Post on 05-Feb-2016
description
PCC Structurals, Inc.
BAE Project
Presented By: Sylvain Gazaille (Student)
System Engineering Department
Portland State University
Presented To: Jim Barrett
Manager
PCC Structurals, Inc.
September 3rd, 2004
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Presentation Outline
Understanding the Problem Selection of an Approach Building the Simulation Model Model Analysis & Results Router Issues Recommendations Ongoing Initiatives Potential Model Improvements
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Understanding the Problem Studying the Router Understanding the Cost Breakdown Structure Reviewing the Quality System Following BAE parts on the floor Key Personnel Interviews Challenging the Engineering Team
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Selection of an Approach
Studying Cost Studying Process Flow
BAE parts only
BAE & Other Parts
All Parts
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Selection of an Approach
Studying Cost Studying Process Flow
BAE parts only
BAE & Other Parts
All Parts
PCC Structurals, Inc.
New Problem Statement Backend of BAE parts Reduce Lead Time (SPAN Days) Within PCC Structurals Cost analysis not included Increasing production levels Implementation Plan Assessment of current system Final Report
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Selected Approach
Building a simulation model of the backend manufacturing process for BAE parts using
ProModel!
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Building the Model
Let’s take a look at the model!
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Reworking Logic
Table 1 – Re-Working Processing Time
Rework Activity Minimum Time Most Likely Maximum Time
Grinding 2% 15% 50%
Welding 2% 15% 50%
X-Ray 20% 50% 125%
FPI 10% 90% 200%
VISDIM (final) 5% 25% 100%
CMM 10% 15% 50%
Chem Mill 50% 60% 75%
VISDIM (welding) 100% 100% 100%
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Reworking Loops
FPI Loop
FPI
Grind
WeldNext Step
50%
10%
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Reworking Loops
CMM Loop
CMM
Weld
Next Step
75%
X-Ray
25%
Grind
FPI
5% 20%
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Reworking Loops
X-Ray VISDIM (final dimension) VISDIM (mark for weld)
Other Loops
All loops account for 95% of reworking activities at PCC!
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Assumptions Wait to be shipped Scrap re-appearing at BE X-Ray problem not accounted for No Downtime No extra floor capacity available No Overtime No Correlations Reworking Processing time (2nd loop) BAE (5%) Holidays/Sick days (10%)
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Verification / Validation Incremental stages Using animation feature Logic review (Diana, Pam) Errors identified and corrected Results compared to the router Sensitivity analysis conducted
Nobody was available to officially validate the model
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Model Analysis (Baseline Model)BAE Parts Only All Parts Router
EXITS SPAN Days EXITS SPAN Days EXITS SPAN Days
Center Body 4 -2 25 -9 3 -3 36.4 -2.4 6 34
Front Legs 13 +1 25 -9 12 0 36.4 -2.4 12 34
Rear Legs 13 +1 25 -9 11 -1 36.4 -2.4 12 34
Spades 13 +1 54 -3 11 -1 62.5 -5.5 12 57
Trails 12 0 54 -3 10 -2 62.5 -5.5 12 57
Stabilizers 14 +2 54 -3 10 -2 62.5 -5.5 12 57
TOTAL Exits 69 57
Inventory 29 40
Traveling 20% 15%
Waiting 28% 40%
Blocked 6% 5%
In Operation 46% 40%
Problem(s) No bottleneck HIP, MRB Crib, Welding (CB), Ti In, Ti Out
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Questions
Lead Time reduction of 19% Inventory level down by 8 Impact on other parts unknown
Recommendation(s)Study the feasibility of doing strength testing
Calculate potential savings (X-Ray, CMM)
1 – What if CMM no longer exists?
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Questions
Reduction in Utilization and Wait time at VISDIM by 50% Increase in Waiting time at Welding by 10% and Utilization by
15%
Recommendation(s)Cost comparison between re-tooling costs and savings on wages at VISDIM and Chem Mill
2 – What if tools are re-worked?
