Systems Design ReviewNathan Arrowsmith, Samantha Reinhart, Rachel Short, Yelena

Tuzikova

Agenda

• Problem Statement• Updated Customer Requirements• Update Engineering Requirements• House of Quality• Functional Decomposition• Systems Architecture • Benchmarking• Concept Generation• Concept Selection• Feasibility Analysis• First Cut Test Plan• Risk Assessment• Project Plan

Problem Statement

Current State-Current system does not properly account for overflow-Lack of visual management for components

Desired State-Optimal component levels in cell-Clear presentation of materials-Mitigate inventory errors

Goals-Improve material flow-Implement visual cues-Utilize optimal space to store parts

Deliverables-Plan For Every Part (PFEP)-Before and after diagrams-Repeatable plan and implementation process

Constraints-Available horizontal space- DBS practices

Customer RequirementsCustomer Requirement

NumberImportance Description

CR1 9 Create a process and set of tools that can be applied plant-wide

CR2 9 Reduce or maintain floor space utilization

CR3 3 No Kanban cards turned in early or late.

CR4 3 Ensure part location and quantities are known and managed

CR5 3 Reduce frequency of expedited parts

CR6 9 Reduce frequency and severity of inventory count errors on production and delivery

CR7 9 Material Location Layout Plan

Engineering Requirements

House of Quality

Functional Decomposition

Systems Architecture

Benchmarking

Parameters Specifications

Visual Management: Time to Understand Current State < 30 Seconds

Lost or Unaccounted for Parts 0 Parts

Usage Volume High Usage Closer to POU

Storage 0% Horizontal Expansion

Reorder / Restock points 0 Stock Outs

Component Levels Vary; Supporting Calculations (Kanban)

Escalation Detailed ORG chart

Concept Generation - Morph Table

Concept SelectionS, +, - Alternatives Considered  

CriteriaArrange by Part Family with Flow

RacksArrange by Kits

Arrange by Part

Number with Bins

Arrange by Assembly Sequence with Bins

Arrange by Materials Used at

Each Machine

Ease of Adaptability S - + - -

Mitigate Inventory Errors S - + - -

Reduce or Conserve Space S + - + +

Ease of Implementation S - + - -

Minimal Impact on Employee Utilization S - - + +

Simple Instructions for Process S - + + +

Plan for Overstock S - - + -

Easily Understood S - + + +

           

Total (+) S 1 5 5 4

Total (-) S 7 3 3 4

Concept SelectionS, +, - Alternatives Considered

CriteriaArrange by Part Family with Flow

RacksArrange by

Kits

Arrange by Part

Number with Bins

Arrange by Assembly Sequence with Bins

Arrange by Materials Used at

Each Machine

Ease of Adaptability + - + - SMitigate Inventory Errors + - + 0 S

Reduce or Conserve Space - + - - SEase of Implementation + - + - S

Minimal Impact on Employee Utilization - - - - S

Simple Instructions for Process - - - 0 SPlan for Overstock + - - + SEasily Understood - - 0 0 S           Total (+) 4 1 3 1 STotal (-) 4 7 4 4 S

Potential Issues Regarding Top Two Concepts

Arrange by Machine Arrange by Assembly Sequence

Not enough space at location Not enough "work space"

No room for overstock Continuity of assembly sequence

How to arrange at each machine Where to put infrequently used items

Mobility of machines How to arrange different sized parts

Where to put infrequently used items

How to arrange different sized parts

Feasibility AnalysisQuestion Assumptions Solution

How much space is available for storage inside of the cell?

Assume that there is little flexibility in machine and table locations.

Use current state measurements to calculate total volume.

How much space will dedicated overstock require? How about flexible space?

Assume perfect ordering system and lead times. Assume that we have access to other means of storage as needed(bins, racks).

Use analysis to calculate volume and floor space from current state measurements.

What will implementation cost? (cost of new racks, new trays, labeling materials, cost to move machines)

Assume that we want to minimize cost and the overall budget is minimal.

Compare draft future state to current state and get price estimates for the changes that we plan to implement.

Is there a change in the cell operator efficiency due to our process?

Assume there are no other external factors influencing operator efficiency that have changed.

Compare before and after production efficiency for a specific job. Analyze whether our layout changes influence a process change in the operator.

First Cut Test Plan

● Team discussed running an experimento How long does it take to find partso Test different arrangements o Ensure accuracy

● No foreseen issues regarding testing engineering requirements

Risk AssessmentID Risk Item Effect Cause Likelihood Severity Importance Action to Minimize Risk

1 Employee Resistance Failure to implement completely Inefficient training 3 3 9 Multiple training sessions with feedback

2 Strict component order quantities Need to find storage for excess components ordered

Standard business practices 3 1 3 Plan to utilize special areas for exceptions, kits or excess components

3 Incorrect metrics Infeasible or ineffective goal Metric not quantified accurately 1 3 3 Define customer metrics early and get approval

4 Missing exceptions in current state Plan for future state is incomplete Incomplete current state 2 2 4 Present current state to customer

5 Insufficient space for solution Full layout plan may need to be rearranged

Incorrect layout calculations 2 3 6 Calculate space requirements early, include an amount of “buffer” space for exceptions

7 Communication breakdown Slows down all progress Miss deadlines 1 3 3 One person responsible for communication with customer, milestones

8 Client’s scope does not match team’s scope Fail the class, fail to satisfy client No agreement on scope, poor communication

2 3 6 Confirm expectations, milestones,

9 Process is not repeatable cell-to-cell Failure to satisfy client’s needs Improper explanation, lack of documentation, lack of training

2 3 6 Test repeatability early

10 Missed deliverables Delay project completion, lower grade

Lack of communication 1 3 3 Confirm expectations early

Risk AssessmentID Risk Item Effect Cause Likelihood Severity Importance Action to Minimize Risk

11 Severely effect long term production Qualitrol has to remedy negative production effects

Improper plan 2 3 6 Confirm calculations before implementing; get operator feedback on feasibility of calculation results.

12 Affect short term production Operator is not able to meet production rate

Not planning for implementation 1 2 2 Involve operator in implementation

13 Training is inefficient Changes may not be used Training is not appropriate for trainee 3 1 3 Get training plan approved by management

14 Operator is absent unexpectedly/ permanently gone

Current state is not correct/ not complete

Unexpected occurrence 1 1 1 Request notification of absences

15 Point of contact (Jim, Jen) unavailable for extended period of time

Must go on with project alone Lack of involvement and investment in mgmt.

2 2 4 Talk to management on what we should do if this happens. What are the backups

16 Implementations cause issues with other cells in plant

Take time out of project to fix other issues – lack of approval from workers

Don’t fully realize big picture outside 922A 2 1 2 After design, before implementation, discuss with management and get feedback on impact for other cells.

17 Member of the team has to leave group More work spread out across group Personal Issues 1 1 1 Spread out work across group and understand each person’s role.

18 Other workers in cell do not approve of changes

Backlash causes implementations to not be used appropriately

Changes not appropriate 1 1 1 Engage with cell associates

Project Plan