LEANaero Workshop 2022

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

YSIS 5

N ACTUAL/ EVALUATION WHO
FINDING
HUSSAIN
PART AND INSERTION
CAP FELL TO THE

FLOOR. DAMAGED JIG
AND ATTACHED DUST

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

ANALY

FACTOR PROBLEM STD CONDITION

MACHINE SPATTER COMES OUT NO SPATTER SPARK
OF THE MACHINE COMING OUT OF MC
DURING WELDING

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

YSIS 6

N ACTUAL/ EVALUATION WHO
FINDING

THE WELDING HISYAM
PROCESS PRODUCES A

LOT OF SPATTER

SPATTER SPARKS OUT FROM
MACHINE MAY INTERFERE OIL SEAL.

AN INVESTIGATION OF 1 CLAIM PART
FOUND WELDING SPATTER STUCK ON

OIL SEAL.

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

ANALY

FACTOR PROBLEM STD CONDITION

MACHINE JIG PRE CAULKING JIG NO SCRATCHES
SCRATCH

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

YSIS 7

N ACTUAL/ EVALUATION WHO
FINDING
NAZAM
THE JIG SCRATCHES
FRICTION AND

PRODUCES A LOT OF
IRON DUST

PRESENT OF IRON DUST ON
MACHINE & JIG WAS
SCRATCH

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

ACTION

FACTOR PROBLEM AC

MATERIAL RE DESIG
SHARP P/ROD SURFACE ADDITIONAL

AFTER INSTA

Why 1 Why 2 Why

SHARP P/ROD REBOUND CUSHION REBOUND
SURFACE TORN AND LEFT ON INSTALLAT
P/ROD SHOULDER HARD – US

FOR

1. HENKATEN OF P/ROD DESIGN
2. REVIEW METHOD DURIN INSTALL SUBSPRING
3. ADD VACUUM ON P/ROD SHOULDER AFTER INSTALL SU
4. VISUAL CHECK ALL ROUND OF P/ROD SHOULDER

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

PLAN 1

CTION WHO WHEN COST

GN P/ROD & R&D OCT 2020 RM10
VACUUM PROCES
ALL SUBSPRING

y3 Why 4 Why 5

CUSHION REBOUND CUSHION P/ROD DESIGN NOT
TION VERY TOO TIGHT WITH SUITABLE WITH
SED MORE P/ROD
RCE REBOUND CUSHION
INSTALLATION

UBSPRING

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

ACTION

FACTOR PROBLEM AC

MACHINE NO ASSY TABLE FABRICA
PREVENT JI

FL

Why 1 Why 2 Why

NO ASSY TABLE INSERTION JIG JIG DROP &
DENTED & HARD SU
SCRATCHES

BEFORE AFTER

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

PLAN 2

CTION WHO WHEN COST

ATE TABLE TO

IG DROP TO THE TL OCT 2020 RM100

LOOR

y 3 Why 4 Why 5

& TOUCHES PART AND INSERTION JIG
URFACE INSERTION CAP FELL SURFACE SLIPPERY

TO THE FLOOR.

R

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

ACTION

FACTOR PROBLEM AC

MACHINE SPATTER COMES OUT OF
THE MACHINE DURING REVISE WELD

WELDING

Why 1 Why 2 Why

SPATTER COMES OUT SPATTER SPARK OUT SPATTER P
OF THE MACHINE FROM MACHINE FROM TH
DURING WELDING

BEFORE AFTER

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

PLAN 3

CTION WHO WHEN COST

DING CONDITION PE NOV 2020 RM10

y3 Why 4 Why 5

PRODUCE CURRENT LEAKS INCONSISTENT
HE SIDE CURRENT

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

ACTION

FACTOR PROBLEM AC

MACHINE JIG PRE CAULKING 1. CH
SCRATCH 2. KEEP
3. ESTAB
Why 1 Why 2
(CLEAN

Why

JIG PRE CAULKING JIG WEAR-OFF TOO LON
SCRATCH USE

ORDER NEW
JIG AS SPARE

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

PLAN 4

CTION WHO WHEN COST

HANGE JIG OPR 5 NOV RM500
P SPARE JIG 2020
BLISHED RULE Why 4
N 1/SETUP) Why 5

y3 UNCLEAR
INSTRUCTION
NG BEEN NO CLEANING (NO STANDARD)
ED
NO SPARE

SET A NEW RULE – CLEANING JIG
EVERY SETUP

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

IMPROVEM

RM 62

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

MENT COST

20.00

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

REJECT DATA AF
(DEC 2

ITEM DEC 20 JAN 21

PART DAMAGE 3 2

GAS OUT STD 2 1

D/FORCE NG 1 1

OIL LEAKS 0 0

TOTAL 17 13

OUTPUT 73861 72,247

PARETO CHART A
(DEC 2

Reject Ratio (%) 0.005% 64% 86%
0.004% 0.004% 0.001%
0.004%
0.003%
0.003%
0.002%
0.002%
0.001%
0.001%
0.000%

