Multiple Machine Operation—Interference

I urge you to proceed with caution when studying the feasibility of having one operator run two machines. Be
absolutely sure that doing so will render the desired results—and that it will not cost more than having a separate
operator run each machine. One cause of interference that is often overlooked prior to the operator-utilization
decision is related to the tasks you expect your operators to perform on each finished part upon its completion.
Column From: Modern Machine Shop, Mike Lynch
ShareThis

Posted on: 5/1/2008

I urge you to proceed with caution when studying the feasibility of having one operator run two
machines. Be absolutely sure that doing so will render the desired results—and that it will not cost
more than having a separate operator run each machine.
One cause of interference that is often overlooked prior to the operator-utilization decision is
related to the tasks you expect your operators to perform on each finished part upon its
completion. These tasks commonly include cleaning, deburring, measuring and reporting
measurement results to the SPC system. Ideally, the operator will complete these tasks while the
CNC machine is in cycle. In this way, the time required for the tasks will be internal to the CNC
cycle and will not add to the time it takes to complete the production run.
While an operator may be able to comfortably keep up with these tasks when running one
machine, her or she may not be able to keep up when running two machines.
Consider, for example, a job with a 3-minute cycle. The tasks the operator must perform on each
part take 2 minutes. In this case, an operator running only one machine can comfortably keep up
with the machine, and these tasks will be internal.
Now, consider having this operator run similar jobs on two machines. The machines are running
concurrently, so he or she will have 4 minutes of work to do during a 3-minute period. The
operator won’t be able to keep up, which leads to 1 minute of interference for every part.
In order to be internal, tasks done on each of the parts must be less than half the longest run time
for the two machines. Otherwise, the operator will not be able to keep up with the machine.
Obviously, if an operator cannot keep up with these tasks while running one machine, he or she
will not be able to keep up with two machines. Deciding to have one operator run two machines in
this case will have a terrible impact on interference.
For example, if an operator running one machine has a 3-minute cycle and 4 minutes of work to
do on each completed part, the machine will be idle for 1 minute per part. When running two
machines (with identical run times and work), this minute must be added to the 4 minutes of work
to be done on the other part—totaling 5 minutes of interference per part.
Here is an example using a spreadsheet that stresses what happens when an operator can’t
keep up (find the spreadsheet at http://www.cncci.com/resources/tips/machineutil.xls). Machine
cost is $30 per hour each, and operator cost is $20 per hour. Two similar jobs will be run, each
with 200 parts, 3 minutes of run time and 15 seconds of part load time. We’ll say that the operator
must spend 1 minute per part cleaning, deburring and spot checking—and he or she can
comfortably do so within the 3-minute cycle time. Here are the results from the spreadsheet:
 Elapsed time to completion if a separate operator runs both machines: 11.836 hours.
 Elapsed time to completion if one operator runs both machines: 14.09 hours.
 Total interference time: 2.568 hours.
 Cost with two operators: $1,183.67.
 Cost with one operator: $1,062.58.
 Savings: $121.08 (10.23 percent).
Now, let’s change the criteria, making the tasks an operator must do for each workpiece more
intense. Say it now takes the operator 2 minutes per part instead of 1 minute. Again, because the
machines run concurrently, the operator will have only 3 minutes per cycle to perform 4 minutes
of work. One minute of interference will be experienced per part. Now the spreadsheet renders:
 Elapsed time to completion if a separate operator runs both machines: 11.836 hours.
 Elapsed time to completion if one operator runs both machines: 17.335 hours.
 Total interference time: 5.766 hours.
 Cost with two operators: $1,183.67.
 Cost with one operator: $1,306.94.
 Loss: -$121.27 (-10.41 percent).
Total interference time went up, which means the operator can’t keep up with the machine. This
stresses just how important it is that you ensure that tasks performed on each workpiece are kept
internal to the CNC cycle.
Even when you have determined that it is feasible to have one operator run two machines, and
regardless of how much study and evaluation went in to your decision, I strongly recommend that
you proceed slowly. Be sure to leave yourself a “back door” just in case things don’t work out as
smoothly as planned.
n order to realize the greatest returns, companies need to effectively prioritize and
manage projects. There are many ways to set priorities, such as the "A B C" method,
in which projects deemed most important are assigned an "A" priority, those with a
slightly lower priority are assigned a "B" and the lowest-priority projects are assigned
a "C". Unfortunately, this can be a highly subjective approach. After all, what is the
real difference between an "A" priority project and a "B" priority project, or even a
"B" priority and a "C?"

The one-through-five (or even 10) method for assigning priorities also can be difficult
to use, with even more levels from which to chose. How does someone decide if
something is a priority "8" and not a "7" or a "9?"

A technique I have used bases the importance of any task on two factors: effort and
impact. First, decide if the effort is easy or hard to accomplish. Second, figure out if
the project is likely to have a high or low impact on the organization. In other words,
what can the company gain as a result of a successful conclusion to the project? The
table below shows how you can prioritize a project using this technique.
HIGH IMPACT LOW IMPACT

Easy to do 1 2

Hard to do 3 4

The rationale for this technique is that you should do the easy things first (or as some
like to say, "pick the low hanging fruit"). So, projects that are easy to do take priority
over those that are hard to do. The expected impact is then used to refine the
prioritization further. Something that is easy to do with a high impact is given the
highest priority. Something that is easy to do with a low impact gets the second-
highest priority. Anything that is hard to do but yields a high impact is given the third
level of priority. Finally, projects that are hard to do and yield a low impact are given
the lowest priority. Anything assigned a priority level of "4" will probably not be
addressed in the near term. However, that project should remain on the list of things
to do in case something changes that makes it either easier to do or increases its
impact on the organization.