Reducing Operator Motion Waste During Setup on a Cold Forging Press

Shahrukh A. Irani
Lean & Flexible, LLC
Website: www.LeanandFlexible.com
Phone: 832-475-4447
Email: ShahrukhIrani1023@yahoo.com

Material Flow in High-Mix Work Systems

Poor material flow damages the performance of any assembly line. Similarly, in any high-mix
work system also, poor material flow will surely generate waste and cause delivery delays. A
high-mix work system is any system with a large number of different pathways for product flow.
“Large” could be any number that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to quickly (1) map all the
product routings, (2) identify and generate different modifications in the system and (3) measure
the extent to which each modification will improve material flow in the system. Some examples
of high-mix work systems with a large number of different pathways for product flow are (1) a
single repair work station where different combinations and sequences of tools are used to
perform different repair activities, (2) a single flexible machining center that uses different
groups of tools to produce a variety of parts, (3) an entire machine shop where 100s of different
parts are routed through different sequences of machines, (4) a large fabrication shop that
fabricates products from 100s of different sheet metal, plate and machined parts produced in
separate feeder shops, (5) a warehouse where each order picker follows a different route to pick
items on different shelves, etc.

Software for Material Flow Analysis

There are software packages for facility layout that are available commercially, such as Flow
Planner1, SIMOGGA2 and Layout-iQ3. Unfortunately, a fundamental limitation of these
software packages is that they do little, if any, analysis of the actual material flow in any facility
to determine an appropriate layout that “fits” the material flow in that specific facility.
Therefore, the material flow data for the high-mix work system that is discussed in this case
study was analyzed and visualized using PFAST and SGETTI, respectively. Unlike the other
software packages for facility layout, PFAST and SGETTI first help to simplify the material
flow in a facility and then determine a “best fit” layout for the facility on a case-by-case basis.

Given data for any high-mix work system, PFAST helps to improve material flow in the system
by (1) segmenting the product mix into Runners, Repeaters and Strangers, (2) finding product
families based on similar routings, (3) finding products that could be culled from the product
mix, (4) finding groups of machines that could each be replaced by a modern multi-function
machine, etc. For further information on material flow analysis using PFAST, please see
Chapters 6-10 in (Irani, 2020).

Given data for any high-mix work system, SGETTI helps to improve material flow in the system
by (1) visualizing the material flow in the work system, (2) modifying the layout of the work

1
Source: https://www.proplanner.com/solutions/material-logistics-planning/flow-planner
2
Source: https://www.amia-systems.com/solutions/simogga-layout-design/
3
Source: https://www.rapidmodeling.com/layout-design-software
system to explore different layouts and (3) calculating a Distance Score to reflect the
increase/decrease in travel distances of materials (products, operators, tools, etc.) for every
layout of the work system. For further information on material flow analysis using SGETTI,
please see Chapter 12 and Chapter 21 in (Irani, 2020).

Case Study: Reducing Operator Walking During Setup of a Forging Press

This case study is based on work that was done as part of a setup reduction project to increase
available capacity during every shift of operation of a cold forging press at a Tier 1 automotive
supplier.4 It discusses how to analyze and visualize operator motion during setup of a single
machine. We videotaped an entire setup on the press before it starts the production run for the
product. During each setup, the press operator performed a process with 225 steps to setup his
press. Each of these steps was performed at any one of 22 different locations distributed around
the press. Between every pair of consecutive steps, he would walk the distance between the
locations where the two steps were performed. All of this time that he spent walking is Operator
Motion, one of the Seven Forms of Waste! Therefore, our project goal was to reduce the time
that the press remained idle while the operator was walking to/from different locations around
the press to complete steps in the setup process. Thereby, if that wasted capacity could become
productive capacity, then it could be used to produce more sellable parts per shift.

