APPLYING LEAN MANUFACTURING
IN AN AUTOMOTIVE STAMPING PLANT
By
Richard J. Welnick
B.S. Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering
University of Washington (1990)
Master of Engineering Management
Washington State University (1998)
Submitted to Sloan School of Management and the Department of Mechanical Engineering
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Science in Management
MASSACHUSEJ-lSI
OF TECHNOLOG
Z
and
Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
in conjunction with the Leaders For Manufacturing Program
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology May 2001
@ Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001. All rights reserved.
JUL 0 9 2001
LIBRARIES
1
Signature of Author
Department of Mechanical Engineering
S)oan S5 ,J.of Management
Mav 5 2001
Certified By
"rofessor David S. Cochran, Thesis Advisor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Certified By
Professor Charlie Fine, Thesis Advisor
Sloan School of Management
Accepted By
Ain Sonin
Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies
of Mechanical Engineering
Speartment
Accepted By
Margaret C. Andrews
Executive Director of Masters of Business Administration Program
Sloan School of Management
I
F
(
APPLYING LEAN MANUFACTURING IN AN AUTOMOTIVE
STAMPING PLANT
By
RICHARD J. WELNICK
Submitted to Sloan School of Management
and the
Department of Mechanical Engineering
on May 5, 2001 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Business Administration
And
Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
ABSTRACT
Stamping operations are inherently batch processes and therefore are often not as readily adaptable to
pull-based manufacturing material flow techniques as other automotive production processes where
single-piece flow can be achieved. As a result, until recently Ford Motor Company's efforts to implement
synchronous material techniques in its North American plants have tended to focus on assembly lines
where there is a natural single-piece flow.
The ultimate goal of pull-based systems is to achieve single piece flow through the manufacturing process
wherever possible. While stamping and other batch processes will never economically achieve single
piece flow, pull-based lean manufacturing techniques can be applied as a vehicle to improve performance
in these facilities.
This thesis will examine the operations of the Wayne Stamping plant and analyze the opportunities for
application of lean manufacturing and the challenges to implementation. This project will review current
material flow and scheduling practices using the tools of value stream mapping to identify potential
improvements. Based on this information, and supplemental research, it will examine a pull-based
approach for material flow and recommend a future state.
This thesis will also consider the role of the Ford Production System in this process and its efforts to
spread lean manufacturing tools throughout the plants and motivate progress. The Ford Production
System uses several approaches to encourage lean manufacturing techniques and these include metrics,
coaching, education and assessment. The thesis will also touch on the FPS implementation approach and
specifically its role in Wayne's change process.
Thesis Advisors:
Professor David S Cochran
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Professor Charlie Fine
Sloan School of Management
3
This page intentionally left blank.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
While it is impossible to recognize everyone who has contributed to the success of my internship and the
completion of my thesis, I would like to briefly mention several individuals who had a tremendous
impact.
First I would like to thank the Leaders For Manufacturing Program, and in particular my thesis advisors
Professors David Cochran and Charlie Fine for their support and advice during my internship and this
thesis. They provided not only technical advice but also leadership and encouragement. I would also like
to thank my fellow LFM classmates, and in particular my Detroit comrades Corey Welch, Quang Nguyen,
and Sara Metcalf, for their advice, support and company during our stay there.
At the Ford Motor Company, I would like to thank the Ford Manufacturing Leadership Program for
sponsoring the internship and providing access to activities and people that greatly enriched my
experience. In particular, I would like to thank Hossein Nivi and Brian Sullivan for their efforts and time.
I would also like to thank my supervisor Bob Brosko and the Ford Production System group for their time
and willingness to share information. The educational value of this internship was greatly increased
because of them. I would also like to thank the managers and employees of the Wayne Integral Stamping
& Assembly Plant who were extremely helpful and patient with my endless questions.
Most importantly, I would like to thank my wife Jennifer for her support not only during this internship
but the entire two-year Leaders For Manufacturing Program. She has allowed this experience to be a
wonderful adventure.
5
This page intentionally left blank.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................
3
ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS..................................................................................................
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................
7
TABLE OF FIGURES................................................................................................................
9
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW .................................................................
11
1.1 Introduction .....................................................................................
1.2 M otivation.........................................................................................
1.3 Background.......................................................................................
1.4 Readers Guide To Chapters & Thesis.............................................................................
SECTION 2: PROJECT SETTING AND BACKGROUND .............................
11
11
12
13
14
2.1 Ford M otor Company..................................................................................................
2.1.1 Ford M otor Company Culture ..............................................................................
2.1.2 Competitive Environment .....................................................................................
2.2 Ford Production System Overview .................................................................................
2.2.1 FPS Approach & Execution ..................................................................................
2.2.2 FPS M easurables .................................................................................................
2.3 W ayne Assembly & Stamping Background....................................................................
2.3.1 Plant Description ..................................................................................................
2.3.2 Cultural Issues .........................................................................................................
14
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
20
SECTION 3: WAYNE STAMPING OPERATIONS DESCRIPTION.................
21
3.1 Stamping Operations Background..............................................................................
3.1.1 Stamping Customers ...........................................................................................
3.1.2 Stamping Suppliers ..............................................................................................
3.2 Stamping Operations.......................................................................................................
3.2.1 M anufacturing Process.........................................................................................
3.2.2 Facilities Layout and Basic Operations.................................................................
3.3 M anufacturing Environment .......................................................................................
21
21
22
23
23
24
26
SECTION 4: VALUE STREAM MAPPING AND CURRENT STATE ANALYSIS.......28
4.1 Value Stream M apping....................................................................................................
4.1.1 Value Stream M apping Process................................................................................
4.1.2 Process M aps for Wayne Stamping .....................................................................
4.2 Current State of Stam ping Operations .......................................................................
4.2.1 Demand Variation................................................................................................
4.2.2 Scheduling...............................................................................................................
4.2.3 Batch Size & Inventory ............................................................................................
4.2.4 Overall Equipment Effectiveness .........................................................................
4.2.5 Changeover..............................................................................................................
28
29
29
31
32
32
33
36
37
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
4.3 K ey O perational Issues...............................................................................................
4.3.1 Downtime ................................................................................................................
4.3.2 Schedule ..................................................................................................................
4.3.3 Changeovers ............................................................................................................
38
38
39
40
SECTION 5: IMPLENTING LEAN MANUFACTURING......................................................
41
5.1 Implem enting Lean M anufacturing............................................................................
5.1.1 Elements of Lean M anufacturing..........................................................................
5.2 M aking the Transition.................................................................................................
