Goblej Plant ( Near Ahmedabad) Gujarat, India - ASQ · PDF fileGoblej Plant ( Near Ahmedabad)...

1

Goblej Plant ( Near Ahmedabad) Gujarat, India

1 All the numbers are represented are masked considering business confidentiality

• Coca-Cola was formulated in 1886 by John F Pemberton • We Operate In more countries than UN • Its most Recognized word after “OK” • One of the Most value Brands in the world

To Refresh the World Inspire moments of optimism and happiness Create value and make a difference

Mis

sio

n

THE COCA-COLA COMPANY (TCCC)

2

2

HCCBPL is the largest bottling partner of The Coca-Cola Company in India. It is a part of The Coca-Cola Company’s Bottling Investments Group (BIG) and responsible for the manufacture, package, sale and distribution of beverages under the trademarks of The Coca-Cola Company.

Introduction…

3

OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE MODEL

4

http://www.google.co.in/url?q=http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/03/21/the-evolution-of-tech-logos-infographic/coca-cola-1/&sa=U&ei=O3s5U6ebMMOJrQfp9YHABA&ved=0CEkQ9QEwDg&usg=AFQjCNGSkgG1iCjAzzOSxc9BKrRV7DwGcQ

3

HCCB - OE Strategic Roadmap – Picture of Success

5

1 2 3 4 5

OPERATION EXCELLENCE – STRATEGIC DEPLOYMENT

6

4

Zones

Andhra Pradesh

Maharashtra, Goa

Gujarat, Rajasthan , MP

Delhi, UP, Jammu

East Zone

Karnataka

Tamil Nadu, Kerala

HCCB IS ORGANIZED INTO 8 OPERATING ZONES

Plant – Goblej Ahmedabad, Gujarat,

India

COMPANY PROFILE - HCCBPL

7

Category Goblej

Sparkling PET HS PET Sparkling- 2 Lines

Juice PET HS HF PET Juice -1 Line

Sparkling RGB RGB Sparkling - 2 Lines

Juice RGB RGB Juice- 1 Line

Water HS Water- 1 Line

Sparkling PET SS PET Sparkling- 1 Line

Tertrapak Tetra Brik Aseptic-1 Line

Bag in Box Bulk Pack for Institutions

• First Greenfield Plant set up in 1998 over approx. 52 acres of land

• Capacity of approx. 200k physical cases per day

• Annual production volume 40 MM Physical Cases

10 14

18 21

28 34 37

0

10

20

30

40

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Volume( MM‘ Cases)

MORE THAN 3.5 TIMES

INCREASE IN PRODUCTION

IN 5 YEARS

We are The Largest Manufacturing Operations of HCCBPL – 10 Lines with 4 HS

600 BPM Lines

Goblej Plant

FACTORY PROFILE - GOBLEJ

8

5

RGB Sparkling

RGB Juice

PET Sparkling

PET Juices PET Water

Tetra Juices

OUR MAIN PRODUCTS

9

International Beverage 2012 Award (Environment) Water Digest Award-Water Reuse POY -2012 CII National Award for “Excellence in Energy Management” IWA 2012 Award for Water for Future : Global Category Certificate for “Strong Commitment in Food Safety” by CII

Golden Peacock Sustainability Award from Institute of Directors

Platinum award on Lean Six Sigma from CBE F&S Economic Times – IMEA Gold Award POY 2013 – Power Yield Improvement

TPM Excellence Award from JIPM in Category-A Award for “ Freight Cost Optimization – Gujarat “ in Pune POY 2015 – Co2 Yield Improvement & P2 Pressure reduction

JIPM Excellence

PLANT MILESTONE ACHIEVED

10

6

01

Section : 1 Project & Team Selection


1.1.1 Who was responsible for selecting the Project ? (1/2)

HCCBPL - National Steering Committee

Global Vision 2020

Business Diagnostic

Improvement Opportunities Identification

Project Execution – Training and

OE tool usage

Leadership Report Out

Certification, R&R

Voice of Customer

Voice of Business

Profit & Loss Analysis

KPI Trend & Benchmarking

Project selection Committee

Supply Chain Transformation Defining the Performance Gaps – Big “Y’s”

Idea Generation workshop

SCOR Model

PlanPlan PlanCustomer Channel &

Product Line Reqm’ts ComponentsComponents

Components

Laurel, MS

Components

Laurel, MS

Interior Doors:

Haleyville, AL

Interior Doors:

Haleyville, AL

Specialty:

Brampton, Ont.

Specialty:

Brampton, Ont.

Exterior Doors

Dickson, TN

Exterior Doors

Dickson, TN

DorFab:

Lawrenceville, GA

DorFab:

Lawrenceville, GA

Door GroupDoor GroupSuppliersSuppliers CustomersCustomers

Cohesive Supply Chain View Eliminates Disconnects

Retail• Home Depot

• Lowes

Competitors• ??

• ??

Distribution: 1-Stepper• ??

• ??

Distribution: 2-Stepper• ??

• ??

Internal

Suppliers• ??

• ??

External

Suppliers• ??

• ??

12

7

1.1.1 What Background Information of the Company or those who selected the

project is needed to better Understand the context of the project? (2/2)

Raw Syrup

Sugar

Water

Ready Syrup

Carbonated Beverages

CO2

Raw Materials

QSPECS Executive Summary review

- Monthly in National Steering

Committee

Low Yield

Concentrate

(Dissolved CO2)

Material Loss

Internal benchmarking

(VA) 13

1.2.1 How was the Gap or Opportunity brought to the attention of the project

Identification group? (1/3)

Raw Material / PM Yield

Gap : 22%

Cost Loss Matrix

Yield Loss

Co2

Global Bmnechmark-90%

India Bmnechmark-85% Gap / Opportunity

14

http://www.google.co.in/url?q=http://www.sugarauthority.com/&sa=U&ei=uVM6U6_oLsfirAey94BQ&ved=0CC8Q9QEwAQ&usg=AFQjCNH2K6XjVR-a_9F4p6ctuen3XfcoSQ

http://www.google.co.in/url?q=http://www.kwikjava.net/index.php?cPath=74_429_461&sa=U&ei=4FM6U7a_IIiFrAeBxoDADw&ved=0CDcQ9QEwBQ&usg=AFQjCNEGq88dL4ESfWeDMXm0o5_E-iWkwA

