Push vs.

PuII Process ControI

E 3265 POM
Slide Set 9
R. Lindeke, Sp 2005
,sic Definitions
MRP Materials Requirements Planning). MRP is the
basic process of translating a production schedule for
an end product MPS or Master Production
Schedule) to a set of time based requirements for all
of the subassemblies and parts needed to make that
set of finished goods.
% ust-in-Time. Derived from the original apanese
Kanban system developed at Toyota. T seeks to
deliver the right amount of product at the right time.
The goal is to reduce WP ork-in-process)
inventories to an absolute minimum.
hy Push ,nd PuII?
MRP is the classic push system. The MRP system
computes production schedules for all levels based
on forecasts of sales of end items. Once produced,
subassemblies are pushed to next level hether
needed or not.
T is the classic pull system. The basic mechanism
is that production at one level only happens hen
initiated by a request at the higher level. That is, units
are pulled through the system by request.
Comp,rison
These methods offer to completely different approaches to basic
production planning in a manufacturing environment. Each has
advantages over the other, but neither seems to be sufficient on
its on. Both have advantages and disadvantages, suggesting
that both methods could be useful in the same organization.
Main Advantage of MRP over T: MRP takes forecasts for end
product demand into account. n an environment in hich
substantial variation of sales are anticipated and can be
forecasted accurately), MRP has a substantial advantage.
Main Advantage of T over MRP: T reduces inventories to a
minimum. n addition to saving direct inventory carrying costs,
there are substantial side benefits, such as improvement in quality
and plant efficiency.
Comp,risons (cont.)
Advantages Disadvantages
T PULL
Limited and knon Final nventory
Every job is a 'High Stress' Rush
order
Worker only consume their time &
Ra Materials on hat is actually
needed
,I,nced systems MUST be in
place
Quality MUS% be High each piece
has a definite place to go else
immediate feedback is given
Setup times ill greatly impact
throughput
3 problem ill lead to unhappy
customers either internal or
external)
Comp,risons (cont.)
Advantages Disadvantages
MRP PUSH
Allos Managers to manage that
is, plan and control things
Can lead to large inventories
Requires intricate knoledge of
Production Times & Product Flo
Can generate large quantities of
scrap before errors are discovered
Can lead to economies of scale in
purchasing and production
Requires diligence to maintain
effective product flo
Allos for the planning and
completion of complex assemblies
as sub-components are delivered
only by scheduled need
Requires maintenance of large and
complex databases
ocusing on %
T ust n Time) is an outgroth of the Kanban system developed by
Toyota.
Kanban refers to the posting board and the inventory control cards
posted there) here the evolution of the manufacturing process ould
be recorded.
The Kanban system is a manual information system that relies on
various types of inventory control cards.
t's development is closely tied to the development of SMED: Single
Minute Exchange of Dies, that alloed model changeovers to take
place in minutes rather than hours.
The Fundamental dea of T and Lean Manufacturing Systems in
General an Americanization of the Toyota P. S.) is to empoer the
orkers to make decisions and eliminate aste herever it is found
%he %enets of %e,n
Empoer the orkers:
Workers are our intelligent resources allo them to
exhibit this strength
Workers ultimately control quality lets them do their job
correctly Poka-Yoke)
Don't pit orkers against each other eliminate "piece-
ork disconnected from quality and allo orkers to
cooperate in teams to design jobs and expectations
%he %enets of %e,n
Eliminate Waste
Waste is anything that takes aay from the operations
GOAL to make a profit and stay in business!)
Reduce inventory to only hat is absolutely needed
mprove Quality scrap and reork are costly and disrupt flo
Only make hat is ordered
Make setups and changes quickly and efficiently
Employ only the orkers needed
Eliminate Clutter it astes time
e,tures of % Systems
$2,ll Work-i3-Process I3;e39ories.
Advantages:
1. Decreases nventory Costs
2. mproves Efficiency
3. Reveals quality problems see Figure 7-10)
Disadvantages:
1. May result in increased orker idle time
2. May result in decreased throughput rate
Rivernventory An,Iogy
IIustr,ting the Adv,nt,ges of ust-in-%ime
Revealing fundamental 'problems' is the noted
competitive advantages of T/Lean
e,tures of % Systems (continued)
,3-,3 I31or2,9io3 Flow $s9e2
Adv,nt,ges
1. Efficient tracking of lots
2. nexpensive implementation of T
3. Achieves desired level of WP based on Number of
Kanbans in the system
Dis,dv,nt,ges
1. Slo to react to changes in demand
2. gnores predicted demand patterns beyond 2 months
or so)
ocus on %he K,nb,n
Typically it is a 2-card system
The P production) Card and W ithdraal) Card
Limits on product inventory number of P & W cards)
are set by management policy
The count is r,du,ll lowered until problems
surface
The actual target level card count) is based on short
term forecasting of demands
ocus on %he K,nb,n
ocus on %he K,nb,n - the worker ,s
m,n,ger
P cards cycle from their accumulation post at Center
1 to product hen a defined trigger point is reached)
and then to output queue
When trigger level is reached, Ct 1 orker pulls
product from Ct 1 Wait point queue and replaces the
Ct 1 W-cards ith Ct 1 P-Cards hich then are
loaded to the Ct 1 processors the orker puts Ct 1
W-Cards to his/her acc. Post for W-cards
Finished Product is pushed into the Ct 1 output
queue
ocus on %he K,nb,n - the worker ,s
m,n,ger
A second orker Ct 2's orker) atches for accumulation of Ct
2 W-Cards
When it reaches their trigger level, he/she pulls product into Ct
2 Holding area after replacing Ct 1 P-Cards ith their W-Cards
and returns Ct 1 P-Cards to their Acc. Post for Ct. 1 orkers
benefit
They also atch for accumulation of Ct. 2 P-Cards on their acc.
Post and hen trigger count is reached they pull product from
holding area and replace Ct 2 W-Cards / Ct 2 P-Cards then
push it into the processors
And around and around they go!
ocus on %he K,nb,n
So ho many cards?
speaking of hich, a
card is associated
ith a container lot)
of product so the
number of P & W
cards at a station
determines the
inventory level of a
product!
is # of Kanbans
D is 'average' demand
L is lead time (proc+wait+travel+others)
w is buffer stock/ set by policy
typically 10 of DL
a is container cap. < 10 of daily demand