5.2.1 Key Elements of Change.......................................................................................
5.2.2 Approaches for Implem entation ...........................................................................
5.3 Production System Design and Deployment Framework...............................................
5.3.1 Decomposition Description ..................................................................................
5.3.2 Decomposition Evaluation and Results.................................................................
41
42
44
44
46
47
48
49
SECTION 6: PROPOSED FUTURE STATE & IMPLEMENTATION..............................51
6.1 Proposed Future State .................................................................................................
6.1.1 Future State M ap and Elem ents ............................................................................
6.1.2 Key Supporting Processes ....................................................................................
6.2 Im plem entation Approach ..........................................................................................
6.3 Issues & Challenges to Implem entation.......................................................................
6.3.1 M etrics ....................................................................................................................
6.3.2 Organizational Overlap .........................................................................................
6.3.3 Inventory Challenges ..........................................................................................
6.4 Summ ary of Recom m ended Changes..........................................................................
SECTIO N 7: CO NCLUSIO NS ...............................................................................................
7.1 Analytical Tools ...............................................................................................................
7.2 FPS Manufacturing System and Implementation...........................................................
7.2.1 Lean M anufacturing System ................................................................................
7.2.2 Implem enting Change within Ford .......................................................................
7.3 Stam ping Project .............................................................................................................
51
52
54
55
57
57
58
59
60
61
61
62
62
63
65
BIBLIO G RAPH Y .......................................................................................................................
66
APPENDIX A: CURRENT STATE PROCESS MAPS .......................................................
68
APPENDIX B: INVENTORY AND BATCH DATA ................................................................
71
APPENDIX C: MSDD QUESTIONAIRRE ...........................................................................
82
8
TABLE OF FIGURES & CHARTS
Figure 2-1, 2001 Ford Focus..........................................................................................
19
Figure 3-1, Wayne Stamping Customer Description......................................................
22
Figure 3-2, Basic Manufacturing Process ......................................................................
23
Figure 3-3, Schematic of Wayne Stamping and Operations ...........................................
25
Figure 3-4, Detailed Layout of Stamping Operations....................................................
25
Figure 4-1, Current State Process Map..........................................................................
30
Figure 4-2, Chart of Batch Size Production for Press Line
1...........................................
34
Figure 4-3, Chart of Batch Size Production for Press Line 1 in Days of Inventory .........
34
Figure 4-4, Chart of Days of Inventory by Job for Press Line 1 ......................................
35
Figure 4-5, Chart of OEE Data ....................................................................................
36
Figure 4-6, Table of OEE Data by Job ..........................................................................
37
Figure 4-7, Illustration of Maintenance/Capacity Causal Loop ......................................
39
Figure 5-1, Elements of the Toyota Production System..................................................
43
Figure 5-2, Table of M SDD Results..............................................................................
49
Figure 6-1, Pull-based Future State Map for Stamping ..................................................
52
Figure 6-2, Stamping Causal Loop Diagram .................................................................
55
Figure 6-3, Transition Approach ...................................................................................
56
Appendix A, Current State Process Maps For Press Lines
Figure A-1, Current State Process Map for Press Line 1...............................................
68
Figure A-2, Current State Process Map for Press Line 2................................................
69
Figure A-3, Current State Process Map for Press Line 3................................................
69
Figure A-4, Current State Process Map for Press Line 4................................................
70
Figure A-5, Combined Current State Process Map for Press Lines ................................
70
9
TABLE OF FIGURES & CHARTS CONTINUED
Appendix B, Batch and Inventory Data
Figure B-1, Press Line 1 Batch Production Data by Piece Count .......................................
72
Figure B-2, Press Line 1 Batch Production Data by Days of Inventory ..............................
72
Figure B-3, Press Line 2 Batch Production Data by Piece Count .......................................
73
Figure B-4, Press Line 2 Batch Production Data by Days of Inventory ..............................
73
Figure B-5, Press Line 3 Batch Production Data by Piece Count .......................................
74
Figure B-6, Press Line 3 Batch Production Data by Days of Inventory ..............................
74
Figure B-7, Press Line 4 Batch Production Data by Piece Count .......................................
75
Figure B-8, Press Line 4 Batch Production Data by Days of Inventory ..............................
75
Figure B-9, Press Line 1 Number of Jobs Run Daily .........................................................
76
Figure B-10, Press Line 2 Number of Jobs Run Daily .......................................................
76
Figure B-11, Press Line 3 Number of Jobs Run Daily .......................................................
77
Figure B- 12, Press Line 4 Number of Jobs Run Daily .......................................................
77
Figure B-13, Press Line 1 Total Inventory Maintained Daily.............................................
78
Figure B- 14, Press Line 2 Total Inventory Maintained Daily.............................................
78
Figure B-15, Press Line 3 Total Inventory Maintained Daily.............................................
79
Figure B- 16, Press Line 4 Total Inventory Maintained Daily.............................................
79
Figure B-17, Press Line I Inventory Maintained Daily By Job ..........................................
80
Figure B-18, Press Line 2 Inventory Maintained Daily By Job..........................................
80
Figure B-19, Press Line 3 Inventory Maintained Daily By Job ..........................................
81
Figure B-20, Press Line 4 Inventory Maintained Daily By Job..........................................
81
10
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
This thesis is based on the work and research that was conducted at the Ford Motor Company in the
Wayne Integral Stamping & Assembly Plant as part of an internship project for the Leaders For
Manufacturing Program. The internship was sponsored by the Ford Production System (FPS) Group,
which is responsible for implementing lean manufacturing within the Ford Motor Company.
This thesis will examine the operations of the Wayne Stamping plant and analyze the opportunities for
application of lean manufacturing and the challenges to implementation. This project will review current
material flow and scheduling practices using the tools of Value Stream Mapping and Manufacturing
System Design Decomposition to identify potential improvements. Based on this information, and
supplemental research, it will examine a pull-based approach for material flow and recommend a future
state for operations.
This thesis will also consider the role of the Ford Production System in this process and its efforts to
spread lean manufacturing tools throughout the plants and motivate progress. The Ford Production
System uses several approaches to encourage lean manufacturing techniques and these include metrics,
coaching, education and assessment. The thesis will also touch on the FPS implementation approach and
specifically its role in Wayne's change process.
1.2 Motivation
Stamping operations are inherently batch processes and therefore not as readily adaptable to lean
manufacturing material flow techniques as other automotive production processes where single-piece
flow can be achieved. As a result, until recently Ford Motor Company's efforts to implement
synchronous material techniques in its North American plants have tended to focus on assembly lines
where there is a natural single-piece flow. While stamping and other batch processes will never
economically achieve single piece flow, batch size reduction and pull-based lean manufacturing
techniques can be applied as a vehicle to improve performance in these facilities.