8

0.880.800.720.640.560.48

LSL Target

LSL 0.85

Target 0.9

USL *

Sample Mean 0.682538

Sample N 27

StDev (Within) 0.0765319

StDev (O v erall) 0.08694

Process Data

C p *

C PL -0.73

C PU *

C pk -0.73

Pp *

PPL -0.64

PPU *

Ppk -0.64

C pm 0.07

O v erall C apability

Potential (Within) C apability

PPM < LSL 962962.96

PPM > USL *

PPM Total 962962.96

O bserv ed Performance

PPM < LSL 985670.16

PPM > USL *

PPM Total 985670.16

Exp. Within Performance

PPM < LSL 972959.09

PPM > USL *

PPM Total 972959.09

Exp. O v erall Performance

Within

Overall

Process Capability of Co2 Yield

1.2.1 What is the Gap ( Problem Solving )? ( 2/3 )

Mean: 78 %

Range : 30 %

Current Mean Yield : 68% Target Yield : 90 %

Opportunity : 22%

Current range : 30% Target Range : 5%

Day wise Yield variation

Co2 Yield = ------------------------------------------------------ X 100 No of Bottle OK produced * GV*Density

Total CO2 used from receiving in tank

15

1.2.1 What area of the organization had the gap or the opportunity? ( 3/3 )

Loss : Gap / Opportunity

• Daily Routine • Shop floor involvement • Routine Inspection & Tagging

Zero Leak Approach – TPM

• Statistical Analysis skill • Technical skills • Cross Functional Team

Process Optimization – Six Sigma & Innovation

16

9

1.2.2 What data was generated to help select the project? ( 1/3 )

Financial reporting

QSPECS Summary (Tier 1 KPIs)

Cost Loss in RM Yield & Trends

Benchmark Data ( India & Global )

Row Labels Sum of BOM Quantity Sum of Qty Reqd after Scrap Sum of Revised QTY issued Sum of Usage Variance for Material

BIB BAG 10,909 10,931 10,950 935

Carton 125,657 125,908 125,868 (17,172)

Closure 25,723,095 25,916,018 25,877,962 (13,616)

CO2 73,456 95,493 181,287 1,143,246

Conc 13,165 13,165 13,064 (301,414)

Crown 10,340,784 10,418,340 10,408,492 (3,106)

Label 10,884 10,938 10,700 (95,245)

Laminate 3,960 3,980 107,480 164,310

Preform 25,723,095 25,903,157 26,031,076 528,363

Pulp 677,987 680,786 719,461 650,907

Raw Syrup 1,424,267 1,424,267 1,432,843 222,369

Ready Syrup 4,992,168 5,007,144 5,088,826 1,074,756

Shrink 75,569 75,721 55,002 (2,983,701)

Sleeve 1,943,634 1,953,352 2,001,283 44,271

Straw 3,960 3,980 3,980 0

Sugar 1,169,128 1,174,974 1,174,990 504

Tray 88 88 250 583

Grand Total 72,311,806 72,818,241 73,243,513 415,989

Gain / Loss in INR

Global Dashboard

17

1.2.2 What method and /or tool were used to assess or prioritize the need for

the Project? ( 2/3 )

B PROJECT LIST:

SCORE RANK

CO2 Yield Improvement 1881

Leakage and Breakages reduction 153

2

SLE Improvement147

3

OEM's OEM & Localisations - Local Vendor in place of IR145

4

Yield Improvement in Mz Juice 137

5

Productivity/Process Improvement135

6

Breakdown Cost125

7

1 ton Sugar and 1.2 Ton Pulp Contribution to be increased to 100%122

8

Mixer Temperature Optimization121

9

PROJECT NAME

JDI / Kaizen Workshop DMAIC

Project Evaluated as per Strategic Criteria Methods / tools

Brainstorming

Pareto Chart

SOWT

Project

Oth

er

Red

uction in Plant G

& A

( Employe

e trav

el &

ren

t lea

se )

N2 Yield Im

p rovem

ent

FL Buying

Rep

air & M

ainten

ance

Cos

t red

uctio

n in B

hopal

OEM

's OEM

& Loc

alisations

- Loc

al V

endo

r in place

of IR

War

ehou

se F

G Lo ss

Red

uctio

n

Neg

o tiatio

n with

OEM

Misc

Con

sumab

les cos

t red

uctio

n

Brea

kdown C

ost

AOH T

O P

M T

rans

it ion

- T

etra

CMC

Sto ra

ge A

rea Cons

olidation +

Uns

ortin

g at D

C

Leak

age an

d Br

eaka

ges red

uctio

n

Mixer

Tem

peratur

e Optim

izatio

n

Use

of O

wn veh

icle

Can

teen

/ C

afeter

ia / C

aptiv

e Con

sumptio

n

S td. M

anning

CPW

D Impr

ovem

ent

Red

uction in

OFM

E Line

in Bhop

al

Slud

ge Disp

o sal

1 ton Su

gar an

d 1.2 Ton

Pulp C

ontribu tio

n to be increa

sed to 100

%

CO2 Yield

impr

ovem

ent

Power Yield Imp ro

vem

ent

Yield Impr

ove

men

t In CO2 -P

T-20

Pro du

ctivity

/Pro

cess Impr

ovem

ent

SLE

Impr

ovem

ent

Yield Impr

ovem

ent in M

z Ju

ice

Upsiz

e Gain in

Gujara

t

Sugar Sto

rage

in H

ouse

One

way

Imp ro

vem

ent

9080706050403020100

100

80

60

40

20

0YTD

Ta

rge

t 2

01

6

Pe

rce

nt

Pareto Chart of Project

Quick win / Replications Simple in nature Complicated 3-4 months

18

10

1.2.2 Why these methods / tools are used to select the project? ( 3/3 )

Methods / tools

Brainstorming

Pareto Chart

SOWT

Project

Oth

er

Red

uction in Plant G

& A

( Employe

e trav

el &

ren

t lea

se )

N2 Yield Im

p rovem

ent

FL Buying

Rep

air & M

ainten

ance

Cos

t red

uctio

n in B

hopal

OEM

's OEM

& Loc

alisations

- Loc

al V

endo

r in place

of IR

War

ehou

se F

G Lo ss

Red

uctio

n

Neg

o tiatio

n with

OEM

Misc

Con

sumab

les cos

t red

uctio

n

Brea

kdown C

ost

AOH T

O P

M T

rans

it ion

- T

etra

CMC

Sto ra

ge A

rea Cons

olidation +

Uns

ortin

g at D

C

Leak

age an

d Br

eaka

ges red

uctio

n

Mixer

Tem

peratur

e Optim

izatio

n

Use

of O

wn veh

icle

Can

teen

/ C

afeter

ia / C

aptiv

e Con

sumptio

n

S td. M

anning

CPW

D Impr

ovem

ent

Red

uction in

OFM

E Line

in Bhop

al

Slud

ge Disp

o sal

1 ton Su

gar an

d 1.2 Ton

Pulp C

ontribu tio

n to be increa

sed to 100

%

CO2 Yield

impr

ovem

ent

Power Yield Imp ro

vem

ent

Yield Impr

ove

men

t In CO2 -P

T-20

Pro du

ctivity

/Pro

cess Impr

ovem

ent

SLE

Impr

ovem

ent

Yield Impr

ovem

ent in M

z Ju

ice

Upsiz

e Gain in

Gujara

t

Sugar Sto

rage

in H

ouse

One

way

Imp ro

vem

ent

9080706050403020100

100

80

60

40

20

0YTD

Ta

rge

t 2

01

6

Pe

rce

nt

Pareto Chart of Project

Understand the internal Customer pain area Indirect impact on our own people may be

much higher than cost impact

Why?

