suggesting measurement system analysis for metkraft ltd

Identification of Key Process – MEASUREMENT PROCESS: The measurement process of METKRAFT comprises quality inspection activities that take place from the time raw steel material arrives

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES

SOLVAY BRUSSELS SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT

MBQPM5

NGUYEN NHAT VU

SUGGESTING MEASUREMENT SYSTEM ANALYSIS

1

STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICATION

To the Jury and Readers,

I have read and understood the Regulations of the Master of Business Quality

& Performance Management program offered by Solway Brussels School of Economics and Management (SBSEM), Universite’ Libre De Bruxelles (ULB)

at Ho Chi Minh City Open University (HCMCOU) I have produced this work without any help other than that which my Tutor has explained is acceptable within the Regulations of the MBQPM program I have acknowledged all source materials in the work itself

Respectfully,

Student: Nguyen Nhat Vu

Ho Chi Minh City, dated 10 April 2016

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Peter Drucker, a management thinker, is often quoted as saying “You can’t manage what you can’t measure” or “If you can't measure it, you can't improve it.” Yes, measurement plays an important part in daily life and obviously it is vital in terms of business quality As a quality officer of METKRAFT LTD, my key concern is how capable our measuring system is A capable system which produces accurate and reliable measurements will help ensure we do not deliver bad products to our customers just because we fail to know they are not good With better insights into business quality and performance management, obtained so far through this academic and professional training program offered by Solway Brussels School of Economics and Management, I have set out for myself and quality team the expectation to complete this MSA (Measuring System Analysis) work item This will provide us highlights of areas of weakness of the measurement system that we are

to focus improving from this year of 2016

For this report to be successfully presented in completion of my study of the Master

in Business Quality & Performance Management program, I would like to express

my special thanks to Professor Jacque Martin for his guidance and support during

my preparation I would like to thank Professor Jacque Martin again and the rest professors for your excellence in delivering MBQBM5 classes as well as the administrative staff from Ho Chi Minh City Open University for all your valuable knowledge transfer and helpfulness

My thanks go to authors and originators of the information I have quoted and referenced in this writing I would like to acknowledge the referencing of such information for which I myself have not been able to consult authors for permission However, I can confirm that the information is intended for no more than just references and should not the call mark of this writing As far as you go through, I will have acknowledged all source materials in this writing itself

Last but not least, I would like to sincerely thank the Management of METKRAFT LTD for this international business studying opportunity with Solway Brussels School of Economics and Management and to my quality team as well as all other company colleagues for your valued support that allows the completion of this academic report

Yours respectfully,

Student: Nguyen Nhat Vu

Ho Chi Minh City, dated 10 April 2016

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(-) ACADEMIC TUTOR COMMENTS AND APPROVAL

(-) PART II: ABOUT MEASUREMENT & MSA REPORT 17-41

ii Grid of Severity Evaluation Criteria Ranking 45 iii Grid of Occurrence Evaluation Criteria Ranking 46

