Page 246 - How To Implement Lean Manufacturing
P. 246

224    Cha pte r  F i f tee n



                                              Cell 2 Time Study
                          35
                          30
                          25
                         Time (secs)  20                                        Their Study

                          15
                                                                                Our Study
                          10
                           5
                           0
                                 1         2        3         4        5
                                                Work station
                    FIGURE 15-2  Cell 2, balance chart, base case.

                    numbers had never been updated. This, of course, was part of their problem, but only a
                    very small part.
                       We completed the three-part evaluation—waiting time, station-to-station balance
                    check, and bottleneck analysis—of the balancing chart, but it was not at all revealing as
                    to why the system could not meet demand. Takt was 39 seconds, above the line bottle-
                    neck of 35 seconds. Yet they say it takes twice as long to produce an order, which means,
                    they have an effective 78-second cycle time. It is clear that the design cycle time was not
                    an issue. This evaluation was not particularly revealing, but it did show that the line
                    balance was simply terrible. Cycle times varied from 35 to 13 seconds—this needed to
                    be corrected, but as I said, it does not explain our problems. At some level, that explains
                    why they had extra staffing. But why did the jobs routinely take the extra lead time?
                       To unravel this question, we needed to do a line balance chart with our data. First,
                    we needed to find a reasonable cycle time. Normally, this is the takt time multiplied by
                    the OEE (as a decimal fraction). In this case, we chose to take management at their
                    word. Recall, they said, that quality losses are less than 3.4 PPM, and availability losses
                    are practically zero. In that case, all the OEE losses were due to cycle-time variations,
                    and so the OEE calculation basically lost its worth. We now knew where to direct our
                    attention. Consequently, we calculated the rest of the redesign based on an OEE of 1.00,
                    so takt time effectively became cycle time.
                       The work (from the time study) for Cell 1 was 207 seconds and the work for Cell 2
                    was 105 seconds. Consequently, for a 39-second takt:
                        •  At Cell 1 we needed 207/39 = 5.3, or six stations
                        •  At Cell 2 we needed 105/39 = 2.7, or three stations
                       The line balance charts for the redesigned flow now looked like those in Figs. 15-3
                    and 15-4.
                       We now needed to redesign the work stations. It turned out to be remarkably simple.
                    We created a “Time Stack of Work Elements” (see Chap. 16 for an example) and were
                    able to redistribute the work very nicely at both cells. This was easy to do since the work
                    elements were almost all manual and almost all short-duration process steps. In addi-
                    tion, each work station had several process steps and the staff was highly cross-trained.
   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251