�ݺ�ߣ

MANAGEMENT REVIEW REPORT
ADMISTRATION DEPARTMENT
REVIEW PERIOD – Jan-2011to Dec 2011

STATISTICAL & TECHNIQUES

SUPPLIER QUALITY PROBLEM

There were total of 12 SCAR issued to our suppliers accordingly for the
period from JAN – 2012 to Dec -2012

The Scar breakdown is as follow: (Appendix I)

SUPPLIER TYPE OF SUPPLIER NO.OF SCAR

Pascorp Paper Roll 3
United Paper Paper Roll 2
GSPP Paper Paper Roll 4
Paper Board Paper Roll 1
Kwok Fong Paper Roll 2

Page 1 of 7


Total Number of Supplier Non-Conformance VS Months for the period
from JAN 2012 to Dec 2012 is as follow: (Appendix II)

MONTH NO.OF CASES
Jan 0
Feb 0
Mar 0
APR 1
May 1
June 0
JULY 1
Aug 2
Sept 3
Oct 0
Nov 1
Dec 3

The Non-Conformance has been categorized as follow: (Appendix III)

NATURE OF THE NO OF CASES
COMPLAINT

Quality 5
Dirty & Damaged 3
Below Specification 2

Wrong Specification 1
Document 1

Basically, our approval supplier is maintaining their quality and service .

Page 2 of 7


Out of the 12 scar, 10 has been duly verified and closed. The only 2
scar that has not been close is Paper From Kwok Fong – Nine Dragon &
Sea Dragon which they had failed on our random checking on
Incoming checking on their Burst factor. Compliant has been filed , but
, we still have not receive their reply on our compliant.

We will be still using their paper for production, but we have to increase
on our board combination in order to secure our finall result that are
requested from customer.

Another 2 quality compliant is on GSPP white Top Liner that were easily
peel if we use for high grammage combination. GSPP are not able to
increase their strength to solve the peeling issue. Since we have no any
other substitute paper. We, purchasing has suggested to the planning
& marketing department to change the board combination to solve
the peeling issue. We have tested 2 lot of the order. So far, we have no
Compliant from customer, and we have closed the scar too.

One more compliant is on United Paper paper which has found that
their paper strength is inconsistent. Paper is easily crake both T250/125.

We have decided to stop purchase from this supplier . To replace this
Paper, we have continue to purchase from Taiwan – Cheng Long
which so Far never have any quality problem. The only issue is the
shipment date not able to fully control. But after much negotiation, we
are able to solve this issue too, by advice them to ship strictly
according to purchasing advice.

The non-conforming analysis is attached.

Nature Of the Compliant VS Supplier

1. United Paper Paper Dirty /having 2 Colours
2. United Paper Paper T250 & T125 have cracking
Problem after printing /die-cut
3. GSPP White Top Paper – Peeling after
folding/wrinkle/crush Mark
4. Pascorp Paper Black mark/wrinkle/document
5. Paper Board Simpson – Grammage Inconsistant
6.Kwok Fong Bursting Factor – Below Spec

Page 3 of 7


At Year 2012, we have source for a few New Product range in order to
fulfill customer spec requirement & continue improvement quality for
our Product quality :-

1. Muda Paper – High Performance Medium – M140 – RCT above
20KGF.. So Far, result is very much satisfactory
2. Cheng Long T125 gsm – New Shade on Local shade . To
Minimized issue on 2 Joint One Carton. – Result satisfactory
3. Nine Dragon – K250gsm/K175gsm/K160Gsm. – Giving Higher
busting result as compare with local Kraft or Us Kraft.
4. Sea Dragon – K175gsm/K150Gsm. – Quality inconsistent. Will
continue to purchase & use for customer that do not request
High busting requirement. Continue monitoring.
5. Max Bond – to improved on delamination issue.
6. Polymer resin – to use for more printing requirement Block

At year 2012, we have not appoint any new supplier , transporter Nor
Sub-Contractor.