11
This thesis examines the operations of one stamping plant in particular and analyzes the opportunities for
application of lean manufacturing and the challenges to implementation. It will also consider the role of
other factors such as culture and environment and their affect on the efforts to spread lean manufacturing
tools throughout this plant and others within Ford Motor Company.
1.3 Background
The Ford Production System is an initiative of the Ford Motor Company that aims to implement the tools
of lean manufacturing throughout its assembly and manufacturing plants. One element of this lean
manufacturing system is Synchronous Material Flow or SMF. SMF uses the concept of pull-based
material flow to attack both internal and external logistics, reducing inventory and waste wherever
possible. Pull-systems, such as Toyota's kanban approach authorize production as inventory is
consumed. This is in contrast to traditional push based systems, such as MRP, that schedule production
based on a forecast of demand. [Hopp & Spearman, 2001]
The Wayne Integral Stamping & Assembly Plant offers a unique opportunity to implement lean
manufacturing techniques and material flow within a stamping operation. Since Wayne's stamping, body
shop and assembly operations are all located in the same plant, many of the normal issues of logistics are
greatly reduced. Since the parts do not need to travel great distances between operations, large inventory
buffers are not needed and pull-based kanban processes can more easily be implemented since lead time
variation is reduced.
Currently, the stamping operations at Wayne control production using a more traditional scheduling
process that plans the day's production, for each of its press lines, based upon the forecasted schedule of
its customer. Because of the close proximity between stamping and subsequent operations, Wayne has
been able to avoid many of the problems of overproduction that are typical in stamping operations. While
it has reduced inventory levels, Wayne has not yet leveraged the opportunity to implement true pull-based
material flow between stamping and its customers and reduce the scheduling complexities and corrections
that currently exist. Wayne's efforts to reduce inventory before implementing other lean manufacturing
principles also raises questions about the implementation of manufacturing systems and the order of
implementation. What approach creates success and what impacts has Wayne's implementation process
had on operations.
12
1.4 Readers Guide To Chapters & Thesis
Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the thesis and an understanding of the scope and reason for thesis.
It also provides relevant background to the thesis.
Chapter 2 provides background on the setting for the thesis and important issues affecting it. It provides
an insight into the Ford Motor Company and the competitive environment is faces today. It also
describes the Ford Production System in its current form and gives an overview to the Wayne production
facility where the thesis work took place.
Chapter 3 describes the Wayne Stamping facility operations and current management practices. It
provides an overview of the basic material flow and the stamping process involved.
Chapter 4 presents the concept of Value Stream Mapping and how it is applied. It describes how the
Value Stream Mapping Process was used at Wayne and details the operations of the facility through
description and data. It also highlights some of the key issues with current operations.
Chapter 5 investigates the topic of lean implementation and compares it with the FPS approach. It also
describes the current status of Wayne's implementation using the Decomposition Analysis for
manufacturing systems.
Chapter 6 describes a proposed pull-system and how it might be implemented within the Wayne
stamping operations. It will also examine some of the implementation challenges facing this approach.
Chapter 7 examines the findings in light of managerial issues such as metrics and their use in creating
organization change and motivation. It summarizes the conclusions of this thesis.
13
SECTION 2: PROJECT SETTING AND BACKGROUND
While the main emphasis of this thesis is on the manufacturing analysis that was conducted at the Wayne
Integral Stamping & Assembly Plant, it is crucial to understand the context and setting where this work
was done. To do this it is also necessary to understand the company and major issues that have
influenced the current environment. For this project, the two most relevant influences are the culture and
environment of the Ford Motor Company and the implementation of the Ford Production System. The
following chapter gives a description of the Ford Motor Company today, explains the Ford Production
System and gives an overview of the Wayne Plant as a whole.
2.1 Ford Motor Company Overview
Henry Ford founded the Ford Motor Company in 1903. Today, 98 years later, the Ford Motor Company
is the second largest automotive manufacturer in terms of sales revenue and the largest manufacturer of
trucks in terms of volume. Ford has operations in 40 countries, operates 114 plants worldwide and
employs approximately 248,000 employees in manufacturing operations. Ford recently spun off its
component manufacturing operations including 83 plants and 74,200 employees under the name Visteon.
[Ford Motor Company, 1999 Annual Report]
In addition, Ford has diversified into other businesses related to the automotive industry. Ford Credit is
now a key component of Ford's strategy, providing financing and leasing to a variety of customers to
support Ford's automotive sales. Ford has also moved into several areas of the automotive services
industry. An example of this is the acquisition of Hertz rental car in 1987. [Ford Motor Company, 1999
Annual Report]
2.1.1 Ford Motor Company Culture
For a company as large and old as the Ford Motor Company, there is an overwhelming sense of the
company's history and legacy within the auto industry. Employees are extremely knowledgeable about
the company's history and there is strong sense of heritage among employees. Many in the company
have had parents or other family members work at Ford.
14
Undoubtedly, the sense of heritage is also due in part to the Ford family's active role in the company
throughout its history and still today. 109 Ford family members still hold preferred Ford Motor Company
stock [Ford Annual Report, 1999] and William Ford Jr. is currently the Chairman of the Board of the
company. Additionally, many other family members are actively working in the company today.
2.1.2 Competitive Environment
The competitive landscape of the auto industry has changed dramatically in the past decade. There has
been a wave consolidation, through both mergers and acquisitions, in an effort to further reduce costs
through even greater economies of scale. To reduce the costs of component manufacture and generate
capital, both GM and Ford spun off their component manufacturing businesses as Delphi and Visteon,
respectively.
Ford has responded to this consolidation by the strategic acquisition of smaller manufacturers that meet
key criteria. These auto-manufacturers have strong customer loyalty and strong brand identity but may
have other operational problems in areas that Ford can apply its strengths to create value. Recent
acquisitions of this type include Volvo, Jaguar, and Land Rover.
Additionally, Ford has been under pressure from shareholders to improve operational performance in
several areas. While Ford has been very successful in North America, it has struggled achieve
profitability in other regions such as Europe, Asia, and South America, losing $226 Million in South
America alone in 1998. [Sorge, 1999] North American sales accounted for 66% of Ford cars and trucks
sold in 1999 but 73% of the revenues and certainly an even higher proportion of the profits. [Ford Annual
Report, 1999] Additionally, within the North American market, Ford is recognized as the leader in trucks
and sports-utility vehicles but has had tremendous difficulty achieving financial success within its car
lines.
"The bulk of the profits, some experts estimate as much as 60%, come from trucks." [Sorge,
1999] This leaves Ford tremendously vulnerable to an economic downturn or a change such as rising fuel
prices. Additionally, the high profits in this market have attracted more competitors in recent years.
Some, such as Toyota, have rolled out entire product families in this category. As a result there is
tremendous pressure within Ford to reduce production costs and improve financial performance among
both cars and trucks.