Based on the impact on Business Replicable across the organization quickly

Understand the future Risk & requirements Proactive actions to be more competetive

19

1.2.3 What Goals ( organizational and / or local) , performance measures, and

/or strategies were the project expected to impact ? ( 1/3 )

PY BP Actual

Water 1,755 1,755 1,540

Product Souricng Freight 1,837 3,359 5,145

Comp & Benefits (Casual) Mfg 6,505 6,950 5,983

Power/ Fuel (Plant only) 28,401 35,175 24,422

Breakage (in plant) 3,071 3,598 3,436

Misc Consumables 9,148 10,626 10,403

Usage Variance (Material) 2,274 - (5,439)

Total Variable Mfg Overheads 52,990 61,464 45,490

Variable Mfg OverheadsAmount'000

Unit P & L

Organizational Measure

Local Measures

• Total Cost savings Target – 7.0MM INR

Cost Improvement

• Goblej Plant Co2 Yield – 90%

Co2 Yield

20

11

1.2.3 What was the relationship between the stated measure & perceived gap

in 1.2.1 ? ( 2/3 )

1.2.1

Storage & Evaporation

Distribution Loss

Carbonation process Loss

Filling process Loss

• Short Quantity receive • Leakage Loss from joint

• Pressure drop in long pipe • Leakage Loss in Pipe

• Excess use of Co2 • Leakage • Loss due to wrong

process parameters

• Loss due to wrong process parameters

• Venting in air in Snifting

Areas Perceived Gap Stated Measure

CO2 Yield (VA Qty /

Total Usage)

21

1.2.3 What was the problem / project objective statement that express where

the organization want to be at the end of the project ( 3/3 )

Project Name: Project #: Project Start/End Dates: Co2 Yield Improvement 1 04-05-15 to 31-03-16 Project Lead: Anurag Shukla Executive Sponsor: Alok Sharma Team Members : Project Costs: (include required capital, expenses)

1 Gaurav Patel Mr Sanjay Sharma Mr Kunal Sharma Mr Rajesh Nair Mahesh Kore

- Capital: - Expenses 2 Sachin Parashar NA NA 3 Raghvendra TN 4 Vaibhav Deshpandey 5 Dilip Mandala 6 Piyush Shah 7 Somen Adhikari

Mission/Project problem Statement :

Currently Goblej Plant co2 yield is running at 68% f and had a loss of Huge amount ,if we can improve yield to 90 % that will result in saving of 7MM. ( Global benchmark Level )

KPI's:

Co2 Yield ---- 90 % from 68%

Objectives: (include beginning & ending KPI's) Net Benefits:

To improve overall Plant Co2 yield by Improving yield From 68% to 90% by Q1 2016

Yearly : 7.0 MM INR @ 90% Target.

In Scope: OE Tools to be used: Out of Scope:

PET Lines ( PET 10,20,40,RGB1,RGB2) Data Analysis,'5 WHY ANALYSIS RGB3/Hot Fill/water Line/BIB

Process Flow Chart,DMAIC

Project Milestones: Dependencies: Define 04-05-15 to 15-06-15

Operational Changes Must not effect to quality parameter of Finish Goods.

Measure 15-06-15 to 15-07-15 Analysis 15-07-15 to 15-09-15 Improve 05-09-15 to 31-12-15 Control 31-01-16 to 31-03-16

22

12

1.3.1 How were the stakeholder groups identified? ( 1/2 )

Core Team & Support Team

(BU)

23

1.3.1 What or who were the stakeholder group? ( 2/2 )

SC - Director SC Management Team

Core Execution Team

Steering Committee

Process Area Team

Stakeholder groups Designations Roles

Zonal Vice President Zonal Supply Chain Head Zonal Finance Head

Factory Manager Plant Manager OE Manager QA Manager Production Mgrs Optech

Production Team ( CSD Line )

BU Team Quality Assurance Team

I

I

E

E

E

I- Influencer E - Executer

24

13

1.3.2 What knowledge or skill sets were determined to be necessary for

successful completion of the project? ( 1/3 )

Skills/ Knowledge/

Abilities

Determined Skills Set

Analytical Skills

Innovative Thinking

Problem Solving skills

Change management Skills

Functional Knowledge

Product Knowledge

Technical skills

25

1.3.2

Training As is and Required

SC Management Team

Core Execution Team

Steering Committee

Process Area Team

BU Team

Analytical Skills

Innovative Thinking




Product Knowledge

Technical skills

To what extend did the existing stakeholder groups have the required

knowledge or skills? ( 2/3 )

AS - Was Required

H

H

M

M

H

H

M

H

M M

26

14

1.3.2 What additional knowledge and skills were brought to make the project

successful ? ( 3/3 )

Training Organized at Zonal Level

SC Management Team

Core Execution Team

Steering Committee

Process Area Team

BU Team

Analytical Skills

Innovative Thinking




Product Knowledge

Technical skills – Leak detection

Additional Knowledge & Skills

Beverages Filling

Process

Statistical analysis

Leak Test – Process

27

1.3.3 Before the Project started, what specific training was done? ( 1/2 )

Six Sigma Training Yellow belt Green Belt

DOE Co2 Leak Test Training

Process Training by OEM • Carbonation process

• Filling Process

Training

TPM Training • JH Pillar • PM Pillar • KK Pillar

28

15

1.3.3 Before project started what was done to prepare the team to work

together as a team? ( 2/2 )

“I” became “ WE”

Understand with each other Removed confliction & resolve

difference Develop trust & Communication Improve collaboration Goal clarity & Agreement Clear Roles & Responsibility

Team Building Exercise

29

1.3.4 What roles & expectations were determined ahead of the project? ( 1/3 )

Project Leader

Leakage Arrest Team

Operational Excellence

Process Area Team

BU Team

Core Teams Roles Expectations

Lead Project Coordinate with members

Develop Project team Plan & Execute Training

Coordinate for Leak test & Arrest

Improve the process parameters

Check & Verify

Deliver anticipated result

Develop team for Execution

Zero Leakage across the plant

Optimize & Reduce Process Loss

Validate & Approve changes

30

16

1.3.4 What deadlines & deliverables did the team have to consider ahead of

actually starting the project? ( 2/3 )

