You are on page 1of 26

IENG 471 - Lecture 15

Layout Planning
Systematic Layout Planning & Intro to
Mathematical Layout Improvement

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

Warehousing Terms - Review


SKU Stock Keeping Unit
Product in (packaged) form for warehouse operations.

Value-Added
A modification to the product to obtain business

(a product enhancement from the customers perspective or an


enhancement to the customers experience in getting the item).

Cross-Docking
Transforming incoming product to outgoing product without

moving the product to production or storage.

Slotting
Selecting the location of SKUs in the storage zones. Goal is to

optimize (reduce) pick times across all SKUs within a zone.

Forward Pick Area


An area housing fast-moving/frequently-picked items between

the shipping and storage areas for quick order fulfillment.

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

Layout Alternatives - Strategies


Fixed Position Layout
(Difficult-to-move Products)

Process Layout
(Job Shop)

Product Layout
(Mass Production Line)

Group Technology Layout


(Product Family)

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

Layout Alternatives: Fixed Pos.

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

Layout Alternatives: Process

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

Layout Alternatives: Product

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

Layout Alternatives: GT / Family

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

How to get from data to design?


Product, Process &

Schedule Data:

BOM
Routing/Assembly Chrt
Operations Process

Chart
Precedence Diagram
Scrap/Reject Rates
Equipment Fractions

Material Handling
Unit Loads
Storage Systems

Space Data:
Group Technology
From To Chart
Relationship Chart
Dept Footprint & Aisle

Space
Personnel Space

Parking Lot
Restroom/Locker room
Food Prep/Cafeteria
ADA Compliance

Order Data Profile

Efficiencies

Transportation Systems
09/09/16

Flow, Activity &

Multiple Analysis Profiles

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

Muther: Systematic Layout Plan


SLP
Benefit is methodical

consideration of issues
Can work the process
manually or with computer
aides
Roadmap for the process is
good for communication
Adds the following stages:
Analysis
Search
Evaluation

Engineering Design Process!

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

Relationship Chart - Qualitative

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

11

Converting Closeness to Affinity

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

12

From To Chart Example

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

13

From To Chart to Flow


Review: flow volume in chart
Above diagonal is forward flow
Below diagonal is back-track flow

Combine both flows to represent

volume of interactions, then Pareto!


Qualitative Flow
Quantitative Flow
09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

14

Converting Quantitative Flow to Affinity

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

15

Converting Both to Final Affinity

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

16

Review: Conversion Steps


Convert Flows to Affinities
Qualitative converts directly to A E I O U X
Quantitative converts to A E I O U X via Pareto analysis of flow

volume

Combine Flow Affinities Numerically


A = 4, E = 3, I = 2, O = 1, U = 0, X = negative value
Quantitative flow may be multiplied by a weighting factor
Sum Quantitative & Qualitative

Convert to Final Affinities


Pareto analysis of numeric affinities to get A E I O U X

Add: Check Final Affinities for Political Correctness


Communication feedback to involved parties

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

17

Converting Flow to Affinity


Strength of

relationship is
shown graphically
Number of lines

similar to rubber
bands holding depts
together
Spring symbol to
push X relations
apart
09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

18

Converting Flow to Affinity

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

19

Converting Flow to Affinity


Lay the
Affinity
Diagram
over a site
plan to get
better idea
of layout

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

20

Improvement: Size of Departments


Some experts suggest modification:
Use circles instead of flow symbols
Scale circles to equate with the estimated

size of the departments


Use rectangular, sized blocks instead of
circles improves input to computer layout
methods
Computer packages are still being
developed
09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

21

Layout Models
Mathematical Objective Functions
Mathematical models can be constructed to measure a design,

and help to quantify when it has been improved


Like many mathematical

models of physical systems, part of the art is


knowing what assumptions are made in a model, and when these
assumptions are reasonably met

The best models are not always the most complex in fact many

comprehensive mathematical models become intractable or take too


long for computation when scaled up to a realisticallysized problem
Frequently, meeting the data collection (and verification) requirements

for many mathematical problems is very difficult


However, as the cost of automated data collection and storage drops,

and has computational power increases (hardware speeds and parallel


programming techniques improve), both mathematical models and
simulations become more attractive more tools for the toolbox!

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

22

Layout Models
Mathematical Objective Functions
Assume we have these variables defined for n departments:
i is an index to the FROM department in a pair of departments
j is an index to the TO department in a related pair
Thus i and j could be the row/column indices for a From/To Chart
fij is the unit load FLOW from the i

th

to the j th department

Thus fij is the cell entry in the From/To Chart (matrix)

cij is the COST to transport a unit load from the i


dij is the travel DISTANCE from the i
aij is the ADJACENCY of the i

th

th

th

to the j th dept

to the j th department

and j th department pair, which is

defined to be:
1 if the i th and j th departments share a common edge (border) or
0 if the departments have no common edge or only touch at a point
09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

23

Layout Models
Mathematical Objective Functions
Minimize the transportation cost:
n

min z fijc ijdij


i1 j1

Maximize the flow-weighted adjacency of departments:


n

y fijaij

max

i1 j1

Evaluate flow weighted layout efficiency (relative measure):


n

f a
i1 j1
n n

f
i1 j1

09/09/16

ij ij

ij

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

24

Example
Mathematical Objective Function
Assume the From/To matrix (below)

and the department layout(s) (below):

then the Flow-Weighted Adjacency score(s) would be:

max

y fijaij
i1 j1

200(1)+250(1)+300(1)+500(1)20(1)+350(0)+10(1)+175(1)+100(0) = 1415
200(1)+250(1)+300(1)+500(1)20(0)+350(0)+10(1)+175(1)+100(0) = 1435
200(1)+250(0)+300(1)+500(1)20(0)+350(1)+10(0)+175(1)+100(1) = 1625
09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

25

Criticisms and Resources


Frequently, improvements in the simpler mathematical objective

functions result in long, snake-y department shapes


Not always physically possible
Adjusting the objective function to penalize snake-y results in
more complex objective functions
Data representations become more complex, too and can
increase computation time disproportionately
The simple, transportation cost function assumes we move
from/to the center point of the departments
Isnt really accurate for real departments (especially large sized)
Becomes even less true when the departments get more snake-y
Text Chapter 10 presents more mathematical modelstry some!
MIL Lab computers have some software available
The software tends to be research prototypes, but can be fun to try!
09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

26

Questions & Issues


Class time is for project (after Exam II)
Review & HW solutions TODAY.
Exam II scheduled for 07 NOV.

09/09/16

IENG 471 Facilities Planning

27