Using tqms common tools to improve quality performance at garment factory of choishins (vina)

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES SOLVAY BRUSSELS SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT MBQPM NGUYEN NGOC HIEU USING TQM’S COMMON TOOLS TO IMPROVE QUALITY PERFORMANCE AT GARMENT FACTORY OF CHOISHINS(VINA) MASTER FINAL PROJECT MASTER IN BUSINESS QUALITY & PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Tai Lieu Chat Luong HO CHI MINH (2018) HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES SOLVAY BRUSSELS SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT MBQPM NGUYEN NGOC HIEU USING TQM’S COMMON TOOLS TO IMPROVE QUALITY PERFORMANCE AT GARMENT FACTORY OF CHOISHINS(VINA) MASTER FINAL PROJECT MASTER IN BUSINESS QUALITY & PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT HO CHI MINH (2018) STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICATION: This work has not been submitted for a degree or diploma in any University To the best of my knowledge and belief, the project contains no materials published or written by another person except reference is made in the project itself Nguyen Ngoc Hieu March 20th,2018 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: This projected has been instructed and supervised by Professor Jacques Martin to whom I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for taking time to guide me from beginning to the end of this report All research, workshops, trial run were carried out at Choishins(Vina) in Tien Giang Province, Viet Nam with the supports of the management and colleagues there I would like to thank Mr Kwon - General Director, Mr Leo – Merchandise Manager, Mrs Anita – QA manager and Mr Loc – Production Manager for close coordination I would like to thank my family for their encouragement & support Academic Tutor and Practical Tutor’s comments: ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL PROJECT REPORT FOR DEFENSE Mr Nguyen Ngoc Hieu’s final project report for degree of Master in Business Quality and Performance Management is official accepted for defense The Thesis titled “USING TQM’S COMMON TOOLS TO IMPROVE QUALITY PERFORMANCE AT GARMENT FACTORY OF CHOISHINS(VINA)” On ……date…………… Dr Jacques M.A Martin Academic Director Master in Master Business in Quality and Performance Management Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management – Ho Chi Minh City Open University TABLE OF CONTENTS: ABSTRACT: i INTRODUCTION ii BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY: ii OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY: iii SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY: iii RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: iv REPORT OVERVIEW: v PART I: ASSESSMENT & ANALYSIS CURRENT TQM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS AT CHOISHINS(VINA) CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ABOUT CHOISHINS(VINA): 1.1 Choishins(Vina) Company: 1.2 Existing customers: 1.3 Item producing: 1.4 Company organization: CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE EXISTING QUALITY SYSTEM AND MANUFACTURING PROCESS IN CHOISHINS(VINA) 2.1Description of Quality System: 2.1.1Quality Policy: 2.1.2 Quality Management System in factory: 2.1.3 Quality Performance Objectives: 2.1.4 Total Quality Management System: 2.1.5 Environment management system: follow Buyer’s requirement 2.1.6 Factory Quality organization chart 2.1.7 Internal audit procedures: 2.2 Introduce about manufacturing flow: 2.2.1 Fabric and Trim: 2.2.2 Sample Room: 2.2.3 Cutting Section: 2.2.4 Sewing Section: 11 2.2.5 Manufacturing flow in finishing section: 13 CHAPTER 3: ASSESSMENT OF TQM IMPLEMENTATION AT CHOISHINS(VINA) 15 3.1 Defining the Quality Management System maturity level: 15 3.2 Maturity Diagnostic Instrument Interpretation: 16 3.3 Score Table: 22 3.4 TQM practices against TQM ‘s Elements: 23 3.5 Quality findings: 24 3.5.1 Quality findings in cutting department: 24 3.5.2 Defect findings from Endline QC: 26 3.5.3 Defect findings from finishing section: 32 PART II: IMPROVEMENT PLAN 38 CHAPTER 1: SOURCES OF IMPROVEMENT: 38 1.1Organization maturity 38 1.2 Outstanding points of TQM adoption and implementation: 39 1.3 Quality Performance pending points: 39 CHAPTER2: ACTION PLANS 41 2.1 Suggested action plans: 41 2.2 Implement action plan: 42 2.2.1 Set Up Improvement Committee 42 2.2.2 Committee’s Objectives: 42 2.2.3 Conduct training for both management, QC and worker 43 2.2.4 Traffic Light System application in place: 46 2.2.5 Revised inline format 48 2.2.6 Revised Production Quality Tracking Chart: 49 2.2.7 Action taken from Root Cause Analysis of Physical defect 50 2.3 Measure the result after implemented: 58 2.3.1 Quality control of incoming material: 58 2.3.2 