15
2.2 Ford Production System Overview
The original Ford Production System, invented by Henry Ford, revolutionized not only automobile
manufacturing, but manufacturing of all kinds. By demonstrating part interchangeability and
implementing the moving assembly line, he was able to take advantage of the division of labor and create
economies of scale. [Womack et al 1990] For the first time it was dramatically cheaper to mass-produce
manufactured goods. Ford's concept became the foundation on which lean manufacturing was built.
In the 1950's and 1960's, the Toyota Motor Company took Ford's mass production techniques and
adapted them to the issues facing the Japanese market and competitive environment. That market
demanded more varieties of automobiles in lower volumes to satisfy the needs of the rebuilding economy.
To make matters worse, capital was in short supply and labor was strongly regulated by the government.
[Womack et al 1990]
The manufacturing system that evolved is commonly known as the Toyota Production System and was
described in detail in The Machine That Changed The World. (Womack et al, 1990) Its focus on defect
elimination through continuous improvement techniques such Statistical Process Control (SPC) gained
Toyota a reputation for quality products that is unmatched today and permanently altered consumers
expectations of the automobiles and products they buy. Additionally, Toyota's focus on inventory
management and cost reduction made them the first company to achieve quality and low cost. This
breakthrough has made them a formidable competitor. When rising fuel prices in the United States
shifted the market demand, Toyota and other Japanese manufacturers were poised to take advantage, and
the result was a dramatic reduction in market share for the U.S auto-manufacturers by the early 1990's.
In 1995 in an effort to face increasing competition, the Ford Motor Company unveiled a program called
Ford 2000, which created a series of initiatives to reengineer Ford's key business processes. One of these
initiatives, named Ford Production System, was created to develop a lean manufacturing system, modeled
after the Toyota Production System, with a common set of tools and measures that Ford could use to
implement and manage the process throughout its plants worldwide. [Kowalski, 1995] It's not unfair to
say that many within Ford also wanted to recapture what they believed to be their heritage as the rightful
heirs to Henry Ford's original production system.
16
2.2.1 FPS Approach & Execution
FPS was originally designed with a 5-phase implementation process. The five phases being Operation
Stability, Continuous Flow, Synchronous Production, Pull System, and Level Production. The concept
was to build a stable process foundation to build on by implanting tools such as six-sigma, 5S and
preventative maintenance. This would allow plants a good understanding of the variation within their
processes and hopefully reduce variation levels before they began implementing other lean manufacturing
tools and redesigned the flow of their production lines.
In reality, many of the plants have embarked on various pieces of these phases at the same time. Others
have begun first with material flow because it creates immediate and visible results that will hopefully
spur employees on to further improvement efforts and allow workers to understand their impacts on the
production line. Additionally, the Ford Production System has grown beyond the boundaries of lean
manufacturing to address all aspects of the manufacturing work environment. The elements of FPS now
include:
* Work Groups
* Health & Safety
* Ford Total Productive Maintenance
* Manufacturing Engineering
* Environmental
* Synchronous Material Flow
0
0
0
0
0
In-Station Process Control/Quality
Industrial Materials
Managing
Training
Quality
The responsibility for the FPS process and its implementation lies with the FPS Group. The FPS group is
a central group, composed of coaches, auditors and instructors, focused on supporting and stimulating the
improvement efforts in Ford's plants. Their strategy for implementation is relatively straight forward:
provide training to plant managers and workers on the Ford Production System, support the plants with
coaches and subject matter experts, and finally assess and evaluate progress through annual audits of the
plants.
The training program is designed to kick-off implementation of FPS at a plant with training for the plant
leadership team and then provides classes for hourly and salaried FPS focals on the various tools and
levels of the implementation process. Most of the actual class instruction is out-sourced to a training
company and this instruction is supported by talks from FPS and Operations Leadership during the
courses.
Coaching is concentrated in the area of Synchronous Material Flow, although there are coaches in the
other areas of FPS. Each coach is typically assigned to one or two plants and they spend their time
17
divided between those plants. Their role is to support the identified FPS Focals in the plant, coach, and
share best practices. The coaches are typically managers and their main role is working with plant
management to create change.
Auditors perform assessments of each of its plants on an annual basis against the FPS elements. Each
assessment results in a score, and level for each FPS element and an overall score and level for the plant
as a whole. The real goal of these assessments is to encourage the plant management to focus on
continuous improvement year to year. It also provides upper management a view of the progress each
plant and plant manager is making.
The criteria for the assessment is very well documented, and includes not only the questions and criteria
for scoring but examples of the types of systems, documents, actions etc. that the FPS group would like to
see in the production system. Typically, each plant has done a self-assessment prior to the FPS group
arriving and this is reviewed, as are plant procedures, and the plant operations themselves. A typical
assessment lasts one week and results in not only a scoring of the plant, but also recognition of
accomplishments and the identification of opportunities and areas for improvement. There are auditors
representing each of the FPS elements, and UAW representatives are also members of the assessment
team and FPS group.
2.2.2 FPS Measurables
A key component of the Ford Production System is the metrics used to track performance. These are
known as the FPS measurables. The measurables are intended as a tool to measure the performance of
the manufacturing plants in their efforts to implement the Ford Production System and improve
operations. Ford wanted metrics that were quantitative and emphasized physical rather then financial
measures. [Kowalski 1996] Since FPS is being implemented worldwide, and it was also important that
these metrics were clearly defined and would allow comparison of performance among all of Ford's
plants. There are now seven FPS measurables which are described below [FPS, Guidebook for Effective
Measurables Overview 1999].
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) - OEE is a measure of the availability, performance efficiency,
and quality performance of a given piece of equipment.
First-Time-Through (FIT) - FTT is the percentage of units that a complete a manufacturing process the
first time without being repaired, retested, scrapped or returned.
18
'ii
Build To Schedule (BTS) - BTS is a measure of the percentage of products that are scheduled that are
produced in a given day in the correct sequence.
Dock-To-Dock (DTD) - DTD is the time between the arrival of raw materials and the release of finished
goods for shipment for a specific control part.
Total Cost - Total cost is the total cost per unit of material, labor, freight, inventory, overhead and other
plant costs.
Safety and Health Assessment Review Process (SHARP) - SHARP is an evaluation of the safety and
health issues and practices at a plant.
Attitude Surveys - various surveys conducted to assess employee opinion on various issues.
