HIDA Journal 2014 AUTUMN No.5

6/26

HIDA JOURNAL4Next, we will introduce Nakakin Co., Ltd., which has its head office located in Osaka City and is engaged primarily in the manufacture of lightweight aluminum alloy products, as an example for the dispatch of experts.Nakakin Co., Ltd. established P.T. Nakakin Indonesia as a wholly owned subsidiary in Jakarta, Indonesia in April 1995, and the company began operating in April of the next year. Since 2000 it has made use of the expert dispatch program several times, and recently experts were dispatched there for about three months starting from March 2014 with the goals of improving the quality of their cast aluminum components and developing human resources to serve as onsite managers.We interviewed with the person in charge and the expert with the primary focus being on how the guidance went through the dispatch of said expert this year.Head office: 3-4-18 Kikawa-higashi, Yodogawa-ku, Osaka-shi, OsakaEstablished: 1964Capital:JPY 84 millionEmployees: 386 (as of March 2014)Description of business:Integrated manufacturing including everything from development and design to molding and casting, mainly for vehicle engine components. In addition, it also manufactures products like sanitary rotary pumps and filling machines for foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals, and fine chemicals.Working to Develop Local Human Resources and Head Office Employees through the Expart DispatchNakakin Co., Ltd.Please tell us about the particulars behind the recent expert dispatch.P.T. Nakakin Indonesia manufactures cast aluminum components for motorcycles and automobiles. We had previously delivered our products to mainly Japanese manufacturers in Indonesia, but recently we began supplying these in a complementary manner within the ASEAN region, and had started producing cast aluminum parts for motorcycles destined for Vietnam. However, the quality standards in Vietnam are higher than they are in Indonesia, and so we were turning out numerous defects such as goods with poor appearance or casting defects. As such, improving the quality of our cast components destined for Vietnam posed a pressing challenge for the company.As such, we decided to request the dispatch of Mr. Fujihara, an expert, with the two goals of working to improve quality regarding these defects, as well as training local managers so that they would be able to draft theory-based countermeasures to these defects themselves. Mr. Fujihara has nearly ten years of experience in the field of aluminum casting in our company, and had also been stationed at P.T. Nakakin Indonesia for about three years.I’d like to ask this to Mr. Fujihara. Could you please tell us in a little more detail about the extent to which you achieved the goals of this recent dispatch and your training of the managers in particular with respect to the onsite guidance?The first thing I did after being dispatched was survey, and I analyzed the casting conditions and details of the defects. I also exchanged opinions with the onsite managers (leaders, sub-leaders, and line keepers), as a result of which I learned that up until then they had been taking countermeasures to the defects based on their gut feelings rather than based on data. It seemed like they were aware that theory-based countermeasures were needed, but they were unable to apply these due to a lack of knowledge. Details of the defects and data on their positions and numbers were recorded onsite in daily reports, but they were unable to analyze or otherwise use this data for lack of knowledge. Therefore, I offered the following guidance.First, I taught them about the PDCA Cycle (and how they must always go through this cycle in the order of Plan, Do, Check, Act) in terms of the theory behind countermeasures to defects. For the check part in particular I taught them key points for checking to confirm defects. The key points lie in checking to see if there are any differences in defects between the No. 1 and No. 2 dies, and checking the location where the defects occurred. So if, for example, there was a difference in that defects were not occurring with the No. 1 die but were occurring with the No. 2 one, then you would take countermeasures to bring the No. 2 die more closely in line with the No. 1 die. While the onsite managers had been collecting data to the effect that there was a difference between the No. 1 and No. 2 dies up to that point, they had not been analyzing the data and instead had been carrying out countermeasures for both of them based on their gut feelings. This is why they were never able to eliminate the defects.Furthermore, before instituting countermeasures you must investigate the root causes of a problem. Therefore, I instructed them in the QC technique of performing “why” analyses (an analytical method of asking “why” questions to discover the root of a problem). For example, one of the sources of the defects was the low mold temperature. Previously, when this had been low it seems that the managers would inform the workers that the mold heating time was too brief. But when they actually performed a check via a “why” analysis they discovered that there were too few heating elements on the heating burner, so as a result it was unable to adequately heat the mold. Based on the results The quality control leader instructs the machining leader in quality restrictions and how to measure damage

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer10.2以上が必要です