Core Teams Deliverables Deadlines

Project Leader

Leakage Arrest Team

Operational Excellence

Process Area Team

Create the Project Charter

Deliver Training & workshop

Training on Measurement system

Understand the Filling process by OEM

15-May- 15

07-Jun-15

30-May-15

10-Jun-15

31

1.3.4 Before the project started, what team routines, including communications

, were established? ( 3/3 )

SC Management Team 1/ M

1/3M

Email

Meeting

Kunal Sharma

Steering Committee 1/M

1/W

Meeting

Email

Sukumar

Core Execution Team 1/W Meeting Somen / Piyush

Process Area Team 1/W Notice Board /Email

Gaurav / Dileep

BU Team 1/W Email Mahesh ( QA)

Stakeholder Message Frequency Media Responsibility

Team Meeting

Site Steering review

Zonal Steering Review

National Steering Review

Weekly / Tuesday – 11am to 12noon Project Leader Status Update

1/ 2 Weeks Factory Manager Status Update

1/ Month ZVP / ZSCM Status Update

1/ 3 Month SC Director Status Update

• Financial update • KPI Update • Project status

• Financial update • KPI Update • Project status

• KPI Update • Project status



Routines

Communication Plan

32

17

01

Section : 2

Current situation and root cause / improvement opportunity analysis


2.1.1 What specific goals and / or measures was the team trying to achieve

with the project? ( 1/2 )

Goal : CO2 Yield Improvement from 68% to 90%

7.0 MM INR

Leakage Loss :

Process Loss :

Business

Case Goal Timeliness

Team

34

18

2.1.1 What additional potential benefit, other than specific goals and /or

measures, was the project expected to impact? ( 2/2 )

Potential Benefits

Benefits

$ 0.7MM INR

Additional Benefits

Clean Environment

Optimum Resource usage

Reduce Carbon footprint

% Loss / Yield

Measures

Financial Benefit

35

2.2.1 What method and /or tools were used to identify possible root causes /

improvement opportunities? ( 1/3 )

1

2

3

4

5

DEFINE

MEASURE

ANALYZE

IMPROVE

CONTROL

Method : DMAIC

Leak Test

Pareto Chart

Loss Waterfall

Detail SIPOC

High Level SIPOC

• High Level SIPOC • Detail Process

Mapping • Brainstorming • Pareto Chart • Why-Why analysis • FMEA C & E Matrix • Loss Measurement • Loss Waterfall

Tools

36

19

2.2.1 Why were these methods and /or tolls selected ( to identify possible root

causes / improvement opportunities )? ( 2/3 )

High Level SIPOC

Loss Waterfall analysis

Detail Process Map

Pareto chart

Tools Used

Brainstorming

To understand the understanding, Inputs variables from suppliers which can be Possible Cause

Why Tools Used

To Understand the details of Process Inputs ( Man, Machine, Method, Measurement – Pressure, temp )

To Measure & understand the Leakage Loss & Process Loss to make the Focus area Clear

Prioritize the high opportunity area to analyze further

Identify the inputs which comes from experiences

37

2.2.1 How was the team prepared to use these methods and/or tools ( to

identify possible root causes / improvement opportunities )? ( 3/3 )

Special Team formed for Arresting Leak

Training

• I know but I cant do 1 - Commoner

• I can do but I need support

2- Learner

• I can do independently

3 - Practitioner

• I can teach others 4 – Expert

• SIPOC • Process Map • Cause & Effect • FMEA • Pareto Chart

38

20

2.2.2 What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to identify the

possible root cause/improvement opportunities? ( 1/2 )

Leak test & Loss Measurement

High Priority Area

39

2.2.2 What were possible root cause/improvement opportunities? ( 2/2 )

C & E Matrix FMEA

Inputs parameters / Potential X’s Total 32 Points were identified

X1 Run Speed

X2 Flavor

X3 sku

X4 GV

X5 Snifting Pressure

X6 Return Gas Pressure

X7 Bowl Pressure

X8 Pressurization

X9 Becalm

X10 Co2 Ratio

X11 Paramix Pressure

X12 Flow RATE (T/h)

X13 Temperature at PHE

X14 Product Temperature At filler

X15 Booster Pump

X 16 Bowl Level

40

21

2.3.1 What methods and /or tools were used to identify the final root cause(s)/

improvement opportunity (ies)? ( 1/3 )

Method / Tools

ANOVA Analysis 2 sample t - test

Regression Analysis

Multi Regression with VIF

X3 Impact of SKU size

ThuSpriteSodaLimcaFantaCoke

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

Flavour 1

Da

ily C

o2

Yie

ld

72.31%

69.55%69.53%

62.02%63.57%

57.73%

Boxplot of Daily Co2 Yield

X2 Impact of Flavor

onOff

90.00%

85.00%

80.00%

75.00%

70.00%

Booster Pump

Co

2 Y

ield

74.81%

78.14%

Boxplot of Co2 YieldImpact of Booster Pump

X15

120.00%100.00%80.00%60.00%40.00%20.00%

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

SLE

Yie

ld

S 0.0712509

R-Sq 82.4%

R-Sq(adj) 81.0%

Fitted Line PlotYield = 0.2958 + 0.4733 SLE

Impact of SLE

41

2.3.1 What methods and /or tools were used to identify the final root cause(s)/

improvement opportunity (ies)? ( 1/3 )

Method / Tools Screening DOE – Main Effect Study

BC

C

ACD

ABCD

ABD

ABC

BD

AD

CD

D

AC

BCD

AB

B

A

0.090.080.070.060.050.040.030.020.010.00

Te

rm

Effect

0.01270

A Bow l F iller Lev el

B Snifting Pressure

C Bow l Pressure

D Paramix Pressure

Factor Name

Pareto Chart of the Effects(response is Yield, Alpha = 0.05)

Lenth's PSE = 0.00494087

Full factorial DOE

42

22

2.3.1 Why were these methods and /or tools selected ( to identify the final root

cause(s) / Opportunity ( ies)? ( 2/3 )

Method / Tools WHY ?