iv Grid of Detection Evaluation Criteria Ranking 47

10 Gage #1 – Report For Readings (HRC) - Bevel Hardness 24

11 Gage #2 – Report For Readings (HRC) - Induction Hardness 25

14 Gage #5 – Report For Readings (mm) - Thickness 28

15 Gage #6 – Report For Readings (mm) - Depth of Holes 29

16 Gage #7 – Report For Readings (mm) - Hole to Hole 30

17 Gage #8 – Report For Readings (mm) - Hole Diameter 31

18 Gage #9 – Report For Readings (mm) - Hole to Side 32

19 Gage #10 – Report For Readings (mm) - Hole to Side 33

20 Gage #11 – Report For Readings (mm) - Inside Diameter 34

21 Gage #12 – Report For Readings (mm) - Outside Diameter 35

22 Gage #13 – Report For Readings (degree) - Bevel Angle - 1 36

23 Gage #14 – Report For Readings (degree) - Bevel Angle - 2 37

24 Gage #15 – Report For Readings (RMS) - Surface Finish 38

27 Grid of Severity Evaluation Criteria Ranking 45

28 Grid of Occurrence Evaluation Criteria Ranking 46

29 Grid of Detection Evaluation Criteria Ranking 47

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

02 CpK, Cpk : Process Capability Index

03 ERP: : Enterprise Resources Planning

04 FMECA : Failure Mode-Effect-Criticality Analysis

05 Gage R&R% : Gage Repeatability & Reproducibility %

06 HRC : Hardness Rockwell C Level

07 KPI : Key Performance Indicator

Location: Tan Thuan EPZ, Dist.7, Ho Chi Minh City

Industry: Mechanical manufacturing

Activities: Manufacture of industrial precision knives and blades and wear

components METKRAFT (former: Z.C International Ltd., Vietnam) was established by USA- based Zenith Cutter Co in 1995 METKRAFT had been producing industrial knives and blades branded “Zenith Cutter” for the States and North America markets Zenith Cutter Co as well as its subsidy METKTAFT was acquired in 2011 by the Fisher Barton Group The Fisher Barton Group, operating globally, specializes in high precision engineering products and services Since 01 Jan 2015, METKRAFT has been independent of Zenith Cutter Co and become a new member company of Fisher Barton Group METKRAFT is expanding globally and intensively in Asia markets The company is embracing its vision to “Become a Leading Premium Industrial Blades and Wear Components Manufacturer in Asia” in the next 10 years with the mission to “Continuously Discover Innovative Products and Services and Foster a Creative and Energetic Working Environment for Employees”

To succeed in the strategy, METKRAFT is going to leverage all its competitive advantages such as its having operated in Vietnam for 20 years, having produced high quality and well branded products, being the first mover with innovative products into the emerging market and inheriting a wide range of technological innovations and industrial expertise owned by all the Fisher Barton Group member companies Also, the company is re-aligning its resources and processes to meet needs arising from the new and challenging business context and the increasingly competitive business environment

2 Organization Chart:

9

3 Process Map:

CHAPTER 2:

METKRAFT’S KEY PROCESS

1 Identification of Key Process – MEASUREMENT PROCESS:

The measurement process of METKRAFT comprises quality inspection activities that take place from the time raw steel material arrives at the factory, through production processes, and up to before finished products are received into finished goods warehouse METKRAFT considers measurement process to be its Key Process for the following reasons:

• METKRAFT manufactures precision engineering products Effectiveness of the measurement process ensures METKRAFT complies with high precision product requirements from its customers

• Quality comes first in its Quality Policy Continuing to provide quality products and services is to ensure METKRAFT fulfills its mission to become an Asia’s leading manufacturer of premium industrial knives and wear components in the next ten years To so achieve, METKRAFT needs to maintain an effective and reliable measuring system

• Any quality issue with products that have been delivered to METKRAFT’s customers will mean financial losses and risk industrial brand image and reputation of itself and the entire corporation

• Any measuring errors from one production process can cause a delay in subsequent ones, which will again end up in increased production cost or the failure to deliver on time “Non-quality cost is high”

• Failure to catch discrepancies at critical points or of critical features of the products, which could be undetectable through the rest of the flow, will pose not only underperforming product problems but safety risks to users

11

2 Fulfilling Key Process Identity Card:

3 Measurement Process Flow Chart

13

4 Measurement Process Identity Card

15

Reliability is a prerequisite to measurements Measurements generate data, which

is then analysed and compared with requirements or specifications so that an appropriate conclusion can be drawn, whether what has been measured is or is not accepted However, measurement data that is not reliable also means conclusions then decisions made on such data cannot be reliable either Actions taken from unreliable decisions thereby will contribute greatly to manufacturers’ cost of quality

Characteristics that make measurement data reliable includes:

Accuracy: The closeness of the agreement between the result of a

measurement and a true value of the measurement

Precision: The closeness of the agreement between the results of successive

measurements of the same measurement carried out under the same

conditions of measurement Precision is also called Repeatability

Reproducibility: The closeness of the agreement between the results of

measurements of the same measurement carried out under changed conditions of measurement

2 Variation in Measurement Processes

Any measurement process bears in its variation that can be as illustrated in SWIPE diagram:

Please refer to quoted explanation in italics (***) about these five factors given

below:

Standard There are different levels of standard in the traceability chain in

order to provide measurement traceability Each of these standards, in turn, introduces some variation Factors affecting the standard refer to this variation