DL w
y
a
y
+
=
ocus on %he K,nb,n
Lets look at an example:
950 units/month 20 productive days) 48/day
Container size: a = 48/10 = 4.8 5
"L data:
A. setup is 45 minutes .75 hour)
B. Setup is 3 minutes .05 hr)
Wait time: .3 hr/container
Transport time: .45 hr/container
Prod Time: 0.09 hr/each = .45 hr/container
ocus on %he K,nb,n
.45 .75 .3 .45 1.95
48/ 8 6/
6 1.95 11.7; .1 11.7 1.17
11.7 1.17
2.57 3
5
a
a a
a
L hr
D hr
DL w
y
= + + + =
= =
= - = = - =
+
= = =
.45 .05 .3 .45 1.25
6 1.25 7.5
.1 7.5 .75
7.5 .75
1.65 2
5
b
b
b
b
L hr
DL
w
y
= + + + =
= - =
= - =
+
= = =
Requires 3*2 = 6*5 = 30
pieces in inventory also,
ith 45mins set up 10 times
a day means that e
consume 450 min or 7.5
hours/day just setting up!
Here only 2*2 = 4*5 =
20 pieces and also
only .05*10 = 50 min
for setup .833 hr) per
day
So, setup reduction imp,cts ,ctory
C,p,biIities & nventory
Lets look at the effect of
studies comparing cost of
setup vs. inventory cost
like EOQ
Then lets see hat e can
invest to reduce inventory
levels
We ill spend money on
reducing setup cost time)
and see if reduced
inventory ill offset our
investment
This is the driving force for
SMED

2
Like in EOQ
but last term is a 'Penalty'
factor for investing in setup
reduction rather than other
projects
K hQ
G Q K I a K
Q
2
= + +
ocus on the Pen,Ity ,ctor
We can effectively model this "aK) function as a
'logarithmic' investment function
By logarithmic e 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
ocus on the Pen,Ity ,ctor
Lets say that the investment is $7
buys a fixed percent reduction in
K
0
f e get actually get 10% setup
cost reduction for $7, then an
investment of $7 ill mean:
Setup cost drops to: 0.9K
0
A second $7 investment ill lead
to a further 10% reduction or:
.9K-.1*.9K = .81K
0
This continues: K
37
= .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)

a q K

7
7 = -
ocus on the Pen,Ity ,ctor
With that "shape e
can remodel the aK)
logarithmically:
aK) = b[lnK
0
) lnK)]
here:
Reverting back to
GQ,K) function and
substituting Q*:
1
ln
b
q
7
=


|

0
2 ln( ) ln
now, minimize w.r.t. K
meaning: G'(K) 0
G K K h I b K K 2 = + -
|
ocus on the Pen,Ity ,ctor
Finding the K* after the minimization:
To determine hat e should do, determine GK)
using K
0
and K*
2 2
2
is MARR for the company
I b
K
h 2
-
=
ets try one:
K
0
: $1000
7: $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:
nvestment 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
2
= =
= =


