Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Facility Planning Breif
Facility Planning Breif
- Prioritization Matrix
Information Gathering
- Information about Product
- Information about Schedule
Facility
Planning
Facility
Design
Layout
Design
Handling
System Design
Location:
GNP %
Manufacturing
Public Utilities
Commercial
Communication
3.2
1.6
1.5
1.0
Total
8.0
d) Storage strategies
- space and people requirements
- impact on material handling equipment
- human factors risks
B > C, and
C > A.
If there are not inconsistencies and, for example, four candidate plans (A, B, C, and D), the
pairwise comparison may produce the following results:
A<B
B<C
A<C
B>D
C>D
A>D
Next, a factor analysis technique can be used to determine the facility plan, i.e., assign a
weight to each factor, and compute the total weight for each candidate plan.
List all factors that are important - that have an impact on the facility
plan decision.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Step 4.
Compute the weighted score for each factor for each facility plan by
multiplying its weight by the corresponding score.
Step 5.
Compute the sum of the weighted scores for each facility plan and
choose a facility plan based on these scores.
Example 1
A payroll processing company has recently won several major contracts
in the Midwest region of the United States and Central Canada and wants
to open a new, large facility to serve these areas. Because customer
service is so important, the company wants to be as near its customers
as possible. A preliminary investigation has shown that Minneapolis,
Winnipeg, and Springfield, Illinois are the three most desirable locations,
facility.
Example 1 (cont.)
Factors and weights for three locations
Score
Weight
Factor
Minneapolis
Winnipeg
Springfield
0.25
Proximity to customer
95
90
65
0.15
60
60
90
0.15
Wage rates
70
45
60
0.10
Property taxes
70
90
70
0.10
Business taxes
80
90
85
0.10
Commercial travel
80
65
75
0.08
Insurance costs
70
95
60
0.07
Office services
90
90
80
Example 1 Solution
Weighted scores for three locations
Weighted Score
Factor
Minneapolis
Winnipeg
Springfield
Proximity to customer
23.75
22.50
16.25
9.00
9.00
13.50
Wage rates
10.50
6.75
9.00
Property taxes
7.00
9.00
7.00
Business taxes
8.00
9.00
8.50
Commercial travel
8.00
6.50
7.50
Insurance costs
5.60
7.60
4.80
Office services
6.30
6.30
5.60
78.15
76.65
72.15
Prioritization Matrix
The prioritization matrix can be used to judge the relative importance of each criterion as
compared to each other. Table 1 represents the prioritization of the criteria for the facilities
design example. The criteria are labeled to help in building a table with weights:
A. Total distance traveled
G. Space requirements
H. People requirements
is presented in the last column in parenthesis. The most important criterion for facilities
design selection is the impact on WIP levels (weight = 18.3), followed by the estimated cost
of the solution (weight = 13.5).
This same methodology can be employed to compare all facilities design alternatives in each
weighted criterion. For example, suppose five layout alternatives are generated; namely, P,
Q,. R, S, and T. Table 2 represents the ranking of the layout alternatives based on the impact
of WIP levels criterion.
If we construct a similar table for the remaining ten criteria, we will be able to evaluate each
layout alternative in the eleven criteria to identify the best layout. The format of this final
table is presented in Table 3. The last column is computed as in Tables 1 and 2. The row
totals (represented by ) are added to obtain the grand total, after which the percentages
(%P, , %T) are determined. These percentages tell us the relative goodness of each layout
alternative. These results should be presented to plant management to facilitate final
decisions regarding the layout.
10
1/5 1
1/10 1/5 1
1/10 1/10 1/10 1/5 1/5 1/10 1/10 1/10 2.3 (0.7)
1/5 5
10
10
1/5
1/5
34.4 (10.7)
10
10
41.0 (12.7)
1/5 1/5 1
1/5
1/5 1/5
23.0 (7.1)
1/5 1/5 5
22.9 (7.1)
10
10
10
10
59.0 (18.3)
1/5 5
10
39.2 (12.2)
10
10
1/5
1/5 1
43.4 (13.5)
7.7
Column
Total
10.1 14.0
32.0 (9.9)
7.6 (2.4)
322.2
10
1/10 1/5
1/5 1
1.6 (2.2)
22.0 (30.0)
10
10
1/10 1
1/5
21.3 (29.0)
10
1/5 5
21.2 (28.9)
Column
Total
10
16.2 6.5
73.4
(%P)
(%Q)
(%R)
(%S)
(%T)
Column
.183
Grand Total
4. Should fixed path, variable paths, or some combination be used for material
handling to/from/within manufacturing?
5. Should centralized or distributed storage of work-in-process be used? How
should it be stored, moved, protected, and controlled?
Facility Layout
A Layout problem may be to
determine the location for a new machine,
develop a new layout for an existing production plant,
develop a layout for a new production plant,
etc.
Product
Design
Process
Design
Facility
Layout
Material
Handling
System Design
Production
Planning
Concurrent Engineering
Process
Design
Layout Design
+
Material Handling
System Design
Product
Design
Schedule
Design
Recommended system
Present system
5. Consider the general material handling plan. 15. Consider building type
6. Calculate equipment requirements.
Systematic Layout
Planning Procedure
(Muther 1961)
Information Gathering
Information about product, process and schedule is required.
The major effect of product design decisions is felt by the process designer, i.e., the
material used to make a part will influence processing decisions.
Design for automation programs have been developed that consider the impact of the design
of the product on the assembly process. Their primary thrusts are (1) dimensional reduction,
(2) parts elimination, and (3) parts standardization.For (1), the cost of assembly is reduced if
it occurs in a single dimension. The complexity of programming a robot increases
geometrically with the number of assembly dimensions.For (2), if more complex parts can
be produced, the number of parts can be reduced.
Schedule design decisions tell us how much to produce and when to produce. From the
market forecast, the production demand is determined and decisions about the production
rate are made.
Information Gathering
Information about product :
- Photographs about the product
- Exploded drawings
- Engineering drawings of individual parts
- Parts list
Gate Valve
Provide part
specifications and
dimensions in
sufficient detail for
manufacturing
parts of a product. In
addition to make or buy
decisions, a parts list
includes part number, part
referred to as a structured
parts list since it includes all
of the information typically
included in the parts list, as
well as information
concerning the structure of
the product.
Assembly Chart I
It is an analog model of the assembly
process. Circles with a single link
denote basic components, circles with
several links denote assembly
operations/subassemblies, and squares
represent inspection operations.
Assembly Chart II
Information Gathering
Information about process :
- Route sheet (equipment and operation times)
- Precedence Diagram (prerequisite assembly steps before new
assembly step)
- Operation process chart (processing operations, assembly
operations, and inspections)
Information Gathering
Information about schedule :
- Production rate
- Product mix
- Market forecast (it is better to work with tomorrows data than
todays data)
- Gantt charts
Schedule Design
Schedule design decisions tell us how much to produce and when to
produce.
Market
Forecast
Production
Demand
Product Mix
+
Production Rate
Production
Rate
Continuos or
Intermittent
Production
Number of
Machines