Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Push VsPull SlideSet9
Push VsPull SlideSet9
= + +
Focus on the Penalty Factor
We can effectively model this a(K) function as a
logarithmic investment function
By logarithmic we imply that there is a an increasing
cost to continue to reduce setup cost
We state, then, that there is a sum of money that can
be invested to yield a fixed percentage of cost
reduction
That is (for example) for every investment of $200
the organization can get a 2% reduction in Setup
cost
Focus on the Penalty Factor
Lets say that the investment is $u
buys a fixed percent reduction in
K
0
If we get actually get 10% setup
cost reduction for $u, then an
investment of $u will mean:
Setup cost drops to: 0.9K
0
A second $u investment will lead
to a further 10% reduction or:
.9K-.1*.9K = .81K
0
This continues: K
3u
= .729K
0
Generalizing:
( )
0
is 'number' of investments
q is the decimal equivalent of the
amount of reduction the $
investment will buy:
q=(1-%setup cost reduction)
j
a q K j
j
u
u = -
Focus on the Penalty Factor
With that shape we
can remodel the a(K)
logarithmically:
a(K) = b[ln(K
0
) ln(K)]
where:
Reverting back to
G(Q,K) function and
substituting Q*:
1
ln
b
q
u
=
(
(
( ) ( )
0
2 ln( ) ln
now, minimize w.r.t. K
meaning: G'(K) = 0
G K K h I b K K = + - (
Focus on the Penalty Factor
Finding the K* after the minimization:
To determine what we should do, determine G(K)
using K
0
and K*
2 2
2
I is MARR for the company
I b
K
h
-
=
Lets try one:
K
0
: $1000
u: $95 for each 7.5% reduction in setup cost
Annual quantity: 48000
Holding cost: $4.50
MARR is 13%
( )
( ) ( )
2 2
95 95
1218.55
.07796
1
ln
1 .075
2 .13 1218.55
$0.232
48000 4.5
b
K
-
= = =
(
(
- -
= =
-
Continuing:
Investment to get to K*
Testing for decision
No investment (K = K
0
):
At Min K*:
| | ( ) ( )
1218.55 ln 1000 ln .232
$10195.91
a K = (
=
( )
0 0
0
2 $20784.61
2
: 4619
G K K h
K
note EOQ pieces
h
= =
= =
( )
( )
2
316.58 1325.47 $1642
2
70
G K K h Ia K
K
EOQ K
h
- - -
-
-
( = +
= + =
= =
SMED
Some terms:
SMED = single minute exchange of dies
which means quick tooling change and low
setup time (cost)
Inside Processes setup functions that
must be done inside the machine or done
when the machine is stopped
Minimally these would include unbolting departing
fixtures/dies and positioning and bolting new fixture/dies
to the machine
More Terms:
Outside Setup activities related to tooling
changes that can be done outside of the
machine structure
These would include:
Bringing Tooling to Machine
Bringing Raw Materials to Machine
Getting Prints/QC tools to machine
Etc.
Focus on SMED
When moving from No Plan or Step 1 to
Step 2 (separating Inside from Outside
activities) investments would be relatively low
to accomplish a large amount of time (cost)
saving
Essentially a new set of change plans and a small
amount of training to the Material Handlers so that
they are alerted ahead of time and bring the
tooling out to the machine before it is needed
Moving to Step 3 and Step 4
Require investments in Tooling
Require Design Changes
Require Family tooling and adaptors
Require common bolstering attachments
In general requiring larger and larger
investments in hardware to achieve smaller
and smaller time (cost) savings in setup
Therefore, we can say SMED is:
In reality the essence of
a Logarithmic setup
reduction plan!
Lets Look into Line Balancing
This is a process to optimize the assignment of
individual tasks in a process based on a planed
throughput of a manufacturing system
It begins with the calculation of a system Takt or
Cycle time to build the required number of units
required over time
From takt time and a structured sequential analysis
of the time and steps required to manufacture
(assembly) a product, compute the number of
stations required on the line
Once station count is determined, assign feasible
tasks to stations one-at-a-time filling up to takt time
for each station using rational decision/assignment
rules
Line Balancing
Feasible tasks are ones that have all
predecessors completed (or no
predecessors) and take less time
that the remaining time at a station
Feasibility is also subject to physical
constraints:
Zone Restriction the task are physically
separated taking to much movement time
to accomplish both within cycle (like
attaching tires to front/back axles on a
bus!)
Incompatible tasks the Grinding/Gluing
constraint
Some of the Calculations:
Takt (Cycle) Time:
Minimum # Workstations reqr:
Prod. time/day Total Time - Allowances (T)
Target output/day Req'r Output (Q)
(min/unit)
C
T
C
Q
= =
=
(Total Job Task Time)
t
N
C
=
Efficiency Calculations:
1
1
i
j
here t is the time actually consummed at the stations
t is the time of any task actually assigned to St K
N
i
i
line
J
j
j
StK
i t
Eff
C N
t
Eff
C
=
=
=
=
=
= = = ~
( )
25 33 33 21 40 40 44 19
4.04
63.4
5
i
t
N
C
N stations
+ + + + + + +
= = =
= =
= =
= =
Dealing with Efficiencies
We investigate other Rules application to improve
layout
1
st
by followers then by longest time then most followers
Alternating!
Consider line duplication (if not too expensive!)
which lowers demand on a line and increases Takt
time
The problem of a long individual task
In Koeln, long time stations were duplicated then the system
automatically alternated assignment between these stations