2.3 Wayne Assembly & Stamping Background
The Wayne Assembly & Stamping Operations are located in Wayne, Michigan approximately 10 miles
west of Dearborn where the Ford Motor Company is headquartered. The plant opened in 1952 and
currently covers approximately 3.5 million square feet and employs approximately 4100 employees. Of
these roughly 360 are management or salaried and the rest are hourly UAW employees. [Plant Guide,
Blue Oval News 9/21/00]
Figure 2-1 2001 Ford Focus
The Wayne Stamping & Assembly Plant is the U.S. producer of the Ford Focus, pictured above, which it
produces in both sedan and station wagon versions. Wayne transitioned from production of the Ford
Escort to the Ford Focus during 1999, producing approximately 244,000 total units in 1999. The Ford
1. For an excellent overview of the design of the FPS Measurables and some of the potential issues associated with them reference Joseph
Kowalski's Thesis, "An Evaluation of the Design of Manufacturing Measurables for the Ford Production System," 1996.
19
Focus is also manufactured in Hermosillo, Sonora (Mexico); Valencia, Spain; Plonsk, Poland; and
Saarlouis, Germany. The Ford Focus won the American, Canadian and European awards for Car of the
Year in 1999. The demand in North America resulted in an increase of production at Wayne to its current
target of 74 cars per hour.
2.3.1
Plant Description
Physically, the Wayne Plant is divided into two separate buildings. The south building contains the
Stamping Area and South Body Area. The north building contains the North Body Area, Paint Shop and
Final Assembly and Trim Lines.
The South Body Area is responsible for the assembly of the majority of the Focus body structure, while
the North Body Area completes the body with such parts as decks and doors. Car bodies are shuttled by
conveyor between the South and North Body Areas through an elevated, enclosed tunnel which bridges
railroad tracks.
2.3.2
Cultural Issues
The Wayne plant is divided into two distinct cultures. There are two different local UAW contracts in
place within Wayne. Wayne Assembly, which contains Wayne's trim lines and paint shop, falls under a
traditional union contract. Wayne Integral Stamping & Assembly, which contains Wayne's Stamping
Area and Body Shops, on the other hand, are covered by a 'modern' UAW agreement that allows for such
activities as job rotation. An example of this is that the Body Shop area is divided into distinct work
teams that rotate jobs during the day, including a rotation operating a forklift delivering material to the
production line. Ironically, because of the physical plant layout, and the division of the body shops
between the north and south buildings, there are actually two different union contracts operating within
the same building. These two areas within the north building are under different union leadership and
operate as distinct entities in many ways.
Wayne has a strong union culture. An example of the strong union environment is that the UAW bans all
foreign vehicles from parking in the general parking lots at Wayne. While this ban is more directed at
Ford Motor Company competition, this ban includes vehicles manufactured by companies such as Mazda
and Volvo, which although foreign brands are owned and operated by the Ford Motor Company.
20
SECTION 3: WAYNE STAMPING DESCRIPTION & ANALYSIS
The intent of this chapter is to describe the operations at the Wayne Stamping Plant and give the reader a
picture of the environment. This chapter will provide an overview of the basic manufacturing processes
and describe the facilities and flow of materials and information that support that process. It will also
describe the elements of the work environment that are relevant to the operations and atmosphere within
the plant.
3.1
Stamping Operations
The Wayne Stamping Area employs approximately 270 people that include hourly production,
maintenance and material handling jobs, as well as salaried support and management. At the time of this
research Wayne Stamping produced approximately 48 different stamped-steel parts that totaled a
scheduled demand of approximately 37,000 individual piece parts per day. These parts are produced on
four stamping lines that are supported by one blanker.
3.1.1
Stamping Customers:
Wayne Stamping has three primary customers that it supplies parts to. The major customer of their
production is the Wayne Body production area. Stamping provides parts to both the north and south body
shops and accounts for the majority of the Focus body structure produced at Wayne. This includes both
sedan and station wagon parts.
Eleven of these parts are also produced in quantities to support production of the Focus at Hermosillo,
Mexico. Hermosillo's projected needs are added to the daily production requirements for Focus parts
from Wayne Integral Stamping & Assembly. Most of these parts, such as hood inners and outers, are
supplied to the Body Areas for assembly prior to shipment to Mexico, but a few parts are delivered
directly from Stamping. Parts for Hermosillo are normally delivered by truck.
Additionally, Wayne Stamping also provides door inner and outer parts to the Ford Michigan Truck Plant
for use on the Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator. The Michigan Truck Plant is located next to the
21
Wayne Customer Breakdown
As A Percentage of Volume
Mchigan Truck
11%
Hermosillo,
Mexico
10%
Wayne
79%
Figure 3-1 Wayne Stamping Customer Description
Wayne Integral Stamping & Assembly Plant, within the same Ford compound, providing short delivery
times and routes.
As seen in Figure 3-1, the majority of Stamping production is provided to customers either within the
same production facility or within the same compound. This close proximity to customers greatly reduces
lead-time variation and logistic issues.
3.1.2
Suppliers to the Stamping Operations
There are very few suppliers for the stamping operation. A single distributor, who is located within a few
miles of the Wayne plant, supplies steel coils. Logistically, this again provides the plant with several
advantages. Coils are usually delivered three times per day, but can be provided more often if necessary.
This allows stamping to hold only slightly more inventories then is required for the upcoming shift.
Typically one order is placed for the day's deliveries and updated as needed during the day. This
provides additional flexibility.
There are also several local manufacturers who provide pre-cut blanks. This compensates for the lack of
blanking capacity required by providing outsourced blanks for several of the part numbers.
22
3.2 Stamping Operations
3.2.1 Manufacturing Process
The manufacturing process in a stamping plant is relatively simple and consists of two basic
manufacturing processes blanking and stamping. Both of these processes use a press and sets of dies to
either cut or shape the raw steel. This process is depicted below in Figure 3-2.
In most cases, flat steel is purchased and delivered in large rolls of various widths or lengths depending
on the parts being manufactured and the blanking equipment being used. Additionally, the types of steel
will be tailored to the needs of the individual parts. These rolls are fed into a blanker, which cuts and
stacks flat patterns from the steel. The shape of the flat pattern is designed for the given part to be
stamped.
Stacks of these blanks are then transported to the stamping lines and fed into the presses. Once inside the
press the flat pattern is squeezed or 'hit' between a matched set of dies to change its shape to match the
interior of the die. Depending on the type of press and part shape, the part may achieve its final shape in
different ways. The part may need to be transferred through a series of dies, slightly changing
configuration with each hit until the final design is achieved, or simpler parts may need only a single hit
to achieve final configuration.
Basic Manufacturing Process
Steel
Coils
BN
STAMPING
PRESS
Finished
Parts
Figure 3-2 Basic Manufacturing Process
23
Both blanking and stamping are fast cycle-time processes. This means that once the process is running
for a given part, it takes very little time to complete the manufacturing operation. In other words, once
the blanker is running it will cut another flat pattern every few seconds. Similarly, the stamping lines will
produce a part approximately every 4-7 seconds depending on the part.
