Restoring One-Piece Flow To Lincoln Industries

1. RestoringOne-Piece Flow To Lincoln Industries Stephen Hassler, Jeffrey Troester Description & Benefits Company Profile, Project Field, Problems, & Objective Analysis Method & Findings Department of Industrial & Management Systems Engineering University of Nebraska - Lincoln “More Value with Less Work” – Philosophy of Lean Manufacturing Introduction Study Details Proposal Details Description Company Profile Four Step Analysis Method Wash Operation Photographs • Power Wash Cabinet Suggested Settings • Batch Size: 5 Tubes • Wash Phase: 120 s • Dry Phase: 60 s • Unload Phase: 50 s • Key Assumptions • Saw Operation Unit Time Increases (5 s) for Added Material Handling.Bend Operation UnitTime Increases (10 s) for Added Material Handling. • In 1952, Lincoln Industries was founded in Lincoln, NE as a small job shop for custom electroplating. • The company has grown to become Lincoln’s largest water user and North America’s largest metal finisher. • In its 500,000 square feet of production and warehouse space, approximately 500 people are employed. • Annual revenues have grown rapidly over the past decade and now exceed $100 million. • Understand Problem and Magnitude • Visual Aids, Quality Inspection, Time Studies • Develop Alternatives • Seek Expert Opinions, Creative Brainstorming • Verify Feasibility of Alternatives • Examine Attributes and Costs, Design Experiments • Evaluate Alternatives • Economic Analysis, Discuss Qualitative Factors • Time Study Results • Unit Times = 36 s (for 25) / 43 s (for 15) RAW MATERIAL LOADING SAW SAW BEND Understand Problem and Magnitude Project Field • Key Observations • Excessive Idle Time • Frequently Congested Workstation • Operator Sets Operation Pace • Potentially the Bottleneck Operation DEBURR WASH • Visual Aids • The team developed a simple facility layout diagram to convey the problematic nature of the current arrangement. • Photographs and video were taken to document the process and highlight production issues. DEBURR MACHINE SAW WASH • Lincoln Industries (LI) is best known as North America’s largest metal finisher.  However, the company’s operations are diverse and our team took a look at their fabrication activities.  At a facility in Air Park (Lincoln, NE), LI fabricates exhaust stacks for semi-trailer trucks. CARTS CHIPS ≈ 10 FT Develop Alternatives Labor Savings Current Layout • Key Assumptions • Labor Expense (Hourly) = $15 • Source of Labor Savings • Labor Reduction at Wash Operation (1 Operator) • Idle Time Avoidance at Wash Operation (3 Operators) • Projected Labor Savings • Labor Reduction per Wash = 13 min = $3.35 • Idle Time per Wash = 6 min * 3 = 18 min = $4.50 • Total per Wash = $7.85 • Total per Day = $7.85 * 5 = $39.25 • Payback Period = 334 Workdays = 16 Months • Salvage Value Not Considered, Likely Substantial • Seek Expert Opinion – Idea List • Power Washing Cabinet • Power Washing Conveyor System • Laser Cutting (No Chips) • Water Jet Cutting (No Chips) • Precision Saw (No Chips) • Creative Brainstorming – Idea List • Vacuum (Handheld or Fixed) • Magnets (Handheld or Fixed) • Water Bath with Drying Fans SAW BEND DEBURR Original Problem WASH CARTS • Unfortunately, after the production line was designed, installed, and operating, quality issues arose.  A set of operations occurring early in the production sequence was causing damage to the parts. EMPTY AREA (90 FT2) WASH CARTS Labor Savings Robustness Verify Feasibility of Alternatives • Calculated Savings are Intentionally Conservative • Using 6 Washes per Day or Idle Time Avoidance of 10 min Significantly Improves Expected Payback Period ≈ 100 FT Lean Issues Original Remedy VACUUM EXPERIMENT • Four of the Seven Wastes of the Toyota Production System (TPS) were glaringly obvious as a result of the current layout. • Waste of Transportation • Waste of Waiting • Waste of Inventory • Waste of Motion • A quick solution was developed by LI and another operation was added to the production process, though it occurred on a workstation off of the main production line. BEND MACHINE Evaluate Alternatives Other Benefits Consequential Problem • Economic Analysis • Cost savings are likely to result from reduced labor (drying tubes), reduced overall processing time (from elimination of idle time), reduced WIP, potentially improved quality, and a cleaner, more orderly work space. • Will the savings from the installation of a power washing cabinet justify its expense? Understand Problem and Magnitude • Added Washing Capacity • Liberated Wash Station Operator • One Year Warranty on Washer • Less Consumables (Gloves, Rags) • Less Material Handling Equipment (Carts) • Cleaner, More Orderly Facility • By locating the workstation off of the main line, one-piece flow was disrupted.  As a result, material handling became excessive, processing time increased, and quality control declined. • Quality Inspection • Though inefficient, the current wash operation sufficiently removes chips from the tubes. • Chips are being introduced from various sources such as material handling carts, gloves, rags, and tools. Proposal – InstallHotsy Model 7663 UNLOADING BENDER Project Objective Rationale Understand Problem and Magnitude • Purchase Cost • $10, 650 • Tube Fixtures (5) • $1,250 • Consumables • $1,200 / Year • TOTAL – YEAR 1 • $13,100 Contributors • Moving water seems to remove chips from the tubes better than other methods. For a relatively low cost, the team believes that LI can achieve significant savings with the installation of a power washing cabinet. However, the efficiency of the machine is dependent upon some batching. Therefore, pure one-piece flow will not be achieved. • It is the goal of the investigating team to develop a cost-effective proposal that remedies these undesirable byproducts and restores one-piece flow to the production line. • Time Studies • Surprisingly, the inefficient wash operation is not typically the bottleneck of the production line. • However, when the wash operation becomes congested, it definitely has the ability to function as the bottleneck. • Hotsy Equipment Co. (NE) • Roy Gage – Sales Representative • Dennis Klingemann – Sales Representative • Lincoln Industries (NE) • Bill Hancock – Area Leader, Fabrication • Eric Jacobs – Development Engineer Image Sources: www.adventureinmetals.com, www.franeklaser.com, www.hotsy.com, www.lincolnchrome.com, www.lincolnindustries.com