This Study Resource Was: Group 4 Case Report - Czech Mate

Group 4 Case Report – Czech Mate
Introduction
The purpose of this case study report is to analyze the efficacy of the operational
recommendations made by Jake Carrier and Dan Kallish, for the Precise Motor manufacturing
facility in Olomouc, Czech Republic. To accomplish this, we will first analyze the observations
made by Carrier and Kalish, as a part of the Kaizen event for the problematic Proven Special
Electric Motor (PSEM) Unit. We will critique their observations and recommend ways to
mitigate potential oversights. Second, we will analyze and critique the recommendations made
by Carrier and Kallish for improvements to the PSEM unit. Finally, we will evaluate the success
of the proposals on productivity and inventory, while making additional recommendations
based on our evaluation of the case.
m
er as
co
Analysis of the current PSEM Unit
eH w
Based on the data provided in the case study, we can see that significant inefficiencies
o.
rs e
exist in the in the current PSEM process. (See the diagrams below.)
ou urc
o
aC s
vi y re
Figure 1 - Current PSEM Process Diagram

ed d
ar stu
is
Th
sh
Figure 2 - Operational Analysis for Current PSEM Cell Process Design
Daily Capacity=4.52× 8=36.20(motors per day )
This study source was downloaded by 100000832794612 from CourseHero.com on 10-22-2021 04:46:15 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/42984759/Czech-Mate-Final-Reportdocx/
Inventory 56
Throughput time=Average = =16.84 (hours)
Throughput rate 26.6/8
Throughput rate 26.6
Operator Utilization= = ×100=73.48
Daily Capacity 36.2
Analysis of the proposed PSEM Unit

Based on the recommendations derived by Carrier and Kallish we can expect significant
reduction in mud and wasteful time in the new production process. (See the diagrams below.)
m
er as
co
eH w
Figure 3 - Proposed PSEM Process Diagram
o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi y re
ed d
ar stu
Figure 4 - Operational Analysis for Proposed PSEM Cell Process Design

is
*Our assumption is that the proposed cell design eliminates all non value adding production time.
Th
Daily Capacity=4.99 ×8=39.93(motors per day )

Inventory 56
Throughput time=Average = =16.84 (hours)
Throughput rate 26.6/8
sh
Throughput rate 26.6

Operator Utilization= = ×100=66.61% New Cell Design
Daily Capacity 39.93
The new cell design eliminates waste by getting rid of duplicate processes, for time
traveled between tools and workstations, time wasted either waiting to use a tool, or waiting
for WIP to get to the workstation. The new cell decreases “muda”, or waste, by consolidating
complementary processes, i.e., combining steps 1 and 2 in the production process to minimize
waiting and rework time. Waste is also eliminated by centralizing WIP, tools, and machinery
around the operator, reducing motion time. Lastly, the new cell reduces transportation time by
placing the production cell adjacent to the testing cell. The new cell would be staffed by four
operators, working two consecutively staggered shifts. (See diagram below.)
m
er as
co
eH w
o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi y re
ed d
ar stu
is
Figure 5 - New PSEM Cell

Th
Evaluation
sh
Overall, the Kaizen event was a beneficial exercise for the PSEM unit because it helped to
identify crucial inefficiencies in the unit’s production process. Throughout the event, many
solutions were identified to reduce time wasted in production, WIP, and in end of day inventory.
However, the event was not completely successful because the recommendations did not have
the intended positive impact on the team of operators. The operators continue to do business
using their old methods, even though the entire unit had been changed and redesigned.
Carrier & Kallish were very observant in their process analysis. They did a great job of
evaluating and laying out the production process in the PSEM unit. They collected and analyzed
supplementary information, such as past orders and motor schematics to make better informed
recommendations. The two students also did a good job of identifying processes and tools that
worked well from other units, such as the rotary motor unit and AHM cell. They also
coordinated work well with Frampton to ensure the success of the Kaizen event.
m
The MBA students did, however, have some shortcomings in their interactions with the
er as
co
PSEM operators. For the majority of the event, Carrier and Kallish didn’t truly interact with the
eH w
people they were seeking to help. The team made the majority of their observations and
o.
rs e
recommendations independent of the PSEM unit. This method eventually led to resistance on
ou urc
the part of the PSEM operators toward all of the recommendations. The pair could have done a
better job of presenting the recommendations to the team. In the case, we learn the two
o
students initially layed out their recommended changes without offering any quantifiable
aC s
vi y re
metrics to measure and project success. Only after this initial failure did they decide to quantify
their findings to share with the operators.
ed d
Recommendations
ar stu
Incorporating Kallish’s recommendations:

The (5) production steps were divided into (3) stages:
is
Stage 1: step 1-2 (total times is about 100 minutes)

Th
Stage 2: step 3-4 (total times is about 100 minutes)

Stage 3: Step 5 (total time is about 100 minutes)
sh
The (4) operators’ work day would be staggered; meaning that Operators 1 and 3 would come
to work at 8am for example. They would immediately start Stage 1 and would finish Stage 1
around 940am.
At 940am, Operators 2 and 4 would come to work and start their respective Stage 1 process,
Operator 1 and 3 work on Stage 2.
When Operator 1 and 3 finish Stage 2, Operators 2 and 4 finish Stage 1. Operator 1 and 3 could
use their press/vice to work on Stage 3. Upon completion of their respective Stage 2 process,
Operator’s 2 and 4 would immediately flow to their press/vice to complete their motor
assembly.
Our team has added an additional press/ vice to operational process to alleviate the bottleneck
that was created from the current work flow.
Conclusion
For the remainder of their time, Carrier and Kallish should work with Frampton to bring
the operators in the PSEM unit up to speed with the implementation of new process production
m
er as
design. This process will require cultural and technical maneuvering, but the implementation of
co
eH w
the new design is the next crucial step in ensuring a lasting impact from the Kaizen event.
o.
rs e
ou urc
o
aC s
vi y re
ed d
ar stu
is
Th
sh
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

This Study Resource Was: Group 4 Case Report - Czech Mate

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

This Study Resource Was: Group 4 Case Report - Czech Mate

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group 4 Case Report – Czech Mate

Figure 1 - Current PSEM Process Diagram

Figure 2 - Operational Analysis for Current PSEM Cell Process Design

Daily Capacity=4.52× 8=36.20(motors per day )

Analysis of the proposed PSEM Unit

Figure 4 - Operational Analysis for Proposed PSEM Cell Process Design

Daily Capacity=4.99 ×8=39.93(motors per day )

Throughput rate 26.6

Figure 5 - New PSEM Cell

Incorporating Kallish’s recommendations:

Stage 1: step 1-2 (total times is about 100 minutes)

Stage 2: step 3-4 (total times is about 100 minutes)

You might also like