PART DAMAGE GAS OUT S

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

FTER IMPROVEMENT
20 - FEB 21)

FEB 21 TOTAL RATIO %
4 9 0.004% 64%
86%
0 3 0.001% 100%
100%
0 2 0.001%

0 0 0.000%

13 43 0.006%

73,418 219526

AFTER IMPROVEMENT
20 – FEB 21)

100% 100%

100%

80% Percentage Reject (%)

60%

0.001% 40%
20%
0.000% 0%
OIL LEAKS
STD D/FORCE NG

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

COMPARIS

PARETO BEFORE IMPROVEMENT JUNE 20-AUG 20

100%

0.020% 91% 100%

Reject Ratio (%) 77%
Percentage Reject (%)
80%

0.015%

0.010% 51% 0.005% 60%
0.005% 0.010% 40%
0.003% 20%
0.002%

0.000% 0%

OIL LEAKS PART DAMAGE GAS OUT STD D/FORCE NG

REJECT DATA BEFORE IMPROVEMENT
(JUNE 20 - AUG 20)

ITEM JUNE JULY AUG TOTAL RATIO %
20 20 20 51.16
25.58
OIL LEAKS 9 6 7 22 0.010% 13.95

PART 4 3 4 11 0.005%
DAMAGE

GAS OUT STD 3 2 1 6 0.003%

D/FORCE NG 1 2 1 4 0.002% 9.31
TOTAL 17 13 13 43 0.019% 100
OUTPUT 70,720 76,324 76,271 223,315

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

SON PARETO

PARETO AFTER IMPROVEMENT DEC 20 – FEB 21

100% 100%
100%
0.005% 86% 100%
0.004% 0.000% 80%
Reject Ratio (%) 60%
Percentage Reject (%)0.004%64%OIL LEAKS40%
0.003% 20%
0%
0.003% 0.004%
0.002%
0.002% 0.001%
0.001%
0.001%

0.001%

0.000%

PART DAMAGE GAS OUT STD D/FORCE NG

REJECT DATA AFTER IMPROVEMENT
(SEPT 20 - NOV 20)

ITEM DEC JAN FEB TOTAL RATIO %
PART 20 21 21 64%
DAMAGE 86%
GAS OUT STD 3 2 4 9 0.004% 100%
D/FORCE NG 100%
OIL LEAKS 2 1 0 3 0.001%
TOTAL
1 1 0 2 0.001%
OUTPUT
0 0 0 0 0.000%

17 13 13 43 0.006%

73861 72,247 73,418 221583

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

TARGET R

REJECT RATIO (%) 0.010% 0.010%
0.009%
0.008% OIL LEAKS
0.007%
0.006%
0.005%
0.004%
0.003%
0.002%
0.001%
0.000%

TARGE
FEB

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

REVIEW

100%

0.000% 0.000%

ET (UNTILL DEC 20 - FEB 21
B 2021)

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

ACHIEVEME

BEFORE DURING AFTER

90,000 0.013%

80,000 76,324 76,271 73861 73861 73861 73861 72,247 73,41

70,720

70,000

60,000 0.009%
50,000 0.008%

40,000

30,000 0.004%
20,000

10,000 0.001%
0
0.000% 0.000% 0.000%
Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20
Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Jan-21 Feb-21

OUTPUT

MONTH JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21

OUT 70,720 76,324 76,271 73,861 73,861 73,861 73,861 72,247 73,41
PUT

OIL 9 6 7 3 1 0 0 0 0
LEAKS

REJEC 0.013% 0.008% 0.009% 0.004% 0.001% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000
T

