Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 17

Mr. Amir b. Haridan Mdm. Hasliza bte.

Ismail

Mr. Nazmi b. Nasir Mr. Nik Sok b. Nik Kob


MONTHLY DEFECT Graphic Plug Straight Screw Threads(NOVEMBER
2007 – APRIL 2OO8)

39
Graph of the problem
Straight Screw thread plug damage quantity and %

40
Fishbone Diagram

METHOD
MAN

Careless No
Lack of
mistake specific
Knowledge
Not follow order

New
SOP No visual Plug Straight
Part move control
Worker No focus
during Screw Dammage
Works not
process
follow sop

Material Plastic Tool


not Jig not effiecian
suitabl
Inspection e Wrong
tool not Setting Jig
Tool effect
friendly

No special jig
MATERIAL MACHINE
SHORT LIST OF SOURCES ISSUE
FACTOR SOURCES

MAN 1. Fail to carry out a survey


2. Lack of skilled worker
3. New worker
4. Damage undetectable

METHOD 1. Wrong jig setting


2. No correct method
3. SOP/WORK instruction not clear

MACHINE 1. Old jig designed


2. Hard surfaces

MATERIAL 1. Plastic
NO. PROBLEM SOURCES DESCRIPTION EVALUATION
1. New worker Facts - found common mistakes WRONG
            during installation.
Data - Always changing
            process.

NO. PROBLEM SOURCES DESCRIPTION EVALUATION


2 Lack of skilled worker Fact - the skilled workers too CORRECT
            limited.

NO. PROBLEM SOURCES DESCRIPTION EVALUATION


3 Failed to execute Fact - jig slanting position WRONG
check             cause threads
            damaged.
Data - Training Given
            enough. Standard Process
            clear enough.
NO. PROBLEM CAUSE DESCRIPTION EVALUATION
1 WRONG JIG SETTING Fact - Work instruction clearly CORRECT
             but the process has no
             indicator of the direction
and
             the right jig.
NO. PROBLEM CAUSE DESCRIPTION EVALUATION
2 SOP/WORK Fact-not true because
INSTRUCTION NOT            SOP / Work Instruction
WRONG
CLEAR            There is a clear and
simple
           understood
Data - Work Instruction
            Pictures.

NO. PROBLEM CAUSE DESCRIPTION EVALUATION


3 Fact – Complete assy CORRECT
NO CHECKING STRAIGHT
SCREW PLUG
NO. PROBLEM CAUSE DESCRIPTION EVALUATION
1 OLD DESIGN Fact - not jig design CORRECT
            been modified in
accordance with
            fitness components.
Data - Drawing / Dimension.
NO. PROBLEM CAUSE DESCRIPTION EVALUATION
2 HARD SURFACE OF JIG Fact - Material should be of high CORRECT
quality
Data - The use of the method
            by
            process.
NO. PROBLEM CAUSE DESCRIPTION EVALUATION
1 PLASTIC Fact-The design and material has
           specified by the supplier
WRONG
           and HYMM
Data - It has been agreed by the
parties
           HYMM (FOREIGN AUTHORITY
           MEMBER).
PUNCA MASALAH YANG DITERIMA
NO. FACTOR ROOT ISSUE SOURCE DESCRIPTION
1. HUMAN - Lack of skilled a) To take hold of work
workers. b) Do not take the initiative to learn
- Damage not c) Work as instructed / forced
Thread
  can be detected.
2 METHOD - Wrong setting jiga) Lack of knowledge / skills
- No checking Plug b) not exposed to the latest technology
  Straight Screw. c) Not interested in learning.
d) Lack of disclosure of a material
     Lecture
3. MACHINE - Create a long jig. a) No control of the engineering.
- The surface of the b) Save cost.
jig groove. c) Easy and can save time.
Object target 90 %
PARETO GRAPH
HUMAN FACTOR
PROBLEM WHY 1 WHY 2 WHY 3

DAMAGE Attitude about No monitoring


undetectable complying with of the head. There is no specific
work schedule for
instructions. monitoring
LACK OF SKILLED Not enough Limited training -
WORKER training time
METHOD FACTOR

PROBLEM WHY 1 WHY 2 WHY 3


WRONG JIG SETTING Method of work Default operator No awareness of
wrong instructions quality
(Do not follow
SOP)
No checking WRONG Method of The process of Poor monitoring
Straight Screw Plug work changing
frequently.
MACHINE FACTOR
PROBLEM WHY 1 WHY 2 WHY 3 WHY 4
OLD DESIGN Unable to Unstable Bonding initial Round jig is
control the position. slanting not
position of the straight.
groove
HARD SURFACE Metal contact No mat or
OF JIG (during the Retainer
pass over))
Graphic Plug Straight Screw Threads DAMAGE AFTER 5
MONTHS SETTLEMENT STAGE 1 (2008)

6 unit
Cost savings
95%

1 unit
FUTURE PLAN

PERATUS
SASARAN PROJEK 90 %
KEKERAPAN

SASARAN PROJEK 90 %

Centres d'intérêt liés