1 / 33

BAE Project

BAE Project. Presented By: Sylvain Gazaille (Student) System Engineering Department Portland State University. Presented To: Jim Barrett Manager PCC Structurals, Inc. September 3 rd , 2004. Presentation Outline. Understanding the Problem Selection of an Approach

zita
Download Presentation

BAE Project

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. BAE Project Presented By: Sylvain Gazaille (Student) System Engineering Department Portland State University Presented To: Jim Barrett Manager PCC Structurals, Inc. September 3rd, 2004

  2. Presentation Outline • Understanding the Problem • Selection of an Approach • Building the Simulation Model • Model Analysis & Results • Router Issues • Recommendations • Ongoing Initiatives • Potential Model Improvements

  3. 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

  4. Selection of an Approach Studying Cost Studying Process Flow BAE parts only All Parts BAE & Other Parts

  5. Selection of an Approach Studying Cost Studying Process Flow BAE parts only All Parts BAE & Other Parts

  6. 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

  7. Selected Approach Building a simulation model of the backend manufacturing process for BAE parts using ProModel!

  8. Building the Model Let’s take a look at the model!

  9. 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% Reworking Logic Table 1 – Re-Working Processing Time

  10. FPI 50% Grind 10% Weld Next Step Reworking Loops FPI Loop

  11. CMM 25% Grind 75% Weld Next Step 5% 20% FPI X-Ray Reworking Loops CMM Loop

  12. Reworking Loops • X-Ray • VISDIM (final dimension) • VISDIM (mark for weld) Other Loops All loops account for 95% of reworking activities at PCC!

  13. 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%)

  14. 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

  15. Model Analysis (Baseline Model)

  16. Questions 1 – What if CMM no longer exists? • 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)

  17. Questions 2 – What if tools are re-worked? • 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

  18. Questions 3 – What if patches are not required? • 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

  19. Questions 4 – What if we can use the 3 lines at Chem Mill? • Since this is not currently a bottleneck, I will re-analyze the model if and when it becomes one

  20. Questions 5 – What if BAE parts represent 10%? • 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

  21. 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

  22. Questions 5 – Continued… (impact on the process)

  23. Optimized Model Results Let’s take a look at the Excel File!

  24. Concerns Production: 6/M • Ti In and Ti Out capacity problems 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

  25. Potential Model Improvements • Prioritization of parts • Downtime • Trial Parts • Etc.

  26. Router Concerns Current Calculation • 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 This method is accurate if the system allows for a lot of catching up time!

  27. Router Concerns What really happens… • 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 You practically guaranty you will be late!

  28. Router Issues (Sim. Model)

  29. Router Concerns • Recommendation(s) • Use a dual system (Workers & Clients)

  30. Theory Of Constraints Current Situation • 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 Potential Problem • Creation of bottlenecks • Inventory level increases • Lead Time increases • Recommendation(s) • Match company practices to the TOC

  31. 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

  32. 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!

  33. Questions ?

More Related