Work piece No work piece is absolutely stable There is always an inherent

instability in any material or substance However small the instability might

be, this gives rise to variation in the measurement process

Instrument All measuring instruments have a stated accuracy or

uncertainty No instrument can measure the true value of the parameter Thus, the accuracy or uncertainty of the measuring instrument contributes to the variation in the measurement

Person and procedure Factors affecting person and procedure stem from

the fact that no two human beings’ visual judgement is identical Also, different methods of measurement—the procedure— would give rise to variation

Environment The environment plays an important role in any process of

measurement It might be possible to correct the effect of a few environmental conditions, such as temperature and height above mean sea level, to some extent There are, however, quite a few environmental conditions for which there is no correction factor Environmental conditions would, therefore, give rise to some variation in every measurement process Considering the first letter of each factor (shown in bold in the above figure), these factors are collectively known as SWIPE Total variation due to SWIPE

is also known as “uncertainty in measurement”, which quantifies the reliability of the measurement data The smaller the uncertainty, the more reliable the data

3 Measurement System Analysis

Measurement System Analysis (MSA), or Gage R&R%, is a method in estimating variation in measurement processes A Gage R&R% analyses the system and calculate the gage repeatability and reproducibility The Gage R&R% is one in which operators perform measurements (trial) on samples using the same measuring instrument In a Gage R&R%, the number of each of appraisers, samples, or trials must be >1 and the minimum value for appraisers times samples times trials is 45

Software tools such as Minitab is ideal as a “revolutionary” tool in processing Gage R&R% input data to identify and quantify the following:

19

• Repeatability, for instrument variation

• Reproducibility, for appraiser or operator variation

• Part-to-part, for process variation

Through analysing the gage results of the instrument, the software tool can find out whether the variation in the measured data is due to variation in the product (Part-to-part) or the measurement system (Repeatability and Reproducibility) Following are conclusions commonly drawn in industries based the variation analysis:

• If gage repeatability and reproducibility value is less than 10 per cent, the measurement system is acceptable

• If repeatability and reproducibility is between 10 per cent and 30 per cent, the measurement system may be accepted depending on the importance of the parameter being measured

• If gauge repeatability and reproducibility is above 30 per cent, the measurement system needs improvement

• If repeatability is larger than reproducibility, the instrument needs maintenance

or replacement

• If reproducibility is larger than repeatability, the appraiser or operator needs better training and/or the instrument needs recalibration

[(***): Reference, page 42]

CHATER 2:

METKRAFT’S MSA REPORT

1 Scope and Objectives:

a Scope:

This MSA gages involve the use of “Instruments” (measuring tools or equipment) that are classified as in-use category in METKRAFT In-use instruments are those that hold manufacturer’s design tolerance or tolerance that METKRAFT has specific acceptance to, which can be observed through its calibration process However, these exclude go-no-go gages (for not producing variable data for Gages R&R) used

in replacement of reading-type tools for productivity purpose; the ultra sound unit used to detect internal steel lamination; and high-tech/high precision equipment that

is not widely provided for use by operators or inspectors on the shop floor but limited specialized officers mostly to verify measurements taken by the rest instruments These high precision equipment exclusives list include the chemical composition

analyser, the microstructure magnifier, the CMM and optical units (See Appendix IV: List of Measuring Instruments):

• “Parts” or products that are taken randomly out of production lots and at times convenient for measurements for these gages R&R%

• “Operators” including workers who make parts/run machines or quality inspectors at inspection stages;

• Inspection criteria representative of METKRAFT manufacturing processes and product characteristics and can be measured with tools and equipment commonly used by company teams for these gages % R&R

• Gages R&R% charts produced by Minitab software tool and findings from these graphics; and:

b Objective:

• The MSA gages provide an overview of the capability of existing measurement system through performance of representative inspection criteria and types of instruments at METKRAFT LTD, and:

• An illustration of a method of how measurement system data can be looked at and in a way that areas of weakness can be recognized, which is being proposed for implementation at METKRAFT LTD as a tool needed for analysis for continuous improvement of the measurement system

