FACILITY LAYOUT

Text Chapter 9
 Facility Layout
• The physical configuration of departments, work
groups, workstations, equipment, and
stock-holding areas, with emphasis on flow of
work through the system

• Layout objectives
– In Manufacturing: Minimize handling cost and
streamline material flow
– In Services e.g. hospital: Minimize patient and
personnel movement
– Make proper allocation and utilization of space
Types of Relationships in Layouts
• Material movement

• Customer movement

• Personnel movement

• Information flow

• Interaction & Control

• Support services
FACILITY LAYOUT :
PROCESS LAYOUTS
 Process (or Functional) Layout
• A layout arranged according to the type of
process/ function performed
• Seek to minimize aggregate movement of
materials/ people
 Process Layouts
• Departmental or other functional groupings, in
which similar kinds of activities are performed

• For example:
– Separate departments for milling, grinding, drilling, etc.
in Manufacturing shops
– Specialty wards and facilities for different kinds of
treatments and tests in Hospitals

• Key design issues: Arrangement of departments

with respect to each other as well as internally
 Process-Oriented Layout
Surgery ER triage room Emergency room admissions
Patient A - broken leg

Patient B - erratic heart

pacemaker

Laboratories

Radiology ER Beds Pharmacy Billing/exit

Figure 9.3
 Implications of Process Layouts
• Advantages:
– Can handle a variety of processing requirements
– General purpose and less expensive equipment
– Better resource utilization due to pooling
– Less vulnerable to equipment failures

• Limitations:
– Slow pace of work-flow
– High WIP
– Complex operation and control
=> Need higher skills from operators and
management
PROCESS LAYOUT EXAMPLES

FROM-TO CHARTS
 From-to or Travel Charts

• Represent To: → A B C D E
magnitudes of From: ↓
movement between A -
pairs of
departments B -

• Analyzed for C -
dominant patterns,
D -
strong relationships,
flow directions etc. E -
to devise layout

Measured in trips per unit time, e.g. loads per week

Handling cost rate: cost per load per unit distance
 Process Layout Example
Number of loads per week
Department Assembly Painting Machine Receiving Shipping Testing
(1) (2) Shop (3) (4) (5) (6)

Assembly50
(1) 100 0 0 20
Painting (2) 30 50 10 0
Machine Shop (3) 20 0 100
Receiving (4) 50 0
Shipping (5) 0
Testing (6)

Cost of moving a load between adjacent departments (meaning?): 1

Cost of moving a load between non-adjacent departments: 2 Fig. 9.4
Process Layout Example
Area A Area B Area C

Assembly PaintingMachine Shop

Department Department Department
(1) (2) (3)

40’

Receiving Shipping Testing

Department Department Department
(4) (5) (6)

Area D Area E Area F

60’ Fig. 9.5

 Process Layout Example
Interdepartmental Flow Graph
100

50 30
1 2 3
20 20
10
50 100

4 5 6
50

Fig. 9.6
 Process Layout Example
n n

Cost = ∑ ∑ Xij Cij

i=1 j=1

Cost = 50 + 200 + 40
(1 and 2) (1 and 3) (1 and 6)
+ 30 + 50 + 10
(2 and 3) (2 and 4) (2 and 5)
+ 40 + 100 + 50
(3 and 4) (3 and 6) (4 and 5)

= 570
Xij: pairwise number of loads moved } between
Cij: pairwise cost of movement per load } depts. i & j p. 407
Process Layout Example
Area A Area B Area C

Painting Assembly Machine Shop

Department Department Department
(2) (1) (3)

40’

Receiving Shipping Testing

Department Department Department
(4) (5) (6)

Area D Area E Area F

60’ Fig. 9.8

 Process Layout Example
Revised Interdepartmental Flow Graph
30

50 100
2 1 3

10
50 20 20 100

50
4 5 6

Fig. 9.7
 Process Layout Example
n n

Cost = ∑ ∑ Xij Cij

i=1 j=1

Cost = 50 + 100 + 20
(1 and 2) (1 and 3) (1 and 6)
+ 60 + 50 + 10
(2 and 3) (2 and 4) (2 and 5)
+ 40 + 100 + 50
(3 and 4) (3 and 6) (4 and 5)

= 480
p. 407
Also see (a little larger) Solved Problem 9.1 in Text, p. 420-422
Another Example of
From-to Charts
 From-to or Travel Charts
• Represent To: → A B C D E
magnitudes of From: ↓
movement between A - 10 14 1 3
pairs of
departments B - 20 6

• Analyzed for C 22 - 18
dominant patterns,
D 5 2 - 25
strong relationships,
flow directions etc. E -
to devise layout

Measured in trips per unit time, e.g. loads per week

All handling costs = 1 per load per metre in this example
 Not to scale
Existing Layout

C (Production Shop 2)
A (Receiving) [40 X 20]
[40 X 30]

D (Inspection/Testing)
[40 X 20]

B (Production Shop 1)
[40 X 30] E (Pack & Ship)
[40 X 20]

All travel is rectilinear between centroids, e.g.,

Distance between A and C = 40 + 5 = 45 metres
 Distance Chart (metres)
To: → A B C D E
From: ↓
A - 30 45 55 75

B 30 - 75 55 45

C 45 75 - 20 40

D 55 55 20 - 20

E 75 45 40 20 -
 Total Movement Cost Chart
(loads-metres per week)
To: → A B C D E
From: ↓
A - 300 630 55 225

B - 1500 330

C 1650 - 360

D 275 40 - 500

E -

Total Material Handling Cost = Sum of all individual entries = 5865

Experiment with exchanging department locations, e.g.,
bringing B & C closer ..
 Revised Layout
.. by interchanging locations of departments C and E

E (Pack & Ship)

A (Receiving) [40 X 20]
[40 X 30]

D (Inspection/Testing)
[40 X 20]

B (Production Shop 1)
[40 X 30] C (Production Shop 2)
[40 X 20]
 Revised Distance Chart (metres)

To: → A B C D E
From: ↓
A - 30 75 55 45

B 30 - 45 55 75

C 75 45 - 20 40

D 55 55 20 - 20

E 45 75 40 20 -
Revised Total Movement Cost Chart
(loads-metres per week)
To: → A B C D E
From: ↓
A - 300 1050 55 135

B - 900 330

C 990 - 360

D 275 40 - 500

E -

Total Material Handling Cost = Sum of all individual entries = 4935

 Relationship (REL) Chart

Sample Muther grid with Text

Fig. 9.1
Pairwise relationships