• By variation of SKU size • By variation of Different Flavors • Change Booster pump On/OFF

Impact on Co2 Yield

• By Change in Snifting pressure • By Change in Bowl Pressure • By Change in Pressurization • By Change in Paramix pressure. • By change Temperature at PHE • By Change in Bowl Level

• Screening of Significant Causes

• To understand the interaction impact of significant Causes

43

2.3.1 How was the team prepared to use these methods and /or tools ( to

identify the final root cause(s) / Opportunity ( ies)? ( 3/3 )

Method / Tools Team Preparedness

SPC & Capability (1 day )

Process Area Team

Six Sigma GB ( 4 days )

Core Execution Team Steering Committee

DOE ( 1 day ) Core Execution Team Steering Committee

All Experiments are supported & Guided by Zonal OE / National OE Team

44

23

2.3.2 What data was generated and how was the data analyzed in order to

identify the final root cause(s) / Opportunity ( ies)? ( 1/3 )

Design of Experiment & Data collection

Process Out put input data Collections without any change in setting

22501250750600

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

SKU1

Da

ily C

o2

Yie

ld

Boxplot of Daily Co2 Yield

ANOVA

8045

0.84

0.82

0.80

0.78

0.76

1.80.8

5.14.4

0.84

0.82

0.80

0.78

0.76

6.55.8

Bowl Filler Level

Me

an

Snifting Pressure

Bowl Pressure Paramix Pressure

Main Effects Plot for YieldData Means

1.80.8 5.14.4 6.55.8

0.84

0.78

0.72

0.84

0.78

0.72

0.84

0.78

0.72

Bowl Filler Level

Snifting Pressure

Bowl Pressure

Paramix Pressure

45

80

Level

Filler

Bowl

0.8

1.8

Pressure

Snifting

4.4

5.1

Pressure

Bowl

Interaction Plot for YieldData Means

Statistical Analysis through Minitab

45

2.3.2 What are specific examples of data analysis that led to the final root

causes? ( 2/3 )

Analysis of SKU size

BC

C

ACD

ABCD

ABD

ABC

BD

AD

CD

D

AC

BCD

AB

B

A

0.090.080.070.060.050.040.030.020.010.00

Te

rm

Effect

0.01270


B Snifting Pressure

C Bow l Pressure

D Paramix Pressure

Factor Name


Lenth's PSE = 0.00494087

Statistically Significant

Process Parameters

1.80.8 5.14.4 6.55.8

0.84

0.78

0.72

0.84

0.78

0.72

0.84

0.78

0.72

Bowl Filler Level

Snifting Pressure

Bowl Pressure

Paramix Pressure

45

80

Level

Filler

Bowl

0.8

1.8

Pressure

Snifting

4.4

5.1

Pressure

Bowl

Interaction Plot for YieldData Means

Statistically Significant

46

24

2.3.2 What was (were) the final root cause(s) / improvement opportunity (ies) ?

( 3/3 )

Final Root

Causes

Inputs parameters / Potential X’s Significant X’s ( )

S

S

S

S

S

S

47

2.3.3 How was (were) the final root cause(s) / improvement opportunity (ies)

validated? ( 1/2 )

Filler Bowl Level

Root Causes

Snifting Pressure

Paramix Pressure

Filler Bowl Pressure

SKU Size

Validation

Trial Conducted with Sterile Air Unit & Checked

Result

Trial Conducted & Result Check

ANOVA : for Filler Bowl Level ( 3 level )

2-sample t-test for Bowl Level ( 2 Level)

2-sample t-test for Paramix Pressure( 2 Level)

DOE with all significant Parameters

48

25

2.3.3 What evidence showed that the final root cause(s) / Opportunity (ies)

were validated prior to solution development ? ( 2/2 )

Filler Bowl Level

Root Causes

Snifting Pressure

Paramix Pressure

Filler Bowl Pressure

SKU Size

Validation

Trial Conducted with Sterile Air Unit & Checked

Result

Trial Conducted & Result Check

ANOVA : for Filler Bowl Level ( 3 level )

2-sample t-test for Bowl Level ( 2 Level)

2-sample t-test for Paramix Pressure( 2 Level)

DOE with all significant Parameters

8045

0.84

0.82

0.80

0.78

0.76

1.80.8

5.14.4

0.84

0.82

0.80

0.78

0.76

6.55.8

Bowl Filler Level

Me

an

Snifting Pressure


Main Effects Plot for YieldData Means

CurHigh

Low0.00000D

New

d = 0.00000

Maximum

Yield

y = 0.8599

0.00000

Desirability

Composite

5.80

6.50

4.40

5.10

0.80

1.80

45.0

80.0Snifting Bowl Pre Paramix Bowl Fil

[80.0] [1.80] [4.40] [5.8053]

BC

C

ACD

ABCD

ABD

ABC

BD

AD

CD

D

AC

BCD

AB

B

A

0.090.080.070.060.050.040.030.020.010.00

Te

rm

Effect

0.01270


B Snifting Pressure

C Bow l Pressure

D Paramix Pressure

Factor Name


Lenth's PSE = 0.00494087

49

2.4.1 How was the correctness of the initial project scope, deliverables, and

Training Confirmed (or what changes were made )? ( 1/4)


1 Gaurav Patel

- Capital: - Expenses 2 Sachin Parashar 1.2 MM INR 3 Raghvendra TN 4 Vaibhav Deshpandey 5 Dilip Mandala 6 Piyush Shah 7 Somen Adhikari



KPI's:

Co2 Yield ---- 90 % from 68%










( Sterile Filters included in Scope )

( As Future is in small size SKUs)

50

26

2.4.1 How were stakeholder involved and /or communicated with during the

root cause / improvement opportunity phase of the project? ( 2/4)

SC Management Team

Core Execution Team

Steering Committee

Process Area Team

Stakeholder groups

BU Team

Who

SC - Director




Quality Assurance Team

Involvement / Communication

Communicated through National review meeting

Communicated through Zonal review meeting Involve in experiment Approved Budget for Sterile Air

• Involved the in the all root causes identification, data collection & validation.

• Statistical analysis done • Detailed reviewed in site

Steering Committee

Informed through planned communication meeting

Involvement in sterile air trial Other information through email

51

2.4.1 What stakeholder resistance was identified and/or addressed in this

phase of the project? ( 3/4)

SC Management Team

Core Execution Team

Steering Committee

Process Area Team

Stakeholder groups

BU Team

Resistance Impact Addressed

None

None

• Can we take this Very Challenging Target ??

• Additional responsibility ??

None

M

M

None

None

• Motivated to Team by Top Leadership

• Additional Budget support

• Motivate to Break the Ice • Communication &

discussion thinking barrier

None

52

27

2.4.1 How was the appropriateness of the initial team membership and

management routines confirmed ( or what changes were made)? ( 4/4)

Core Execution Team


Engineering Team Sterile Air Vendor Procurement Team Air Testing Lab Team

Initial Team Added Team

Team Meeting




Routines

53

01

Section : 3

Solution / Improvement Development


28

3.1.1 What methods and /or tools were used to identify the possible solutions /

improvements? ( 1/3)

Method - DMAIC

Innovation methodology for NVA use of Co2

Kaizen – Zero Leak approach

55

3.1.1 Why were these methods and/ or tools selected ( to identify possible

solutions / improvements )? ( 2/3) How was the team prepared ? ( 3/3)

TPM- JH Kaizen – Zero Leak Approach

DMAIC – DOE Main Effect Interaction Effect Response Optimizer

Innovation methodology ECRS ( Replace )

Method / Tools WHY ?