At year 2012, we have carried out supplier audit at GSPP to ensure their
company have continue improvement plan to maintain on their
product quality

APPROVED SUPPLIER EVALUATION

Purchasing Section has carried out Supplier approved suppliers for
Period Jan 2012 to Jun 2012 & July 2012 to Dec 2012 . The results are as
follow: -

Jan-12 TO Jun 2012
ACTIVE SUPPLIER 15
> 90 8
> 80 7
> 70 0

Page 4 of 7


July 2012 TO Dec 2012
ACTIVE SUPPLIER 15
> 90 7
> 80 8
> 70 0

As per Our Transporter Evaluation, they are total still 11 Transporter in
our list. The Performance are as follow :-

 Above 90 % - company
 Above 80 % - Company
 Below 70 % -

No supplier has been de registered for year 2012 as at Dec 2012, but
we have stop purchase From Paper Board due to their supplier of
paper inconsistent.

Overall, we concluded that our supplier , Transported & performance
are satisfactory and they do continue improve on their services and
quality due to a long term mutual understanding. The Result is show
above. .

A) NO OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN SET IN PURCHASING SECTION

This decision has been agreed by our ISO steering committee.

TO PROVIDE AVERAGE 8 HOURS TRAINNING
TO STAFF ACCORDING TO THEIR TRAINING NEEDS PER ANNUM TO
ENHANCE THEIR OURALL PERFORMANCE.

We are glad to announced that Last Year 2011 we have achieved our
Training Objective TO PROVIDE AVERAGE 8 HOURS TRAINNING TO
STAFF ACCORDING TO THEIR TRAINING NEEDS PER ANNUM TO ENHANCE
THEIR OURALL PERFORMANCE. And this year 2012, we have revised to
9 hours instead of 8 hours.

Page 5 of 7


There are total of 143 employee targeted in this objective for year 2012
Which mean in Year 2011, Human Resource duty is to ensure that a
yearly hours training to be given to employees is 143 X 9 hours = 1287
hours

This message has been announced to all Department Head. Below is
the Training Record and No. Of Hours achieved by each Dept as at
Dec-2012

DEPT AD PP MS LM&WH QA TOTAL
ALLOCATED 108 846 108 135 90 1287

STAFF 12 94 12 15 10 143
CONDUCTED 154 613.50 114.50 106.5 274.50 1263

BALANCE +46 -232.50 +6.5 -28.50 184.50 -24
HOURS
ACHIEVED 100% 72.50 100% 78.8 100% 98.1

Accordingly to our statistic collected, glad to informed that, this year,
our training record show a satisfactory improvement even though we
have adjusted for 8 Hours to 9 hours.

Department that had achieved their Training Objective is as below :-

1. AD ( Administration)
2. MS ( Masketing & Sales)
3. QA ( Quality Assurance)

Department not achieved are :-

1. PP (Production & Planning)
2. LM (Maintenance & Logistic)

The reason for not being achieved for the above 2 department from
our analysis is :--
1. PP- Many Foreign Worker – training hours are very less.
2. LM – Mr . Thoorai has Zero Training hours.

Page 6 of 7


We do hope both the department Head will into it.

As per Group Training , We have carried out 4 session .
1. Enviremental - Internal
2. Implementation o f 5 S Internal
3. 7 Muda Waste - External
4. Basic English Communication - External

For Year 2013, we have an improvement plan for our training Needs
analysis

We have sign up a Training website which are able to evaluate our
training needs by answering survey question . We will be concentrate
of 30 of our very Potential Employee which we think we want to train
them to become our Leader . We probably will arrange more external
Training for those people who need to improve on their weaker sight.

After this We will set up our Yearly Training Plan .

Since, year 2013 will be a tougher year for Dazun Paper, We propose
our training Objective to revise from 9 Hours to 10 Hours so to prepare
our employee to face a more challenging Year.

I have set up a Committee Called “ Kaizen Team” which will be head
by Me, I do hope that this will give chance to the down people to give
suggestion on continue improvement activities which can help our
Company to save some 7 waste. We do not care it will help in some or
big, as long as it is a continue improvement.

If our management No Objection. We will propose an incentive if the
idea given is acceptable & pratical & show result.

Page 7 of 7

�ݺ�ߣ

Management review report from ad dec 2013

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Management review report from ad dec 2013 (11)

Recently uploaded (20)

Management review report from ad dec 2013