Quality control of fabric inspection area: 59 2.3.3 Quality control in cutting area: 59 2.3.4 WIP (Work in Process) moving: 60 2.3.5 Comparison about Quality Performance Effectiveness 62 2.3.6 Non-Conformance performance tracking: 62 2.3.7 Operator Skill Improvement: 63 2.3.8 TQM knowledge of the teams: 64 2.3.9 Maturity improvement: 65 CONCLUSION: 66 References: 67 LIST OF FIGURES: Figure Choishins(Vina) front view Figure Items factory producing Figure Factory Organization Chart Figure : QA organization chart Figure 5: Internal audit flows Figure 6: Factory quality flow chart which is updated on May 22nd ,2017 Figure 7: Cutting section flows 10 Figure 8: Sewing Flows 12 Figure 9: quality control flows in sewing line 13 Figure 10: manufacturing flows in Finishing section 14 Figure 11: Illustration of six-level categorization model of Dale and Lascelles (1997) 16 Figure 12: Fish Bone Analysis of cutting defects 25 Figure 13 Pareto chart for endline QC defects 28 Figure 14: fish bone analysis for puckering defect 29 Figure 15: fish bone analysis for roping defect 29 Figure 16: fish bone analysis for Broken Stitch defect 30 Figure 17: fish bone analysis for stains defect 30 Figure 18: Pareto chart of Finishing section 34 Figure 19: Cause and Effect Diagram of Poor Trimming 35 Figure 20: Cause and Effect Diagram of Unstable Measurement 35 Figure 21: Cause and Effect Diagram of Oil Stains 36 Figure 22: Cause and Effect Diagram of Poor Pressing 36 Figure 23: defect rate chart among the sections in factory 40 Figure 24: Backlog issue in between sections 40 Figure 25: Performance Improvement Consultative Committee 42 Figure 26: Performance Committee weekly meeting 43 Figure 27: training again for all QC staffs 44 Figure 28 Training about QC tools usage for all supervisors 44 Figure 29: Traffic Light System Implementation 46 Figure 30: Apply Static chart for all operation 47 Figure 31: New statistical inline QC format application 48 Figure 32: Apply Operator’s Quality Graph 49 Figure 33: Suggested form for QA audit defect analysis with goal 50 Figure 34: Lab Room SOP 51 Figure 35 Revised sewing line layout 56 Figure 36: Standardize FQA audit SOP 57 Figure 37 Updated incentive scheme 58 Figure 38: changed fabric relaxation method 59 Figure 39: Apply fabric defect library for inspector’s references 59 Figure 40: Improvement Achievement of Cutting Section 60 Figure 41: Eliminated Backlog in between sections 61 Figure 42: Merged finishing to sewing line 61 Figure 43: defect rate comparison after improvement 62 Figure 44: Non-conformation result from DC audit of before and after improvement 63 Figure 45: Employee Performance Summary 64 Figure 46:Maturity level improvement 65 Figure 47: Maturity score comparison 66 (10) Miscut (20) Matching Plies (30) Ragged Cutting (40) Notches Cut Components to Make a Complete Bundle: Short Sleeve: 11 parts (2 fronts, sleeves, back, collars, yokes, pockets) Long Sleeve: 15 parts (2 fronts, sleeves, back, collars, yokes, cuffs, pockets, plackets) Pants: 16 parts (2 fronts, backs, bands,2 earer, front pocket, welt, HPF, fly) Formula for Component Auditing: # of cut components x # of bundles for cut = lot size *The lot size is used to find the sample size from the AQL chart This chart is also used to determine the acceptance or rejection of a cut Acceptable Quality Level: Lot Size 1.5 2.5 4.O 6.5 Inspect Accept Inspect Accept Inspect Accept Inspect Accept Less than 151 13 151-280 20 13 13 280-500 32 20 20 20 53 501-1200 32 32 32 32 1201-3200 50 50 50 50 3201-10000 80 80 80 80 10 10001-35000 125 125 125 10 125 14 35001-150000 200 200 10 200 14 200 21 150001500000 315 10 315 14 315 21 200 21 500 14 500 21 315 21 200 21 500001 Over & Table 18: Acceptable Quality Level table for cutting quality checking Defect Rate =(total defects found/ total pieces checked) x 100 2.2.7.3 Sewing section: No# Physical Root Causes defect Puckering Manager does not train operator properly on how to handle No instruction to workers Broken -unsuitable pressure stitches foot usage -Machine is not maintenance well -QC does not follow inspection method 54 Solution -Assure the worker is well trained at preproduction stage -Instruct the worker about right handling method for all new fabrication -QC supervisor should train the cutting QC about inspection SOP carefully -New maintenance staff must be trained well in prior of allowing him to work independently -Refresh training for all QC about inspection method - Encourage and call upon the worker to check self operation in prior of passing to the next Oil Stains Roping -Machine is not set -Apply oil leakage checking SOP in place up properly immediately -Tightening the maintenance frequency The folder guide was not adjusted improperly Machine’s speed is too fast -The