Autonomous Corrections & Eliminate Leakage Loss

• Identify the Full Opportunity

• Understand the combination setting

• Find the Best combination

• Eliminate the Non Value use of CO2 ( Replace with equivalent low cost gas)

Team Preparedness



DOE ( 1 day )

Training done ( 2.3.1 )

Workshop on Sterile Air use in place

of CO2

56

29

3.1.2 What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to determine

the possible solutions / improvements? ( 1/3)

Experiment & Data collection

6.55.8

5.1

4.4

1.8

0.8

8045

Paramix Pressure

Bow l Pressure

Snifting Pressure

Bow l F iller Lev el

0.85000

0.810000.70653

0.81000

0.85000

0.841620.72000

0.79000

0.83000

0.832990.72000

0.78000

0.86000

0.810000.68000

0.76849

Cube Plot (data means) for Yield

CurHigh

Low0.00000D

New

d = 0.00000

Maximum

Yield

y = 0.8599

0.00000

Desirability

Composite

5.80

6.50

4.40

5.10

0.80

1.80

45.0

80.0Snifting Bowl Pre Paramix Bowl Fil

[80.0] [1.80] [4.40] [5.8053]

Response Optimizer

8045

0.84

0.82

0.80

0.78

0.76

1.80.8

5.14.4

0.84

0.82

0.80

0.78

0.76

6.55.8

Bowl Filler Level

Me

an

Snifting Pressure


Main Effects Plot for YieldData MeansTrial data with Sterile Air

DOE data

Global Benchmarking

57

3.1.2 What are the possible solutions / improvements? ( 2/3)

Significant X’s ( )

S

S

S

S

S

S X’s Possible solutions Remarks

X3 Produce only Higher size SKUs Replace with N2 gas Innovative solution in filling process ( Stop Co2 venting in filling process Replace with Sterile Air

Depends upon Consumer requirements ( low SKU size demand is high ( 200/250ml ) Low cost than Co2 Using in Global Coca-Cola Plant

X5 Snifting Pressure to be increased to reduce the venting Co2 in air

Change from 0.8bar to 1.8bar

X7 Bowl pressure to be reduced to reduce loss

Reduce pressure from 4.3 bar to 4.0 bar

X11 Paramix Pressure to be reduced to reduce loss in Paramix

Reduce pressure from 6.2 to 5.8 bar

X17 Filler Bowl Level to be increased to get higher Yield

Increase from 55% to 80% level in Filler bowl

Leakage Loss

Change the Snifting spring Material Reduce Co2 Loss due the damage of the spring in Snifting valve

58

30

3.1.2 What evidence showed that the solutions / improvements identified were

possible instead of final? ( 3/3)

X’s Possible solutions

X3 Replace with N2 gas Replace with Sterile Air





Leakage Loss

Change the Snifting spring Material

Start up Middle End

Before

breakdown

period

After

breakdown

period

1 Fanta Orange 750 ml C20A1C21 11:52 13:12 15:38 15:38 13:13

2 Limca 750 ml C20A1C2-2 18:40 19:18 20:31 19:18 19:33

3 Sprite 750 ml C20A1C2-3 23:30 23:52 0:40 23:53 0:05

4 Coca Cola 600 ml C21A1C2-1 11:17 12:14 16:55 14:50 14:36

Sample Type and timings

N2 counter pressure N2 counter pressure

S.NO. Flavour SKU Batch No.

Sample Type and timings

Trial data with N2 as Counter Pressure

Result is OK but again costly

Trial data sterile Air

OEM’s designed rejected. Designed & developed by Optech

Trial conducted at recommended change

59

3.2.1 What method and / or tools were used to identify the final solution(s) /

improvement(s)? ( 1/3) Why were these method and / or tools were selected? ( 2/3) How was the team prepared ? ( 3/3)

X’s Possible solutions

X3 Replace with N2 gas Replace with Sterile Air





Leakage Loss

Change the Snifting spring Material / design

Method / Tools

Cost Benefit Analysis for N2 & Sterile Air

DOE Output . So Final recommendation based

on the Full Factorial experiments

Re- engineering ( Designed based on

requirements )

WHY ?

Cost Effective solution

Statistical Analysis is best

as it gives solution based on long term

New design against weak

design

Team Preparedness



DOE ( 1 day )

Training done ( 2.3.1 )

Workshop on : Filling

Valve Design by OEM

60

31

3.2.2 How were the methods and / or tools used to determine the final

solution(s) / Improvement(s)? ( 1/2)

Cost – Benefit Analysis

No Fixed Cost Variable Cost is High ( as N2 = 12/Kg )

Total cost of Operation is …..5 X

Fixed Cost is 0.15 MM Variable cost ( Air use )

Total Cost Of operation ……X

N2 Use in Filling Operation Sterile Air Use in Filling Operation

DOE Output

Final recommended Solution

Re-engineering Broken spring every 15 days

interval

New Design requirement

by Own

Zero Break & Zero Loss

61

3.2.2 What was (were) the final solution(s) / Improvement(s)? ( 2/2)

X’s Final solutions

Leakage Loss

Change the Snifting spring Material / design

X5 Snifting Pressure to be increased from 0.8 to 1.2 bar

X7 Bowl pressure reduced to from 4.3 to 4.0 bar

X11 Paramix Pressure reduced from 6.2 bar to 5.8 bar

X17 Filler Bowl Level Increased from 55% to 70%

X3 Fillings process Co2 replace with Sterile Air

Next page

62

32

3.2.2 What was (were) the final solution(s) / Improvement(s)? ( 2/2)

X’s Final solutions


NVA- Co2 Before

After

Zero Loss of Co2

63

3.2.3 How were the final solution(s) / Improvement(s) validated ? ( 1/2)

Final Solutions validated through Pilot Trial & Approvals

Design Validation Installation Validation

Operational Validation

Performance Validation

Sample testing

Risk Assessment

Product Validation

Solution Validation

Pilot Trial Approval

Pilot Result Analysis

SOP & Documentation

Pilot & Long Run trial approval

64

33

3.2.3 What evidence showed that the validation was performed prior to

implementation ? ( 2/2)