RATIO

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

ENT REVIEW

R CONTINUOUS

83553 79888 0.014%
78732 69914 0.012%

18 0.010%

61458

PKP 47011 0.008%
0.006%
37634

0.004%

3954 0.002%
0

0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.0000.%000%

1 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21

REJECT RATIO

B MAR APR MAY JUN JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV

21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21

18 83553 78732 61458 0 3954 37634 47011 69914 79888

000000000

0% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

ACHIEV

BEFORE IMPROVEMENT
REJECT : 22 PCS / 3 MON
AVERAGE : 7.3 PCS / 1 M
COST/PCS : RM52.40
COST REJECT : RM382.5

RM4,590
AFTER IMPROVEMENT
REJECT : 0 PCS / 3 MONT
COST REJECT : RM0 / PE

RM0 / YE

REJECT REDUCTION
DAMAGE BEFORE : RM38
DAMAGE AFTER : RM0
REDUCTION : RM4,590.7
MINUS IMPROVEMENT CO

ACTUAL SAVING : RM39

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

VEMENT

NTH
MONTH

50 / PER MONTH
0.74 / PER YEAR

TH
ER MONTH
EAR

82.50

74 / PER YEAR
OST : RM620.00

970.24 / PER YEAR

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

STANDARD

CHANGE DESIGN OF P/ROD SUBSPRING

CLEANING HEAD JIG

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

DIZATION

INSERTION REVISE WELDING CONDITION

OPL – CONTAMI (SPATTER)

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

BENE

SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT

* More accurate product
* No work 2 times
* Control damage
* Improved quality
* Actual saving (RM3970

NOT SIGNIFICANT BEN

* Increase interest in th
* Members more accoun
* Increase in teamwork
* Awareness of the impo
reject.

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

EFITS

T
tion schedule

0.24) year.

NEFIT
he work
ntable
k
ortance of controlling

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

PROBLEM BEFORE

BEFORE

•Lack of knowledge about
•Team members not inter
•No teamwork between te
•Too many excuses

AFTER

•Team members more int
•Can contribute brilliant i
•Increase in teamwork
•Team knowledge increas

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

E AND AFTER SGIA

t SGIA
rested
eam members

terested
ideas

se

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

LESSON L

•The application of SWCT s
every employee

•"Stop-Call-Wait" every tim
machine break down, safet

•"Bad news first" every tim

•10 cycle check every time
a new process

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

LEARNED

should be available to

me there is a problem with
ty, and any abnormal

me there is a problem
e there is a new worker or

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

RADAR CHART &

KNOWLEDGE 5 432 1 0

S

BEFORE SGIA
AFTER SGIA

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

& MATRIX TABLE

SUBJECT BEFORE AFTER
RESPOSIBILITY 3 4
COOPERATION 3 4
INVOLVEMENT 3 4
2 4
INTEREST 2 4
SELF CONFIDENCE 2 4

KNOWLEDGE INCREASE

1 POOR 30%
2 NOT SATISFIED
3 SATIFIED
4 GOOD
5 EXCELENT

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

NEXT P

PART D

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

PROJECT

DAMAGE

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

REJECT DATA BEF
(DEC 2

ITEM DEC 20 JAN 21

PART DAMAGE 3 2

GAS OUT STD 2 1

D/FORCE NG 1 1

OIL LEAKS 0 0

TOTAL 17 13

OUTPUT 73861 72,247

PARETO CHART BE
(DEC 2

Reject Ratio (%) 0.005% 64% 86%
0.004% 0.004% 0.001%
0.004%
0.003%
0.003%
0.002%
0.002%
0.001%
0.001%
0.000%

PART DAMAGE GAS OUT S

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

FORE IMPROVEMENT
20 - FEB 21)

FEB 21 TOTAL RATIO %
4 9 0.004% 64%
86%
0 3 0.001% 100%
100%
0 2 0.001%

0 0 0.000%

13 43 0.006%

73,418 219526

EFORE IMPROVEMENT
20 – FEB 21)

100% 100%

100%

80% Percentage Reject (%)

60%

0.001% 40%
20%
0.000% 0%
OIL LEAKS
STD D/FORCE NG

INTRO THEME PROBLEM TARGET ANAL

ACTIO

1 PROBLEMS 3 PROBLEM AN

•KPI set by HOD, Collecting •Analyze Da
data. Solution, Ro
Recommen

OCT W3 DEC W1 – W2

START

NOV W4 – DEC W1 DEC

2 DEFINE PROPLEMS & TARGET
SETTING

•Target setting (SMART), Set team
Master Schedule & Work
delegation.

LYSIS ACTION RESULT STANDARD EVALUATE NEXT
PROJECT

ON PLAN

5
PROJECT EVALUATION, REFLECTION
& STANDARDIZATION

•Record & Review result
(successful/unsuccessful)

NALYSIS
ata (7 QC tools),
oot & cause,
ndations

JAN W3 – APRW4

END

CW2 – FEBW4 APR W4

4 6
IMPROVEMENT ACTION
•Corrective action, Executes NEXT ACTION
action •Analyze cause &
benefits
m,