folder guide was adjusted -Folder preparation and test in prior of bulk production starts -Machine speed must be adjusted well before bulk production -pre-production tasks monitoring should be followed up closely and ensure it is well prepared before bulk Unstable Poor shrinkage Plan training program measurement testing SOP Review current shrinkage test SOP and take necessary adjustment about testing procedures Instruct technicians about every type of fabric Uncut thread Trimming SOP Training trimming staffs again about trimming procedure and discuss with Factory management to eliminate trimming step in the future Worker will trim well their own operation in prior of passing to next operation Table 19: Improvement plan for sewing section 2.2.7.4 Change the layout: In coordinate with factory to run one Pilot Line for the new layout to merge ironing, ticketing, folding and polybagging in the line to eliminate the bottle neck after End-line inspection area and after ironing area For the next phase, factory will move the boxing to the line also Recommended layout: 55 Figure 35 Revised sewing line layout From above Figure, you can see I suggested to merge the finishing and packing into the line And the garment after sewing, iron, attach the hangtag, folding and put into polybag well before moving to metal detection to check the metal free and then it is put into the carton followed by size, lot, color, p.o# wise as discussed with management By this way I saw the flows running very smooth and the backlog is no longer existing 56 2.2.7.5 Standardize FQA audit SOP: Figure 36: Standardize FQA audit SOP 57 2.2.7.6 Changed incentive scheme: Figure 37 Updated incentive scheme In the past, incentive scheme was not engaged with quality performance, if line efficiency is over 96%, each worker will get 50,000vnd However, from September 2017, incentive scheme is more difficult to achieve as it has engaged to the quality performance also but efficiency However, the bonus is over double in comparison with the last version Then worker is not only trying to sew fast but also to sew rightly at beginning This scheme is really helpful and activate all operator, QC’s effort in trying to handle correctly at the first time 2.3 Measure the result after implemented: 2.3.1 Quality control of incoming material: The cost of one garment, fabric cost is at 70% If we don’t control well the quality incoming material and defect is only find out after garment made, then we lose material cost, sewing cost and quality cost More importantly we can not keep on time delivery as we only found of the problem at the last stage After trained the worker the way of handling fabric, convinced factory to make the movable racks Fabric is being laid flatly while relaxation and there is no wrinkle when spreading due to poor handling 58 Figure 38: changed fabric relaxation method Found out the root cause of unstable measurement defect, I have worked with factory the better way to handle fabric All fabric is delivered to cutting room from the warehouse should be correct handled 2.3.2 Quality control of fabric inspection area: For fabric inspection, we again conducted Munsell test for all inspectors, only allowed QCs who passed under 20 points to check fabric and color Added Fabric defect library above inspection machine with actual fabric swatches with defects These have descriptions and the points allocated to them They are grouped into all the points on the left side, then all point next to that and so on Figure 39: Apply fabric defect library for inspector’s references 2.3.3 Quality control in cutting area: 59 While reviewed the root causes of puckering issue, there is a reason of the inaccuracy cut panel due to poor method from cutting section I coordinated with cutting manager and trained the workers on how to maintain the best shape of the cut part Guided them for all the curved parts, should be cut knives instead of one knife as they currently practice Posted the cutting method at cutting area for worker references Figure 40: Improvement Achievement of Cutting Section 2.3.4 WIP (Work in Process) moving: To be honest, before we did this project, we always got the comments from visitors about the garments storage after end-line QC and storage after ironed and be waiting for sending to packing section for putting into the boxes based on the priority of delivery plan After revise the layout as the Pilot Line that merged ironing, folding, ticket attachment and polybag, the messy storage area is eliminated No more backlog in area between end-line QC and ironing 60 Figure 41: Eliminated Backlog in between sections After merged sewing ironing, folding, ticket attachment and polybaging to the sewing line Figure 42: Merged finishing to sewing line 61 After