0 day 15 days 80 days 0 day 15 days 80 days

coke 600ml K21A1C2-1 21.11.2015 11:17 4.17 3.71 2.7 3.37

coke 600ml K21A1C2-1 21.11.2015 12:14 3.82 2.86 3.4

coke 600ml K21A1C2-1 21.11.2015 16:55 3.75 2.39 3.56

coke 600ml K21A1C2-1 21.11.2015 17:24 3.8 2.88 3.48

coke 600ml K21A1C2-1 21.11.2015 17:25 3.72 2.85 3.46

coke 600ml K21A1C2-1 21.11.2015 18:02 3.76 2.88 3.66

coke 600ml K21A1C2-1 21.11.2015 18:01 3.85 2.94 3.64

coke 600ml K21A1C2-1 21.11.2015 18:01 3.78 2.77 3.59

coke 600ml K21A1C2-1 21.11.2015 18:01 3.85 2.96 3.62

coke 600ml K21A1C2-1 21.11.2015 18:01 3.83 2.92 3.6

coke 600ml K21A1C2-1 21.11.2015 18:02 3.79 2.92 3.55

coke 600ml K21A1C2-1 21.11.2015 18:02 3.75 2.85 3.63

STERILE AIR COUNTER PRESSURE - INTERNAL TEST REPORT

Sterile Air Counter pressure CO2 Counter pressure

Results (Gas Volume)General Data

Flavour SKU Batch No. D.O.P Time

Product Validation

Result Validation

PILOT Trial

65

3.2.4 What additional potential benefits were anticipated from the final

solution(s) / improvement(s) ? ( 1/2)

Were the additional potential benefit anticipated prior to implementation ? ( 2/2)

Potential Benefits

Benefits

$ 0.7MM INR

Additional Benefits

Clean Environment

Optimum Resource usage

Reduce Carbon footprint

% Yield Loss

Measures

Financial Benefit

Market share Increase in small pack

(No variation of Yield in SKU size)

I am Happy to produce any small

packs

Not Anticipated 66

34

3.2.5 What data was generated and how was the data analyzed to justify why the

chosen final solution(s) / improvement(s) should be implemented?( 1/2)

12.02.2016

Flavour SKU Batch No. D.O.P D.O.Analysis Time G.V Brix Sensory Torque Total container wt. Net content

fanta 750ml K20A1C21 20.11.2015 12.02.2016 11:51 2.49 13.32 IN 10 815 740.4

fanta 750ml K20A1C21 20.11.2015 12.02.2016 17:40 2.57 13.34 IN 10 818 743.6

limca 750ml K20A1C22 20.11.2015 12.02.2016 22:07 3.85 10.56 IN 11 810 743.5

coke 600ml K21A1C21 21.11.2015 12.02.2016 18:21 3.37 10.41 IN 13 652 597.9

CO2 COUNTER PRESSURE - INTERNAL TEST REPORT

General Data Results Net content data

Yield is > 90%

Product is meeting

Spec.

67

3.2.5 What evidence showed that justification was performed prior to

implementation ?( 2/2)

Sterile Air Approval

Based on Pilot Trial Result we received Conditional Approval from

BU. We have received approval final implementation based on 90

days result

12.02.2016

Flavour SKU Batch No. D.O.P D.O.Analysis Time G.V Brix Sensory Torque Total container wt. Net content

fanta 750ml K20A1C21 20.11.2015 12.02.2016 11:51 2.49 13.32 IN 10 815 740.4

fanta 750ml K20A1C21 20.11.2015 12.02.2016 17:40 2.57 13.34 IN 10 818 743.6

limca 750ml K20A1C22 20.11.2015 12.02.2016 22:07 3.85 10.56 IN 11 810 743.5

coke 600ml K21A1C21 21.11.2015 12.02.2016 18:21 3.37 10.41 IN 13 652 597.9

CO2 COUNTER PRESSURE - INTERNAL TEST REPORT

General Data Results Net content data

Pilot Trial was done well before the Final Implementation 68

35

3.3.1

01

How was the correctness of the initial or updated project scope,

deliverables, and timing confirmed (or what changes were made)?( 1/4)


1 Gaurav Patel

- Capital: - Expenses 2 Sachin Parashar 1.2 MM INR 3 Raghvendra TN 4 Vaibhav Deshpandey 5 Dilip Mandala 6 Piyush Shah 7 Somen Adhikari



KPI's:

Co2 Yield ---- 90 % from 68%










( Sterile Filters included in Scope )

( As Future is in small size SKUs)

No Change

69

3.3.1 How were stakeholders involved and /or communicated with during the

solution / improvement phase of the project ?( 2/4 )

SC Management Team

Core Execution Team

Steering Committee

Process Area Team

Stakeholder groups

BU Team

Who

SC - Director





Involvement / Communication

Communicated through National review meeting . Pilot approval

Communicated through Zonal review meeting Supported in Sterile Air Execution Approved the Change in process Approved the Spring Locally designed

• Involved in Process Change • Involve to finally design Spring • Executed the sterile Filter

installation, Trial & Validation • Detailed reviewed in site

Steering Committee

Informed through planned communication meeting

Validation done by BU Team Other information through email

70

36

3.3.1 What stakeholder resistance was identified and /or addressed in this phase

of the project ? ( 3/4 )

SC Management Team

Core Execution Team

Steering Committee

Process Area Team

Stakeholder groups

BU Team

Resistance Impact Addressed

None

None

• None

• No resistance with sterile Air

None

None

None

• Very Happy . Expected good result with sterile air

• Were happy . As it’s a Bullet proofing solution

• Feel healthy environment as no Co2 in local area

None

71

3.3.1

01

How was the appropriateness of the initial or updated team membership

and management routines confirmed (or what changes were made)? ( 4/4 )

Core Execution Team


Engineering Team Sterile Air Vendor Procurement Team Air Testing Lab Team

Initial Team Added Team

Team Meeting




Routines

No change in Team

Weekly / Tuesday

1/ 2 Weeks Factory Manager Status Update

1/ Month ZVP / ZSCM Status Update

1/ 3 Month SC Director Status Update

All meeting happened with attendance more than 90% 72

37

01

Section : 4

Implementation and Result Verification


4.1.1 How were stakeholder involved in planning the solution / improvement

implementation ? ( 1/2 )

SC Management Team

Core Execution Team

Steering Committee

Process Area Team

Stakeholder groups

BU Team

Who

SC - Director





Planning approval & alignment with Corporate Team

Align & Planned from PR to PO Team Align the time schedule of Engg Team

• Prepare the Gantt Chart for Execution of Sterile Air

• Support to Optech team to develop the Local spring

• Align with BU team to finish on Target

Supported by Planning Production schedule for doing trials

Planned the testing & validation process

Involvement

74

38

4.1.1 How were stakeholder involved in implementing the solution / improvement

implementation ? ( 2/2 )

SC Management Team

Core Execution Team

Steering Committee

Process Area Team

Stakeholder groups

BU Team

Who

SC - Director




Involvement

Review Meeting for progress of Sterile Air Implementation

PR Approved in very short time PO Prepared & Approve Quickly

Aligned for Installation & Commissioned Conducting all required Trials Collecting data & Analysis for verification

