s)/improvement(s)?

3.2.4-2 Were the additional potential benefits anticipated prior to implementation?

Additional benefits are same as identified in section : 2.1.1-2

41

Additional Potential Benefits

Area Tangible Benefits

Reliability (T12) + 25%

Part Inventory - 20%

MTTF + 40%

Market Share <2%

Intangible Benefits

Customer Delight

Skill Development

Team Morale

Confidential absolute values not shared

Failure

Modes Final Solution

Validation Plan & Results

(Data Generation) Evidence

• Straightening process added

after profile cutting to

control bow within limits

• Weld weaving pattern

changed from Zig-Zag to

Double J profile

• Locking pin raw material

changed from EN1A to EN8

with induction hardening

• 30 samples were made for validation,

with above corrections.

• 10 samples were checked for weld

penetration

• Drawing tolerance to be

corrected as per

International Standard

• Capability study was done for 30

samples, and Cpk for bore dia was

found to be 1.57

• Part design changed- Gusset

plate added to strengthen the

design

• 30 samples were made for validation,

with new design

• 3 samples were subjected to

accelerated testing for 500

hrs(equivalent to 1yr of field hours)

at JCB Test Site- No Failure

• Field validation done for 100

machines in harsh territory- No

Failure

3.2.5-1 What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to justify why the chosen final

solution(s)/ improvement(s) should be implemented?

3.2.5-2 What evidence showed that justification was performed prior to implementation?

Validation Report

Penetration Results

Capability Study

42

22

3.3.1-1 How was the correctness of the initial or updated project scope, deliverables, and timing confirmed,(or

What changes were made)?

3.3.1-2 How were stakeholders involved and /or communicated with during the solution phase of the project?

Scope (No Change) Deliverables & Timelines (No Change)

In Scope:- All structural parts in Backhoe

machine

Out of Scope – Other JCB Models

Stakeholder Involvement

43

Activity Routine How Recorded Responsibility

Project Team Meeting Weekly Project Tracker

Timeline/ Milestone Chart Project Leader

Project Review Meeting Monthly Objectives vs Achievements Project Leader

Management Review Meeting Monthly Project Template Project Sponsor

Specific Functional/Stakeholder

Reviews Monthly Functional Trackers Project Leader

Change Management Meeting Fortnightly Change Review MoM GM- Quality

Shop floor/ Supplier Gemba As Required MoM through e-mail Project Members

Coaching Sessions to help

individuals cross barriers As Required

Informal Meetings with

individuals Functional Heads

Resistance

From

Resistant

To

Type of

Resistance How Identified How Addressed

Stakeholder Resistance

Team Routines & Communication ( No change )

3.3.1-3 What stakeholder resistance was identified and /or addressed in this phase of project?

3.3.1-4 How was the appropriateness of the initial or updated team membership and management routines

confirmed(or what changes were made) ?

No Resistance

44

23

Section 4:

Solution Implementation &

Verification

45

4.1.1-1 How were the stakeholders involved in planning the solution implementation?

4.1.1-2 How were stakeholders involved in implementing the solution ?

Planning Implementation

• Customer Feedback

• Change plan approval

• Timeline approval

Actual Implementation

• Resource deployment

• Budget deployment

Planning Implementation

• Make implementation plan

• Validate implementation

• Potential Failure Mode and

Effects Analysis

Actual Implementation

• Pilot, production , run @ rate

• Production Part Approval

• Control plan development to

hold the gains

Planning Implementation

• Communicate plan & take

inputs

Actual Implementation

• Supply chain readiness

• Ensure zero obsolescence

• Share cut-in serial no

Planning Implementation

• Manufacturing readiness plan

(in house & suppliers)

• Change plan approval

• Timeline approval

Actual Implementation

• Manufacturing System Design

• Declare readiness

46

24

4.1.2-1 What was done to anticipate resistance before it occurred ?

Mechanism to

anticipate resistance Resistance Anticipated

Change in global designs/ legacy

parts

Increase in cycle time due to

change in weld weaving pattern

Increase in workload due to

additional checks and controls

Salvaging of Old Stock

Steps taken to mitigate resistances

UK Design team involved

India centric duty cycle explained to the group

As market leader, should cater to local needs

Time-Motion studies done to optimize cycle

time

Ultrasonic testing outsourced to third-party

Agreement taken that all changes would cut-in

as running changes

Technical Review of

Solutions done with

Design Team

Weld Shop Team

Quality Team

Product Support

Team

Finance Team

Resistance on the expenditure

needed on tooling and equipments

Detailed Business Case prepared to justify the

expenditure, Agreement taken on payback

period

Design Team

Weld Shop

Materials & Product Support

Finance

Weld Shop

47

4.1.2 -2 What types of resistance were actually encountered during the course of solution implementation?