PFAST Input File for this Case Study

A standard PFAST Input File was prepared for this project. But, this case study involved a work
system with only 1 product routing (low-mix) and not 100’s of different product routings (high-
mix). There was only one routing and it was the sequence of steps that the operator performed
during the process to setup the press to produce just one of the many products it produced. So, it
was sufficient to use SGETTI to analyze material flow in this work system with the “material”
being the press operator. For more information on SGETTI, the interested reader should
reference Chapter 12 Production Flow Analysis Using Metrics-Aided Visual Assessment of
Material Flow Diagrams in (Irani, 2020)5 and the Appendices for Chapter 12 which can be
downloaded from the book’s website.6

Figure 1 shows the “Parts” data needed to run SGETTI. Each “Part” is a specific forging that is
produced on the cold forging press for one of the automotive OEM customers of this Tier 1
supplier.

4
Please click on this hyperlink Smart Chart: Methods Analysis using Work Flow Analysis and Activity Scheduling
Techniques to listen to my online lecture that provides the complete details for this project.
5
Source: https://www.crcpress.com/Job-Shop-Lean-An-Industrial-Engineering-Approach-to-Implementing-Lean-
in/Irani/p/book/9781498740692
6
Source: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-documents.ri-
prod/9781498740692/9781498740692_Appendix.pdf
 Figure 1 “Parts” Data Needed to Run SGETTI

Figure 2 shows the “Work Centers” data needed to run SGETTI. Each “Work Center” is one of
the 22 locations around the press where support equipment that is needed for a particular step in
the setup process is located.

Figure 2 “Work Centers” Data Needed to Run SGETTI

Figure 3(a) shows the “Routings” data needed to run SGETTI. The “Routing” is the sequence of
activity elements (or steps) that must be executed to set up the press for a production run to
produce a specific forging for one of the automotive OEM customers of this Tier 1 supplier. In
the case of this specific setup, the setup process requires the operator to execute 225 different
activities at any one of the 22 locations listed in the Work Centers file.

Figure 3(a) “Routings” Data Needed to Run SGETTI

Figure 3(b) shows the specific location from the list in Figure 2 where each of the 225 steps in
the setup process is performed.
 Figure 3(b) Complete Setup Process Represented as a Routing in the PFAST Input File
Figure 3(c) shows the classical Flow Process Chart that was created from the video tape of the
setup process to capture the details about the activities performed during each step.

Figure 3(c) Flow Process Chart Constructed from Videotape of Setup

PFAST Analysis Report for this Case Study

PFAST was irrelevant in this case study because only one routing with 225 steps had to be
analyzed. Figure 4(a) shows the hand-drawn Spaghetti Diagram for the operator’s movements
around the press during the setup cycle before any changes were made to the existing work
station layout of the press. “Hand-drawn” means that a line was drawn to connect the two
locations corresponding to every pair of consecutive steps in the routing. For example, for the
first two steps in the setup process (Sequence No.1 and Sequence No.2) shown in Figure 3(a),
the operator walked from the Press Table (Work Center No. 1 in Figure 2) to the Feeder/Hopper
Computer (Work Center No. 16 in Figure 2).7

7
This manual work is onerous, even for an Industrial Engineer who is expert in the use of Visio or iGrafx (or even
AutoCAD). So it should be no surprise that we did not extend the data analysis to include the routings for the setups
for all the other products produced on this press!
 Figure 4(a) Hand-drawn Spaghetti Diagram for Operator’s Movements in the Initial Layout

Figure 4(b) shows the Q-type From-To Chart that was computed by PFAST using the data in the
PFAST Input File.
 Figure 4(b) Q-type From-To Chart Generated by PFAST

Figure 4(c) shows the Q-type Flow Diagram that was generated by PFAST with the thickness of
each arrow between any pair of locations being proportional to the high/low frequency of trips
between that pair of locations.
 Figure 4(c) Q-type Flow Diagram Generated by PFAST

Figure 5 shows the SGETTI-drawn Spaghetti Diagram for the operator’s movements around the
press during the setup cycle before any changes were made to the existing work station layout of
the press. The app automatically drew a line to connect the two locations for every pair of
consecutive steps in the setup process. The only user input needed was to move and position
each of the 22 black/grey bubbles representing the Work Centers on the appropriate location of
that Work Center in the Initial Layout shown in Figure 4(a).
 Figure 5 Sgetti-drawn Spaghetti Diagram for Operator’s Movements in the Initial Layout