Well supported for doing trial in Lines

Validated quick shortest possible time Quality Assurance Team

75

4.1.2 What was done to anticipate resistance before it occurred ? ( 1/3 )

Store Team

Maintenance Team

Production Team

Line Optech

MTD Optech

Quality Team

N S C

Z S C

S S C

B U Team

Name

Strongly

Against

(-2)

Moderately

Against

(-1)

Neutral

(0)

Moderately

Supportive

(+1)

Strongly

Supportive

(+2)

Stake holder analysis

All Stake Holder were very Happy with the solution

What types of resistance were actually encountered ? ( 2/3 ) How was the actual resistance identified? ( 3/3 )

Change E ( Effectiveness ) = Q ( Quality of Solution ) *

A(Acceptability)

76

39

4.1.3 How was the actual resistance addressed? ( 1/2 ) How did the team know it was successful in addressing the resistance ?( 2/2 )

There were no Resistance to implement Solutions

Snifting Spring Design Change

Process Parameter Optimization Filler Bowl Level Snifting Pressure Paramix Pressure reduction Filler Bowl Pressure reduction

Sterile Air System Implementation

How Communications

Engagement Skill Up gradation

77

4.1.4 What was the evidence of stakeholder group buy-in? ( 1/2 )

What evidence showed that buy-in was obtained prior to Implementation?(2/2)

SC Management Team

Core Execution Team

Steering Committee

Process Area Team

Stakeholder groups

BU Team

Who

SC - Director




Buy – In

By Obtaining the Approval in each stage

By approving & Guiding for implementation

By designing the New Spring Conducting the trial & proactive solution

By designing the New Spring

Quality Assurance Team By providing Protocol for Pilot Assured Pilot Trial result

Approvals done in Sept 15

Pilot Trial Nov 15

Full scale from Mar 16

78

40

4.2.1 What process (es) or system (s) were changed or created to implement the

solution / improvement? ( 1/2 )

X’s Final solutions Process / System Change or Created

Leakage Loss Leak corrections in Pipeline • Created A leak team & Made the Frequency for proactive checking of leakage and correct immediately

Leakage Loss Snifting Spring Design Changed

• Updated the spring drawing including vendor side • Changed in Maintenance Manual • Created PM / Change frequency for Spring

X5 Snifting Pressure to be increased from 0.8 to 1.2 bar

• Changed in SOP for Snifting pressure setting

X7 Bowl pressure reduced to from 4.3 to 4.0 bar


X11 Paramix Pressure reduced from 6.2 bar to 5.8 bar


X17 Filler Bowl Level Increased from 55% to 70%



• Installed the Physical equipment • SOP Prepared • Product Inspection frequency revised

79

4.2.1

01

What systems were changed or created to measure and manage the

performance of the implementation? ( 2/2 )

Created

Leak Measurement

Daily Yield Measurement

80

41

4.3.1 What were the result ? ( 1/2 )

How did the result compare to the specific project goal / measures from

item 2.1.1 ? ( 2/2 )

68

90 93

0

20

40

60

80

100

Current Target Actual

CO2 Yield %

Consistent Result

Target Achieved

Sterile Air

81

4.3.2 What additional benefits were realized from the project? ( 1/3 )

Potential Benefits

Benefits

Target : 7.0 MM INR

% Yield

Measures

Financial Benefit

(No variation of Yield in SKU size)

How did the team measure any of the additional benefit that were “soft” ?(2/3 )

How do the actual additional benefits that were realized compare Item 3.2.4?( 3/3 )

Realized : 5.1 MM INR by Jul 16

Improve to 93%

Market share Increase in small pack

Received approval

Manufacturing250 ml

( smallest in PET)

3.2.4

Health Workplace

No CO2 venting to local

workplace

82

42

Section : 5

Sustaining and Communicating Result


5.1.1 What was done to make sure the process or system changes made during

the implementation( Item 4.2.1) continued to be followed? ( 1/2 )

Make stock in Store for

replacement

SOP Testing Frequency

84

43

5.1.1 What evidence showed that this became part of the Organization’s Culture /

Operating strategy? ( 2/2 )

OE is the activation of the 6th P; it is “how” we will build a

Productivity culture

Our objective = Productivity culture

“We’ve added a 6th “P” to reflect the importance of making productivity part of everything we do.” - Muhtar Kent

PROFIT Revenue

and Margin Growth

People Engagement

& Development

Portfolio Optimization

Partners Collaboration

& Standardizati

on

Planet Sustainability

Productivity

Coca Cola

Strategic Framework

Opportunity Identification

Team Formation

Find out Root Cause

Final solution Standardized

Solution

Practice / Habit

Behavior / Culture

85

5.1.2 What was done to make sure that the benefits obtained from the

implementation ( Item 4.2.1) will be maintained ? ( 1/2 )

Financial Validation :

Closed Projects

Measure Benefit

Zonal Finance Validation

Corporate Finance

Validation

USA Atlanta Office

Reporting : Review & Action :

Peak Seasons -4 months

Seasonal Volume

Off Seasons - 8 months

86

44

5.1.2 What evidence showed that this became part of the organization’s culture /

operating strategy? ( 2/2 )

Replication across India

Criteria Weightage North East Gujarat

SC Meeting Score (Zonal & Site) 20 16 18 19

Team Meeting Compliance Score 20 20 20 19

Projects on track Score 35 32 27 31

Training Score 10 10 10 7

Certification Score 5 5 4 5

Savings Score 10 10 6 10

93.1 85.6 92.2

OE Score

Operational Excellence is our strategy to achieve a Productivity culture

Productivity delivers value across the other 5 P’s

87

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

groups? ( 1/1 )

Leadership Certification

SC Management Team

Core Execution Team

Steering Committee

Process Area Team

Stakeholder groups

BU Team

Communications

Project Review meeting & Closing Meting Email Communications ( Validated Savings by Finance)

Project Review meeting & Closing Meting Email Communications ( Validated Savings by Finance) OE Score ( Monthly ZSC ) Project Update ( Monthly ZSC )

Project Review meeting & Closing Meting Email Communications ( Validated Savings by Finance) OE Communication Board ( Display on shop Floor)

OE Communication Boards ( Displayed on shop floor) Shared with all members in Conference hall

Email Communications by Finance & OE Team members

88

45

Reward & Recognition ( POY )

OE REPORT OUT ( Project Of the Year )

89

Powered by

Thank You

90

Date post:	11-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyenthuan
View:	218 times
Download:	3 times

Goblej Plant ( Near Ahmedabad) Gujarat, India - ASQ · PDF fileGoblej Plant ( Near Ahmedabad)...

Documents