2
316.58 1325.47 $1642
2
70
G K K h Ia K
K
EOQ K
h
2
2
- - -
-
-
= +
|
= + =
= =
SMED
Some terms:
SMED = single minute exchange of dies
hich means quick tooling change and lo
setup time cost)
nside Processes setup functions that
must be done 'inside' the machine or done
hen the machine is stopped
Minimally these ould include unbolting departing
fixtures/dies and positioning and bolting ne fixture/dies
to the machine
More %erms:
Outside Setup activities related to tooling
changes that can be done 'outside' of the
machine structure
These ould include:
Bringing Tooling to Machine
Bringing Ra Materials to Machine
Getting Prints/QC tools to machine
Etc.
ocus on SMED
When moving from "No Plan or Step 1 to
Step 2 separating nside from Outside
activities) investments ould be relatively lo
to accomplish a large amount of time cost)
saving
Essentially a ne 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 ,nd Step 4
Require investments in Tooling
Require Design Changes
Require Family tooling and adaptors
Require common bolstering attachments
n general requiring larger and larger
investments in hardare to achieve smaller
and smaller time cost) savings in setup
%herefore, we c,n s,y SMED is:
n reality the essence of
a Logarithmic setup
reduction plan!
ets ook into ine ,I,ncing
This is a process to optimize the assignment of
individual tasks in a process based on a planed
throughput of a manufacturing system
t begins ith 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
ine ,I,ncing
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 ithin cycle like
attaching tires to front/back axles on a
bus!)
ncompatible tasks the Grinding/Gluing
constraint
Some of the C,IcuI,tions:
Takt Cycle) Time:
Minimum # Workstations req'r:
Prod. time/day Total Time - Allowances (T)
Target output/day Req'r Output (Q)
(min/unit)

Q
= =
=
(Total 1ob Task Time)
t
N

Efficiency C,IcuI,tions:
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

$tK
i t
Eff
N
t
Eff

=
=
=
=
=

ets %ry One:

A B C
D E F
G H
Times:
A 25s; B 33s;C 33s;
D 21s; E 40s; F40s;
G 44s; H 19s
Production
Requirement
is 400/shift
C,IcuI,tion of %,kt %ime & Optim,I
St,tion count
480 .12*480 422.4
1.056min 63.4
400 400
s

= = = <

25 33 33 21 40 40 44 19
4.04
63.4
5
i
t
N

N stations
+ + + + + + +
= = =

%o Perform Assignment we need

Assignment RuIes:
Primary Rule:
Assign task by order of those having largest
number of folloers
Secondary Rule:
Assign by longest task time
Prim,ry Assignment RuIe
Task # Folloers
A,D 4
E,B 3
F,C 2
G 1
ine ,I,ncing Assignments
Station Task T. Time
Remaining
Time
Feas.
Remaining
Task
Task /
Most
folloers
Task / L.
Time
1
A 25 38.4 B, D D B
D 21 17.4 -
2 E 40 23.4 -
3 B 33 30.4 -
4 F 40 23.4 -
5 C 33 30.4 -
6
G 44 19.4 H
H 19 .4 -
%he ine ,I,nce
A B C
D E F
G H
WS 1
WS 3
WS 2
WS 4
WS 5
WS 6
Checking Efficiencies:
1
3
6
255
67
6 63.4
46
72.6
63.4
33
52.1
63.4
63
99
63.4
L
$
$
$
%
Eff
N
Eff
Eff
Eff
= = <
-
= =
= =
= =

De,Iing with Efficiencies

We investigate other Rules application to improve
layout
1
st
by folloers then by longest time then most folloers
Alternating!
Consider line duplication if not too expensive!)
hich loers demand on a line and increases Takt
time
The problem of a long individual task
n Koeln, long time stations ere duplicated then the system
automatically alternated assignment beteen these stations