Figure 6 shows the hand-drawn Spaghetti Diagram for the operator’s movements away from the
press during the setup cycle after changes were made to the existing work station layout of the
press. The Final Layout shown in Figure 6 was developed by combining the operator’s
suggestions with insights that were gained from (1) the PFAST outputs, (2) the block layout
generated by the STORM software and (3) visual assessment of the Spaghetti Diagrams
produced by SGETTI. After we had completed the hand-drawn Spaghetti Diagram for the
Initial Layout shown in Figure 4(a), we presented it to the press operator. He was taken aback
that he was doing so much walking during each setup and offered his ideas on the new work
station layout for the press!
 Figure 6 Hand-drawn Spaghetti Diagram for Operator’s Movements in the Final Layout

Figure 7 shows the SGETTI-drawn Spaghetti Diagram for the operator’s movements away from
the press during the setup cycle after changes were made to the existing work station layout of
the press. The app automatically drew a line to connect the two locations for every pair of
consecutive steps in the setup process. The only user input needed was to move and position
each of the 22 black/grey bubbles representing the Work Centers on the appropriate location of
that Work Center in the Final Layout shown in Figure 6.
 Figure 7 SGETTI-drawn Spaghetti Diagram for Operator’s Movements in the Final Layout

Figure 8 demonstrates one of the many capabilities of SGETTI that is hard to replicate when
Spaghetti Diagrams are manually produced and modified. With the initial positions of the
bubbles representing the 22 work centers as per the Initial Layout in Figure 5, the background
layout was changed to that of the Final Layout in Figure 7 and the bubbles relocated to their new
locations in the Final Layout. When SGETTI computed the Distance Score with the work
centers in these new locations, the Average % Change in the Distance Score was a reduction
(shown by the ↓ symbol) of -33.79%. In essence, compared to the distance he would walk in the
Initial Layout, the operator is walking ≈ 35% less in the Final Layout! Of course, the same
conclusion can be drawn in an ad hoc manner just from visual comparison of the two Spaghetti
Diagrams. But, it is the quantitative comparison provided by SGETTI that definitely strengthens
that conclusion! Also, both Spaghetti Diagrams were obtained in minutes, not to mention that
they could be manipulated at will in seconds and the Distance Scores computed each time!
 Figure 8 Difference in Distance Score between the Initial Layout in Figure 4(a) and the Final
Layout in Figure 6

Results from Industry Implementation

Figure 9(a) gives a summary of the reduction in setup time after the 225-step process was
analyzed to (1) eliminate NVA (non-value added) steps in the overall setup process and (2)
reduce the durations of VA (value-added) steps in the overall setup process. Recall that, in the
standard Flow Process Chart used to document a process, (1) NVA activities are represented by
the symbols of Transportation (→), Storage (▼) and Delay (D) and (2) VA activities are
represented by the symbols of Operation (○) and Inspection (□).

Figure 9(b) gives a summary of the potential monetization of the capacity gained on the cold
forging press by reducing the time that the operator spent walking away from the press during
each setup cycle. With reference to the table Additional Revenue from Increased Demand
Fulfillment in the figure, the overall Value Stream for this Tier 1 forgings supplier to automotive
OEMs was simple: RAW MATERIALS→SAW→FORGE→MACHINE→FINISHED GOODS.
Forging was the bottleneck in the overall production process. The extra capacity that became
available on the press allowed for more setups to do additional production runs to satisfy
customer demand. The calculations in the table assumed that a mix of forgings with low/high
selling prices would be produced. Those calculations suggest that this Setup Reduction project
offered a potential increase in annual earnings of $210,150.
 Figure 9(a) Summary of Process Razing to Reduce the Setup Time

Figure 9(b) Monetization of the Process Razing to Reduce the Setup Time
Conclusion
This case study demonstrated the use of software for material flow analysis to reduce the time
that a forging press remained idle during setup due to operator travel. During each setup, the
operator would have to walk to/from different locations around the press as he followed step-by-
step a setup process with 225 steps. The extra production capacity that was freed up on the press
allowed additional production runs to satisfy customer demand with a potential increase in
annual earnings of $210,150.

References
Irani, S. A. (2020). Job Shop Lean: An Industrial Engineering Approach to Implementing Lean
in High-Mix Low-Volume Production Systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. ISBN
9781498740692.