Traditionally, fast cycle time processes have been run in very large batches that maximize the amount of
time the equipment was actually producing parts. Since the time to changeover dies for different parts
was very long, switching production to another part meant the equipment was not being used for
significant periods of time. It was considered common sense to reduce setup costs by running the biggest
lot size possible. [Monden, 1998]
3.2.2 Facilities Layout and Basic Operations
Figure 3-3 shows a basic schematic of the Wayne Stamping & Assembly building and operations. As
described earlier, the South Building contains the stamping operations and south-body production area.
Also two warehouses are attached to this building. The bulk of this warehouse space is used to store
either finished stamped parts that will be used in the south body production lines or empty racks for these
same parts.
Figure 3-4 shows a detailed layout of the stamping operations in the south building and provides a
simplified view of material flow to support the operations. The stamping operations are fairly selfcontained and there are two pairs of press lines with equipment and dies stored directly in front of the
appropriate press loading area. General maintenance as well as die maintenance is also located directly in
the area.
Steel coils arrive from the supplier several times each day by truck. As seen in Figure 3-4, coils would be
unloaded and stored directly in front of the blanker. Movement of the blanks is performed by overhead
crane. Coils are processed into blanks, stored on pallets and moved into the Murata ASRS (Automated
Storage & Retrieval System) for storage until needed. Additional blanks are delivered from outside
suppliers to meet the current production requirements that the one blanker is not capable of meeting.
These blanks are typically not placed into the Murata system. Instead they are unloaded and stored in
their own inventory area from which they would be taken directly to the press lines.
Blanks are typically transported and loaded onto the appropriate press lines via AGV (Automated selfGuided Vehicles), but are also transported by forklift. Press jobs are processed according to a daily
24
Assembly Lines
South Body
Production Area
North Body
Production Area
North Building
Stamping
Operations
South Builcling
Area Depicted
in Layout
Figure 3-3 Schematic of Wayne Stamping and Operations
To
Butler
Building
W arehoi se
Parts
Conveyor
To North
Die
Tandem Press
Line #4
Die Storage
Maitenance
,----------
Rack
Storage
Staging
Tandem Press
Line #3
Die Storge
-
Transfer Press
Line #2
Stamped
Stamped
& Rack
& Rack
Part
Storage
Part
Storage
1
Die
O
SamigOffices
---------------
r ---------Line #1
:
LI]
Mainteance
Die Storage
A
M
10
~0
I-
Storage
r ------------Transfer Press
u]
1
Blankr
(Blanker
Invento
Oper
p
eations
Material Flow Description
Flow of Steel Coils
Flow of Blanks
Flow of Finished Parts
Figure 3-4 Detailed Layout of Stamping Operations.
25
schedule that is described in the following chapter. Stamped parts are loaded in racks and transported by
forklift to one of four major inventory holding areas or directly to the line if necessary. There is a large
holding area near the end of the press lines, which is show in Figure 3-4. There are also two warehouses
for inventory depicted in Figure 3-3. The fourth holding area is located in the North Body production
area that is also shown in Figure 3-3. Parts for North Body are transported by convey from stamping in
the south building to the north building and placed in inventory by fork-lift. The conveyor loading area is
depicted in Figure 3-4.
Parts are removed from inventory and transported by forklift or carts and delivered to the appropriate line
side location of the body production lines. Delivery is controlled by the production teams and performed
by operators who rotate through a material handling position for a portion of their day. Parts intended for
delivery to Mexico or the Michigan Truck Plant are gathered by Material Planning and Logistics (MP&L)
personnel and loaded on trucks for delivery as scheduled.
3.3 Manufacturing Environment
The manufacturing environment at the Wayne stamping facilities is not what the average person might
expect from such a facility if they had not been to one. The stamping area of the plant is a high-bay
section with high ceilings of approximately 60-ft. Despite the large stamping lines and supporting
equipment, the area is very open, well lit and fairly clean. While there is noise from the operating
stamping presses, it is not overwhelming. Operators where hearing protection to prevent long-term
hearing damage.
Employees in the stamping area tend to be middle-aged and very experienced. Most have been at this
stamping facility since it opened approximately twelve years ago and have been employed by Ford for
much longer. The management in this area also fits this same profile. They are experienced and
knowledgeable about stamping operations and the stamping business. To put is simply, stamping is their
career.
The stamping area is typically scheduled to operate on a 6.5 day / 24 hour schedule with 3 shifts. This
means that the presses would be operating 24 hours a day for 6.5 days of the week other then
changeovers. This would leave a half-day of time open for maintenance or necessary additional
26
production. Operators work in three shifts of 8 hours each and work overtime to cover the additional 1.5
or production scheduled for the weekends.
In reality, production is often going 7 days per week, 24 hours a day to keep up with the demand of the
assembly line which is normally operating two 10 hours shifts 5 days per week. The pressure to keep up
with the line is constant and maintenance is only performed when a stamping line has gotten ahead of the
production demand, or when equipment is already down because of process or equipment issues.
Overtime is taken for granted and occurs almost daily for the operators. In addition to the weekend shifts,
overtime is necessary during the week to cover absences or help with equipment issues. Since there are
very few salaried and management employees supporting the constant operations, long hours and working
weekends are also considered the norm for them. At the time of this research, in July 2000, it was not
unusual to find salaried workers who had worked every weekend of the year to that time.
27
SECTION 4: VALUE STREAM MAPPING AND CURRENT STATE ANALYSIS
The intent of this chapter is to fully describe all aspects of the current operations at the Wayne Stamping
Plant. This will be done through qualitative descriptions of the processes and decision making,
quantitative data presentation, and analysis of the current operating methods. The bulk of the data used in
this chapter was collected during August and September of 2000 at the Wayne Stamping facility.
Additional work and data collection was done between October and December, and some of this material
is included as well.
This chapter will describe the value stream mapping process that was used to analyze operations and
discuss the value stream map for Wayne Stamping. It will present the data collected, describe
management processes and discuss the key findings.
4.1 Value Stream Mapping
The Value Stream Mapping process is a technique that was developed by Mike Rother and John Shook in
the Lean Institute and documented in their book, Learning to See, Value Stream Mapping To Create
Value and Eliminate Muda, 1998. This process provides techniques to map and document the key
elements of a manufacturing enterprise, the inter-relations of these elements, and their current operating
characteristics. This provides a framework to analyze the performance of the system, look for
opportunities and design a better manufacturing system.
