Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Six Big Causes of Lost Production Time

The Six Big Causes of Lost Production Time

Ratings: (0)|Views: 429|Likes:
Published by bakerybazar
How to minimise production Identify and then eliminate these main causes for losses .

more on production cost visit http://shumaonline.com
How to minimise production Identify and then eliminate these main causes for losses .

more on production cost visit http://shumaonline.com

More info:

Published by: bakerybazar on Aug 26, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Addressing the 'Six Big Losses':
 A New Approach to Old Problems in Process Manufacturing
Addressing the 'Six Big Losses':
 A New Approach to Old Problems in Process Manufacturing
As many executives already recognize, knowing thatproduction efficiency and capacity problems exist isone thing. Effecting real and lasting change through acontinuous improvement (CI) initiative is another.Often the challenge lies in determining the root causeand the full extent of operational problems, making itdifficult to determine where—and how—to begin theCI program.But increasingly, manufacturers are discovering asurprisingly effective framework from which to tacklethe CI challenge: the “Six Big Losses.” Developed inthe 1970s by the Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance(JIPM), this framework enables companies to examinetheir efficiency problem with an unprecedented levelof granularity. It also provides the necessary structurefor tackling the problems, improving efficiency andcapacity, reducing manufacturing costs and improvingprofitability.Citing examples from process manufacturers that havesuccessfully leveraged this proven framework, thiswhite paper examines how approaching a CI initiativethrough the Six Big Losses can help improve CI successand, in turn, business performance.
Continuous Improvement:Easier Said Than Done
In an effort to optimize utilization and unlock production capacity and competitiveness, anincreasing number of manufacturers have engagedin continuous improvement (CI) initiatives such asLean Manufacturing, Six Sigma and other in-houseoperational improvement programs.However, these programs are often challenging toexecute. Challenges lie in the lack of operationalvisibility, which makes it difficult to define, begin andmeasure the effectiveness of a CI program. Outdatedinformation can also be an obstacle. Manual systemsand automated data collection tools provide valuabledata, but that data tends to be outdated by the timeanyone can take corrective action.Lack of shop floor accountability—as well asimprovement-skills and improvement-methodstraining—also frequently threaten CI success. Shopfloor ownership is fundamental to the success of a CIinitiative, since operators have the greatest controlover labor and material utilization. However, withouta sustainable method for delivering continuousperformance feedback to the shop floor, operators inreal-time environments cannot be held accountablefor performance issues.Faced with these mounting obstacles, CI initiativesoften do not deliver their promised benefits, leavingmanufacturers to make uninformed decisions orto give up on the idea altogether. The company’sleadership may recognize that there is significantroom for improvement. It may even have moremeasurements and data than ever before. But mostof these metrics simply reflect what is coming out of the equipment—units produced, uptime, mean timebetween failure and summary data that only revealspart of the story.
A Lack of Granularity
Most often, the available data does not clearlyindicate where the problems are and which issues themanufacturer should be addressing first—and it failsto help determine the true scale of the existing loss,its source, and which root causes are most costly andinsidious.In essence, most organizations lack the granularity of information necessary to determine where losses areoccurring within their processes. Consequently, theycannot easily determine where to begin attacking theproblem.
Paper and Spreadsheets
In an attempt to improve their visibility into theselosses, manufacturers have tried to employ manual,paper-based systems on the shop floor. However,these systems tend to yield unreliable, incompleteand subjective data that is almost always out of date and mostly leads to poor decisions and subparperformance. Manual systems also cause operatorsand supervisors to spend an overwhelming amount of time on the administrative process of collecting andcollating data, leaving little to no time to make sounddecisions or to take appropriate action based on thedata.Simply put, manual systems do not drive action.Instead, they most often drive only debate anddiscussion. When performance does not improve,factory floor meetings become postmortem “blamesessions” about issues that occurred earlier that dayor that week. And since no one buys into the qualityand timeliness of the data, action is not taken andperformance continues to suffer, breeding employeecynicism and distaste for new improvement initiatives.
Addressing the 'Six Big Losses':
 A New Approach to Old Problems in Process Manufacturing
 The Missing Ingredient in MES
Once a company realizes that a paper-based system isnot going to work, it will typically deploy some form of automated shop floor data collection system, often inthe form of an MES (Manufacturing Execution System).But MES, while the right idea, often adds confusionand complexity. These systems tend to generatereports and a plethora of data that is difficult to act on.Furthermore, an MES is not designed to force a changein behavior. MES can certainly produce a tremendousamount of data. But data in and of itself does notengender action. Without a feedback loop thatdelivers real-time information to operators on howthey are performing at any given moment, operatorscannot make sound decisions and take appropriateand timely action.
“Relying on streams of raw data and outdated analysis canbe compared to driving a car blindfolded and then gettinga report at the end of the day detailing every accidentyou caused,” says David Gallagher, operations director forGreencore Cakes and Desserts, one of Europe’s leadingambient cake and dessert manufacturers. “A report on yieldand cycle time three days later is not very useful to a busyoperator whose primary task is to keep the line moving atthat very moment. What operators need is real-time andrelevant information they can use to avoid ‘accidents’ as theyapproach obstacles.”
In terms of continuous improvement, this string of potential failures puts manufacturers back to squareone: managing production operations in the dark. This can be especially frustrating for executives thatrecognize that they are still sitting on a potential20 to 50 percent opportunity for performanceimprovement—yet they are still unsure of how tocapitalize on that opportunity.
A New Approach to Address OldProblems
Increasingly, companies working in processmanufacturing environments are discovering asurprisingly effective framework from which to tacklethe CI challenge: the “Six Big Losses” approach.Developed in the 1970s by the Japan Institute of PlantMaintenance (JIPM), the Six Big Losses framework enables manufacturers to examine their efficiencyproblem with an unprecedented level of granularity.
The Six Big LossesLoss Category
1. Equipment failures2. Set-up and changeoversUtilization (Availability)3. Idling and minor stoppages4. Reduced speed operationRate Loss (Performance)5. Scrap and rework 6. Startup lossesYield (Quality)
Besides measuring the product coming out of a machine, the Six Big Losses framework helpsa manufacturer delve deeper into productionperformance by better determining what could havecome out of the machine and where effectiveness issuffering. The framework categorizes the reasons why100 percent efficiency is not being attained into threemajor areas—downtime (availability), speed losses(performance) and defect losses (yield)—which arethen broken down further into six distinct categories.Overall Equipment Effectiveness, or OEE, offers asimple numerical representation of what is causing theinefficiency gap, providing daily information abouthow effectively equipment is running and which of thesix loss areas need improvement. (OEE is representedas Availability Rate × Performance Rate × QualityRate). Breaking these constituent parts into the SixBig losses enables producers to not only calculate aholistic performance metric but to also delve into theunderlying categories affecting performance. This proven framework has enabled hundreds of manufacturing organizations to determine withgreat precision, the root cause of their inefficiencies.It provides the necessary structure for tacklingthe problems, improving efficiency and capacity,driving down costs and improving profitability.For manufacturers focused on removing capacityconstraints, the framework can also help unlock additional capacity while reducing manufacturingcosts and improving profitability.
Adopting Adequate Technology
At the same time, improving manufacturingperformance through a focus on the Six Big Lossesrequires a move from spreadsheets and paper-basedsystems to real-time performance managementtechnology. Accurately measuring OEE and the SixBig Losses manually or with spreadsheets is not onlyextremely difficult, it also fails to provide granularvisibility into each of the six performance areas.

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
apch2010 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->