21

2 Gages R&R% Results

2.1 Gages R&R% Proceedings

• 15 gages were conducted as for representative inspection criteria and applicable types of instruments at METKRAFT LTD

• For one gage, 15 sample parts were randomly drawn from related working process and measured referencing relevant process specification

• Each sample was measured by 2 operators using the same instrument for two times (trials) each

• Gage samples were prepared by an independent “organizer” for each gage so that neither of operators had history of previous trial result of a sample or knew which sample he or she was measuring

• Readings of all trials by both operators were collected and processed with the help of Minitab software to get to the Gage #s results

• Reading R&R% results from Minitab software output, please refer to notes on each of the 15 gage results on the next pages:

2.2 Gage R&R% Example

Gage R&R% charts - Example

Explanations:

(1) Graph featuring components of variation: Total G&R%, Repeatability%, Reproducibility& and Part-to-part% With this graph, we are looking at columns colored for % Contribution and % Study Var

(2) Sample range chart comparing readings by two operators Van Bung and Van Cuong (total 15 readings each to each half of chart) Chart indicates Cuong’s measurement range is of less variation than Bung’s

(3) Sample mean chart comparing readings by two operators Van Bung and Van Cuong (total 15 readings each to each half of chart) Chart indicates both Cuong’s measurements and Bung’s are equally varies compared with the mean value

(4) Reading by part chart featuring all measurements by the 2 operators for each part and shows trend of measurement variation as connecting average values of all measurements for each of the 15 samples

(5) Reading by operator chart featuring a comparison of overall variation in measurement ranges and means between the two operators in the gage This also shows Cuong’s measurements are more consistent as the box plot is closer to mean

(6) Operator interaction chart featuring average measurement value by each operator on each sample and trend lines as connecting the 15 averages

to compare trends of averages between the two operators Averagely, both operator’s measurements are quite close or consistent

Gage R&R% data table - Example:

23

Explanations:

• Compared with established target of </=30%, the Total Gage R&R% = 31.23% is at an acceptable level In other words, the measurement process is fairly reliable, yet needs improvement

• While Total Gage R&R (Repeatability + Reproducibility) contributes only 9.75% to total gage variation, Part-to-part contribution accounts for 90.25%: This shows total variation is mainly due to process instability Process capability needs improvement

• With Repeatability (30.92%) > Reproducibility (4.38%), the indication is that the measuring instrument needs maintenance

2.3 Gages R&R% Results

(Please turn to following pages)

Total Gage R&R (87.98%) is unacceptable Variation due

to measurement contributes 77.4% of total variations, with part-to-part variation @ 22.6% only

Repeatability (87.98%) > Reproducibility (0%) =>

Instrument needs maintenance/replacement

Gage # 1

25

Total Gage R&R (91.11%) is unacceptable Variation due to measurement contributes 83.02% of total variations, with part-to-part variation @ 16.98% only

Repeatability (80.44%) >

Reproducibility (42.79%) => Again, this instrument needs maintenance.

Gage # 2

Total Gage R&R (36.43%

vs the 30% thresholds) is fairly acceptable for length process Variation is mainly due to part-to-part variation (86.73% contribution)

Reproducibility (28.32%) > Repeatability (22.91%) <=> Operator/training or tool calibration need improving

Gage # 3

27

Total Gage R&R (99.07%) is unacceptable Variation is mainly due to measurement errors (98.04% contribution)

* Repeatability (98.04%) vs Reproducibility (0.10%) <=>

Instrument errors However, with

a lower Repeatability (22.91%)

on Gage #3 using the same caliper, tool stability needs to be verified, whereas considering operator errors when uncomfortably trying to measure across sharp cutting edge while having to protect the edge

Gage # 4

Total Gage R&R (31.23%)

vs the 30% thresholds) is fairly acceptable for process on this product Variation is mainly due to part-to-part variation (90.25% contribution)

*Repeatability (30.92%) > Reproducibility (4.38%)

<=> Operators were doing well Still notes to take for further observation of instrument variation here

Gage # 5

29

Total Gage R&R (24.05%) is acceptable for process Variation is mainly due to part-to- part variation (94.22% contribution)

Reproducibility (22.63%) >

Repeatability (8.13%)

<=> Further observation

of operator variation

Gage # 6