There are several goals of the Value Stream process. The first is to give an enterprise view of the
manufacturing operation to managers or users of the process. Managers working everyday in
manufacturing operation often lose sight of the system they are working within and their role in that
system. Mapping the system forces them to step back and consider the entire operation from customer
back to supplier. Additionally, upper management and plant managers are forced to assess all the
processes and their impact on the value stream they manage.
Another goal is to provide tools and a framework that will allow an organized investigation of the current
system, an understanding of its flaws and a process for designing an improved system. The final goal is
28
to present all this in a way that is simple, easy to explain and graphical. The Current State and Future
State Maps provide tools that achieve all these goals.
4.1.1 Value Stream Current State Mapping Process
The process of creating a Current State Value Stream Map is relatively simple and straightforward. The
users starts at the customer delivery requirements and work their way backward through the entire process
documenting the process graphically and collecting data along the way. This process results in a single
page map of the manufacturing value stream and its component processes using simple graphical
symbols.
The second step is to dive down and understand the current operations of these individual processes that
are working within the larger system. Cycle times, inventory levels, quality levels, and equipment
performance data is all collected for the processes involved. Ideally these data are collected at the time
the mapping is performed. Actual current inventories that are witnessed should be measured and
operating performance should be documented. Depending on the complexity of the processes and the
number of parts involved further information may need to be obtained or collected from other sources.
The most important part of the value stream mapping process is documenting the relationship between the
manufacturing processes and the controls used to manage these processes such as scheduling and
information systems. Unlike most process mapping techniques that often only document the basic
process flow, value stream mapping also documents the flow of material and information within the
system. Where is material being moved and stored? What triggers the movement of material from one
process to the next? What information and what types are being distributed to manage the process? All
these questions must be addressed and documented on the value stream map.
4.1.2 Process Maps for Wayne Stamping
The current state maps that were created for the Wayne stamping operations are described here as process
maps. Describing them as process maps was done on purpose. The stamping operations at Wayne
support internal customers and do not by themselves represent a value stream. If a value stream map of
the Wayne production operations were performed, stamping would be only a single process within the
value stream and would be represented graphically as a single process box with inputs and outputs. The
process maps for the stamping operations represent a second tier of mapping to detail the operations of
29
these internal processes. This distinction between process map and value stream map may seem subtle
but it is important since it ensures that the greater enterprise and stamping's role within it are not lost.
There were several current state process maps created of the Wayne stamping operations. Figure 4-1,
below, shows the summary map that displays the material and information flows for all four stamping
press lines. This map was also broken down into four individual process maps, each one displaying the
material and information flows for an individual press line. These maps are shown in Appendix A. This
was done for two reasons. First the summary map is very cluttered and it is easier to see the actual
material flows by breaking them into separate maps. Secondly, the stamping operations tended to be
organized by press line with individual work teams running each press, and parts also dedicated to a press
line for production. This allowed work teams to make corrections and give feedback on the appropriate
maps and data.
Current State Process Map
Summary of All Stamping Press Lines
.jl
Customers
6-Month Forecast
~-~*.--*
LIilo
Mich. Truck
hForecast
FS__P_11__1*TWayne
Bo
V
Delaco
Autoblank
Pro-Coil
Wayne
ail Sch
Prod Mgmt
ule
Ind.
oath Body
Murata
V
BlanksrLBneks
Receiving
Body
CoilsNorth
Line
Electronic Data
-
~
"
.
Paper Schedule
Inventory Data
Purchased
Blanks
-5Silver Dome
Line 4
Material Flow
(push-based)
Butler Bldg
Figure 4-1 Combined Current State Process Map for All Press Lines
30
As seen in the process map above, various symbols are used to identify different processes. Each triangle
represents a separate storage location for inventory. Each double-boxed rectangle represents a process or
manufacturing operation that must occur. Lines 1 through 4 are the four stamping press lines and the
blanker is also shown. Non-manufacturing processes such as receiving, production management and
shipping, are also depicted. While they do not change the product form they are elements of the current
process that must occur. Additionally customers and suppliers are depicted. Block arrows represent
material flows. Traditional push, or build to schedule, material flows are represented by striped arrows.
Pull-based flows are represented by clear block arrows. Information flows are depicted with line arrows.
Dashed lines show the flow of inventory information that is collected within the system. A solid line
arrow shows the disbursement of the daily schedule by paper throughout the organization. Finally,
electronic data transmissions are shown using a wavy arrow.
Typically manufacturing process boxes would also contain data about the operation of that process. For
example cycle-time, changeover time, overall equipment effectiveness, and quality would all be
summarized in the process boxes. This information is not displayed for two reasons. First there is again
very little room on a single chart. Secondly, it was not always useful to summarize data for a given press
line. Whenever possible, it was more useful to use data available based on individual part numbers or
jobs that were processed on a given press line. This revealed more of the process variation and insight
into actual operations. The following section details stamping operations and provides this data when
appropriate.
4.2 Current State Analysis of Stamping Operations
Value stream mapping is a tool. In this research it was used as a tool to understand the operations of the
stamping organization and identify areas for further investigation and data collection. The following
sections explain the current state of operations at Wayne Stamping and detail the process used for
decision making. It also provides metrics or data on operations wherever possible.
31
4.2.1 Demand Variation
As in most manufacturing plants production planing is based on the customer's forecasted demand for the
product. Variation in the demand or in the lead-time to supply demand can create the need to buffer
production from the demand. It can also result in the 'bull-whip' effect where larger and larger variations
in inventory and production responses are transmitted up the supply chain.
Sources of demand variation for the stamping operations come from several areas. The first source of
variation arises from their customers' ability to perform to schedule, which is a forecast of actual demand.
The primary customer for the stamping area was the body shop, which had significant difficulties hitting
its scheduled hourly production targets. This resulted in overtime production Saturdays to try to hit
weekly and monthly targets and a fluctuating need for parts from stamping. Additionally, Ford's basic
scheduling system is a forecast based traditional MRP (Material Requirements Planning) system.
Because of the dependence on forecasting, MRP systems inherently induce additional variation into the
production system since the forecast can never perfectly match actual demand. [Hopp & Spearman, 2001]
As a result schedule changes or working around the schedule is common.
The second source of variation came for the need to produce additional parts above the scheduled demand
that would become service parts for dealers and repair shops. The service part requirements would come
in on an irregular cycle and would vary significantly based on orders. This demand would be coordinated
with stamping management and siphoned from existing inventories as was deemed feasible. If necessary,
additional production parts would be run to cover the extra orders.
The final source of variation was internally created and was caused by inconsistent inventory and
production policies. This management approach created variations in the inventory held and the volume
produced for a given part on a given day. The following sections on inventory and batch-size will
discuss this further and present data to illustrate this issue.