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Questions
Reduction in Utilization and Wait time at welding of 30% and 17% respectively Only 1 welder now required! Total Exits increase by 2 Inventory decreases by 3 Lead time decreases by 5.7% in average
Recommendation(s)The cost of the patches adding to the overall savings, this change is definitely recommended
3 – What if patches are not required?
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Questions
Since this is not currently a bottleneck, I will re-analyze the model if and when it becomes one
4 – What if we can use the 3 lines at Chem Mill?
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Questions
HIP, Ti In, Ti Out no longer a problem Problem surfacing at Machining MRB Crib still full 12 additional parts shipped Reduction in Lead Time of 11.4% 7 fewer parts in inventory
5 – What if BAE parts represent 10%?
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Questions
5 – Continued…
Recommendation(s)As the production level increases, the percentage will have to be adjusted
The impact on other parts is significant if the system is shared and is therefore to be avoided
Designing a system in parallel versus in serial will alleviate the risk
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Questions5 – Continued… (impact on the process)
Location Impact Assessment
HIP At risk if % goes down
Sandblasting Not a problem if located within Steel Plant
Welding More booths may be required
Chem Mill More than one line required
X-Ray Not a problem
Machining Problem easily resolved
Paint Problem easily resolved
MRB Crib Needs to increase
Ti In/Out Needs to increase
FPI Will be fine
CMM Should not be a problem since excess capacity still available
Heat Treat Not a problem
Shipping Not a problem
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Optimized Model Results
Let’s take a look at the Excel File!
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Concerns
Ti In and Ti Out capacity problems
Production: 6/M
Production: 16/M X-Ray requires 3 booths CMM needs more than 2 shifts but not quite 3 With only 3 booths, a 3rd shift of Welders is required Unless 2 booths are freed up for BAE parts only at the Ti
Plant, a 3rd booth is required Even if Chem Mill is running 24 hours a day, it is utilized
at over 95% and creates a bottleneck every now and then
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Potential Model Improvements Prioritization of parts Downtime Trial Parts Etc.
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Router Concerns
No process variation Infinite Capacity Unlimited Resources 20 steps process, 50% chances of being late or early at each
step which equals out over time Touch Time and Overtime to compensate for additional time
required
Current Calculation
This method is accurate if the system allows for a lot of catching up time!
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Router Concerns
PCC counts on overtime to meet schedule (expensive!) If parts are ahead of schedule, they wait Processing time does not allow for cashing up time Is more 50% chances of being late, 50% chances of being on
schedule (does not equal out!) If one item is late, all succeeding items are late too
What really happens…
You practically guaranty you will be late!
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Router Issues (Sim. Model)
2/M No VariationUnlimited Res. Infinite Cap.
Variation Unlimited Res.
Infinite Cap.
VariationLimited Res.Infinite Cap.
VariationLimited Res.Finite Cap.
Total Exits 69(close to router)
67 30 19
Inventory 31 33 73 99
SPAN Days 11% to 22%Lower
Increase of27%
Increase of46% to 122%
Increase of86% to 225%
Time Blocked
Nil Nil Increases
Time In Operation
Increases Increases Increases
Move Time Same Same Same
Waiting Time
Same Increases Increases
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Router Concerns
Recommendation(s)Use a dual system (Workers & Clients)
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Theory Of Constraints
PCC is not planning for the bottlenecks Optimization of individual steps (reward system) FE became much more effective than the BE since it is more predictable
Current Situation
Potential Problem Creation of bottlenecks Inventory level increases Lead Time increases
Recommendation(s)Match company practices to the TOC
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Other Areas of Concern Capacity Planning at the Work Center Level Touch Time of 55% Long approval process Overall flow analysis (FE & BE) Data Gathering (Bottlenecks) Financial Department raising the bar Communication
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Ongoing Initiatives Welding (reducing purge time) VISDIM (data collection) Patches Chem Mill (fixtures) BAE at Steel Plant Machining (contemplating other contractors) X-Ray
Personnel pride and professionalism is quite remarkable throughout!
PCC Structurals, Inc.
Questions
?