merged ironing, folding, ticket attachment and polybagging to the sewing at Pilot Line, reduce one headcount to pick up the garment back and forth from sewing line to finishing 2.3.5 Comparison about Quality Performance Effectiveness Defect rate has been decreased 20% in the 1st month implementation In existing sewing lines, the rework is 6.36% but the defect rate at Pilot Line is 4.01% The Inline QCs in running lines DEFECT % COMPARISON final reject rate 3.00% finishing 1.00% 5.23% endline 2.60% 6.36% cutting 4.01% 4.61% 0% 20% 2.45% 40% before 60% 80% after Figure 43: defect rate comparison after improvement 2.3.6 Non-Conformance performance tracking: 62 100% Non-Conformance Audit Received 12 10 10 8 6 2 June July Aug Sep Oct Figure 44: Non-conformation result from DC audit of before and after improvement 2.3.7 Operator Skill Improvement: This is the most challenge for me and Performance Improvement Committee’s members as my project required the high teamwork spirit among members in the line All defects found must be returned back the to the operator for fixing hourly, quality performance of each operator is posted in front of them and they have to improve immediately Moreover, after reset the flow of the line, worker should know how to support with each other otherwise there is no job for the next By this way of practice, worker knows multiple operations Worker performance chart: 63 EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REPORT 80.00 70.00 60.00 52.50 54.90 47.5 45.1 65.3 67.2 34.7 32.8 Sep Oct 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 July Aug % of employee has ≥ 3/ points % of employee has ≤ 3/ points Figure 45: Employee Performance Summary 2.3.8 TQM knowledge of the teams: Thanks to the willingness of Mr Kwon-General Manager, he gave the best working condition to me and the teams Then I had the chance to train for both management and worker about TQM basic knowledge They really understood about the philosophy of quality management All of them are well trained about the usage of quality control and improvement tools I am happy with the current achievement that I got in this project The teams are now working together seamlessly which is not happened in the past when the project is not yet introduced to Choishins(Vina) The ownership of quality solving is not only isolated within quality department but also involving in all other teams such as production, Merchandising, Cutting etc Argument for the fault is now reduced and be replacing with the cooperation closely between individuals and teams Area Before implementation End-line defect % 6.36% TQM knowledge No Incentive scheme No Table 20: TQM improvements achieved After implementation 4.01% Yes Yes 64 Improvement Achieved 2.35% Improved Improved 2.3.9 Maturity improvement: We again used the DMI to assess factory again to remeasure its improvement Figure 46:Maturity level improvement Let’s look at the RED dot on the chart, that is highlighted the “Tool Pusher” level we got once this project started and GREEN dot on the chart shows the “Improver” level that factory got after corrective actions implemented and maintained 65 Figure 47: Maturity score comparison From comparison chart of the factory ‘s Maturity level, there were 0.99 point improved, factory got one level higher and to be in the Improver level CONCLUSION: The project was intended to support my in-charge factory to reduce the non-conformance rate We have assessed and brought out status of TQM implement as well as the quality execution effectiveness in factory By applying the simple quality tools and TQM elements strictly in the real TQM environment which have all staff and management involvement, accountability and cooperation It will give out the good result The quality improvement benefit pay-off is clearly defined and transparently communicated so it is a tangible pressure to push up the responsibility of each member in an organization to be continuous improvement Rather than that, by implement TQM tools and its elements, Choishins(Vina) will reduced the number of customer complaints and polish his reputation in the market Last but not least, monitoring TQM activities at suppliers is the role and responsibility of Li & Fung QA and also as Agent and Factory is being in the same boat to deliver the right product at the right expected time to our customer The is a Fear of Change exists from factory side always until we prove to our partner the benefit from the changes 66 References: John S Oahland, Third edition, TQM, 2013 Luis Rocha-Lona, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, - Building Quality Management system, CRC Press Choishins(Viet Nam) factory profile https://www.isixsigma.com/methodology/total-quality-management-tqm/eightelements-tqm/ 67