4.1.2 -3 How was the actual resistance identified ?

4.1.3-1 How was the actual resistance addressed?

4.1.3-2 How did the team know, it was successful in addressing the resistance ?

Prior mitigation plan to counter resistance helped in

minimizing the actual resistances during implementation

S. No. Resistance Raised by Addressing Resistance

01

Complexity encountered in weld and

assembly shop due to additional variant

(H-section change was India specific

change & was not needed for export

machines, because of varied duty cycles)

Weld Shop

Variant management system introduced for

Loader Arm to mitigate evolving complexity

This was agreed by all

Resistance identified in Project Meeting

48

25

4.1.4-1 What was the evidence of stakeholder group buy-in ?

4.1.4-2 What evidence showed that buy-in was obtained prior to implementation ?

Overall Program Sign-off : Phase-in, Phase-out

Product Improvement Plan

Sign-off

49

4.2.1-1 What process or systems were changed or created to implement the solution ?

4.2.1-2 What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the performance of the

implementation?

Weld Joint Failure

A

Sheet Material Failure

D

Moving Parts Joint Failure

S

Failure Modes Process Change Measure and Manage

Part Design Changed

Process capability and Control chart

FEA, PFMEA, Control Plan

Drawing Revision

50

• Straightening process added to

control channel bow

• Weaving pattern changed to

double J

• Manipulator pin Drawing revised

to include changed material &

hardness

• X-bar R chart for bow monitored

• Penetration result as per Plan

• Added to Preventive maintenance

plan

26

4.3.1 -1 What were the results?

4.3.1 -2 How did the results compared to the specific project goal / measures from item 2.1.1? 4.3.2-1 What additional benefits were realized from the project?

4.3.2-3 How do the actual additional benefits that were realized compare to the expected additional benefits identified ?

Warranty Cost Reduction

Target: 68% Achieved: 78%

2013 BestAchieved

Target,Dec-14

Achieved

Structures Warranty Cost, INR

50 %

3.2X

2X

X

68 %

78%

0.66X

Additional Potential Benefits

Area

Target

Achieved

Reliability

(T12)

+ 25% +59%

Part Inventory - 20% -24%

MTTF + 40% +55%

Market Share <2% +3.4%

Intangible Benefits

Customer Delight

Skill Development

Team Morale

Tangible Benefits

Deliverables & Timelines

51

Structures

4.3.2-2 How did the team measure any of the additional benefits that were soft?

Measurement for additional intangible/soft benefits

Feature→ Customer Delight Skill Development Team Morale

Score →

Score on 5-point scale,

‘5’ being highest score

Score on 5-point scale,

‘5’ being highest score

Score on 5-point scale,

‘5’ being highest score

Sample Size→ 500 Customers Entire Project Team Entire Project Team

Methodology→

Carelink Survey Self Assessment Engagement Survey

Post-cutin Failures Skill Matrix HR Assessment

Field Visits

52

27

Section 5:

Sustaining and Communicating

Results

53

5.1.1-1 What was done to make sure the process or system changes made during the implementation (Item

4.2.1) continued to be followed ?

5.1.1-2 What evidence showed that , this became part of the organization’s culture/operating strategy ?

Process Controls and documentation to HOLD the GAINs

Weld Demerit Score : Improved from 87 to 6

Evidences

PFEW Implementation – 100% 54

28

Command Center : Escalation & Monitoring

5.1.2 -1 What was done to make sure the benefits obtained from the implementation (Item 4.2.1) will be

maintained ?

5.1.2 -2 What evidence showed that , this became part of the organization’s culture/operating strategy ?

Structures Subsystem: Journey Continued…

Online MIS & Touch Points on Lotus Notes

Subsystem Reliability added in Quality Roadmap

55

5.2.1 How did the team communicate the results to the various stakeholder groups?

Shop / Functions

Communication

Team Recognition

Field

Communication

Customer Expression Centre

Customer Communication

Change

Communication

Supplier/Dealer

Communication

56

29

Thank You