1 / 21

Candid Comparison of Operational Management Approaches

Candid Comparison of Operational Management Approaches. James R. Holt, Ph.D., PE, Jonah-Jonah Washington State University-Vancouver Engineering Management Program. Purpose for Presentation. Understand different approaches to managing repetitive production processes

jean
Download Presentation

Candid Comparison of Operational Management Approaches

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Candid Comparison of Operational Management Approaches James R. Holt, Ph.D., PE, Jonah-Jonah Washington State University-Vancouver Engineering Management Program

  2. Purpose for Presentation • Understand different approaches to managing repetitive production processes • Highlighting several key production measurements • Comparing performance on an equal playing field • Highlight consistent key variables • Draw some conclusions of value

  3. The Situation • Describe many different production management approaches into generally acceptable methods • Create a generic simulation model and test procedure that is fair to all management approaches • Provide sensitivity analysis to make fair comparisons

  4. Fairness Paramount • Production process straight forward • No disassembly, no assembly, • Parallel machines accept any work • No set-ups • No people or logistics problems • No priority work • Independent - No artificial slow downs • Available material available immediately • Tolerant customer that buys all immediately

  5. The Challenge • Production Model • 10 machines of 6 types -- mostly in parallel • Production times mostly balanced • Double Constraint • Free flow of products on any path • Normal distribution on production • 90% productive capacity • Repetitive scheduled arrivals

  6. Production Simulation Model

  7. Arrival Schedule

  8. Management Approaches • Traditional push manufacturing • Push with batch size of 10 • Work cells • Just-In-Time with kanban of 1 • Just-In-Time with kanban of 3 • Lean manufacturing • Drum-buffer-rope • Agile manufacturing

  9. MeasurementsBased on 20 Trials of 100 hrs • Average work-in-process (alpha=0.02) • Average flow time (in process only) • Average efficiency of all machines • Average produced in 100 hours • Profit based on $80 per part and $30,000 operating expense per 100 hours • ROI based on annualized investment ($50,000 per 100 hours) plus inventory

  10. Definition:Traditional • Efficiency is very important at every work station • Push materials in as soon as possible • No limit on Work-In-Process (queues) • Work flows first-in-first-out • No priorities • Transfer batch size of one View: Trad.sim

  11. Definition:Traditional Batch • Optimizes the costs of efficiency and investment • Lot sizes planned to optimize individual performance • Lot sizes reduce set-up times • Efficiencies of scale • Parts moved between machines in lots of 10

  12. Definition:Cell Production • Dedicate machines to products • Special treatment of products • Some efficiencies possible within cells • Easier to manage / control / improve processes in cells • Cell draws from, connects to rest of plant View: Cell.sim

  13. Definition:Just-In-Time • Pull system -- produces to demand • Work-In-Process controlled (limited) • Kanban card governs flow between machines (parts move only on demand) • Simulation JIT1: Kanban card of 1 • Simulation JIT3: Kanban card of 3 • Demand is at max level of performance View: JIT1.sim

  14. Definition:Lean Manufacturing • Maintain low work-in-process • Maintain high efficiencies (trim excess capacity) • Use push or pull approach • This simulation uses a balanced line with maximum work-in-process of 5 parts per machine View: Lean.sim

  15. Definition:Drum-Buffer-Rope • Drum process is slowest machine(s) • Buffer protects capacity of drum -- holds adequate work-in-process to keep drum at maximum efficiency • Rope restricts excess work from entering system -- limits maximum work-in-process in front of the constraint • Buffer size limited to 17 parts View: Dbr.sim

  16. Definition:Agile Production • Very flexible manufacturing • Respond to demand, workload shifts as needed • Multi-skill machines / workers to perform a variety of tasks • Machines added / workers added / moved to meet high demands • In this simulation, workers move if own queue is < 2 and service area average >2 View: Agile.sim

  17. PerformanceMeasures

  18. Performance Measures

  19. PerformanceMeasures

  20. Summary Measures

  21. Join WSU’sEngineeringManagement Program EM 526 Constraints Management EM 530 Applications in Constraints Management http://www.cea.wsu.edu/engmgt/

More Related