4.2.2 Scheduling
Stamping operations are controlled via a paper schedule that is produced and distributed daily throughout
the stamping organization. Each night cycle checkers collect inventory counts of the Work-In-Process
inventory or WIP. This count is meant to include completed stamped parts and blanks not only at the
designated inventory holding areas, but also along the production lines where parts are stored and fed to
the line. These data are manually combined with the customers' scheduled usage numbers for each job to
determine the amount (in days) of inventory on hand. Stamping jobs are then sorted based on the
32
remaining Days-Of-Inventory and scheduled for production that day in order by days of inventory from
least to most.
Each morning the production manager receives this schedule, refines it and determines the blanking
schedule for that day. Based on the stamping schedule for the day, the current inventory of blanks, and
the coils currently in stock a separate hand-written blanking schedule is produced for the day's
production. The schedule provides the job numbers to blank and some level of quantity to produce. This
may be an actual production count or a quantity of coils to use. For example, 'blank job 201, two coils'.
Operators would then load the appropriate steel coils for that job and cut as many blanks as possible from
two full coils. Coils orders for the day are then planned and telephoned to the distributor. There are
several deliveries per day so orders may be updated for the next shifts based on the day's actual
production.
4.2.3 Batch-Size and Inventory
Production and inventory data was collected over approximately a one-month period for the blanker and
each of the press lines. These data were used to analyze batch size and inventory decisions and
consistency. The data was examined in a variety of ways. Batch sizes were examined by job (part
number) both in terms of piece count produced and then normalized by days of inventory produced.
Inventory data was examined at the equipment level, as well as by job. Again it was initially examined in
terms of piece count production and then normalized by days of inventory available based on the
scheduled daily usage of that part number.
Complete data is available in Appendix B, however the data for Stamping Line 1 is shown below and will
be used to describe the data presentation and some of the findings that are typical of the operating policies
used to manage production. As can be seen from Figures 4-2 and 4-3, the batch size data is shown for
Line 1 broken out by job. The graphs display the minimum, maximum and average batch sizes that were
produced during this period. The vertical bars then represent the total range of batch sizes that were
produced for a given job or part number during this time. The square data point depicts the average batch
size produced.
33
LINE 1
-
Batch Size Data (Min, Max, Ave) By Job
7/29 - 8/31
10000
8000
ao
6000
M O
4000
-a
MIN
MAX
nAVE
2000
0
I
-
101
102
103
104
105
106
109
110
210
JOB
Figure 4-2 Chart of Batch Size Production for Press Line 1
LINE 1 - Batch Size Data (Min, Max, Ave) By Job
7/29-8/31
0
e,
12.0
Cc
10.0
0 8.0
6.0
MIN
MAX
m AVE
cc
2.0
0.0
101
102
103
104
105
1)6
109
110
210
JOB NUMBER
Figure 4-3 Chart of Batch Size Production for Press Line 1 in Days of Inventory
While the raw production count data shows the wide range of batch sizes created for all part numbers.
The normalized data gives a much better view of the disparity of volume produced for different jobs
taking into consideration the volume required for that part number. Jobs that were produced in large
batch sizes, in terms of days of inventory, tended to be low usage part numbers. In other words, a small
number of those part numbers were needed daily to support production requirements. These tended to be
parts that supported the station wagon model of the Focus, which was produced in much smaller numbers
34
then the sedan. As seen from the batch size data, these jobs were run approximately once a week. This
was done to avoid additional changeovers that would be required to produce these parts in smaller
batches. Part numbers required in high volumes were run every day or every other day depending on
recent batch sizes and actual usage.
LINE 1 - Days of Inventory By Job
10.0
al----A
fl
P'
9.0
8.0--o
S
0
101
7.0
-
a-4.102.
6.0
103
7.0
0
4.0
.
5.0
4 .0-
104
-x-..
_
104
109
1.0+-
110
40 \ ~ 0
-210
Date
Figure 4-4 Chart of Days of Inventory by Job for Press Line 1
The inventory data during this same period also reflects the operating patterns and decisions discussed
above. As seen in Figure 4-4, the large normalized batch sizes produced for certain jobs results in
inventory carried for longer periods of time and higher average inventories. What can also be seen from
the data is that there is not a standard inventory policy for maximum and minimum inventory carried to
support production. On some days, there is no inventory for some part numbers while on other days there
is a large inventory of the same part numbers and the inventory fluctuates inconsistently. There are no
clear production policies being followed.
Inventory and production policies usually maintain one of several common approaches. Reorder point
strategies set a maximum amount of inventory to be held and minimum amount of inventory that includes
an appropriate amount of safety stock. Reaching the minimum inventory levels trigger production of this
part. Maximum inventory levels would prevent over production. Other approaches include producing a
constant batch-size on an irregular schedule as needed to supply demand, or producing variable batch-
35
sizes on a regularly scheduled production run to meet these same minimum and maximum target levels.
The inventory and batch data shows none of these approaches are being used or none of these approaches
are being enforced. There is neither a regular batch size being produced nor a regular production
schedule. There is also no evidence of enforcement of minimum or maximum inventory levels on any
job.
An examination of the batch size and inventory data in Appendix B shows that the trends and operating
policies shown for Line 1 are typical for all of the stamping press lines. Examination of the blanker data
shows even more exaggerated examples. Batch sizes tend to be larger and there is more variation in the
batch sizes produced. Also the inventory carried is more erratic over time and tends to be higher on
average.
4.2.4 Overall Equipment Effectiveness
Figure 4-5 shows a summary of the Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) numbers for the blanker and
each of the press lines by month over a four-month period. These numbers range between 50% and 60%
and represent OEE for a given piece of equipment for the entire month. OEE, is a measure of the
availability, performance efficiency, and quality performance of a given piece of equipment [FPS
Guidebook etc., 1999].
Wayne Stamping OEE Summary
OEE By Month
10
90
80
70
60
W
50
o
40
Au
ElAug
*p
Ui
Oct
Nov
20
20
10
0
Blanker
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Figure 4-5 Chart of OEE Data
36
OEE = Availability x Performance Efficiency x Quality Rate
Where:
Availability = Operating Time / Net Available Time
Performance Efficiency = (Ideal Cycle Time x Total Products Run) / Operating Time
Quality Rate = (Total Products Run - Total Rejects) / Total Products Run
As seen in the table below, the main cause of these low OEE numbers is equipment downtime. When
displayed by job, equipment downtime ranges from 29% to as high as 59% for jobs run on Line 1.
Downtime here is defined as unscheduled downtime. This means that depending on the job, Press Line 1
would be down up to 59% of the time for unscheduled problems such as equipment failure, process issues
or start up problems.
JOB NUMBER
Line I
101
102
103
55
35
44
100
130
131
DOWNTIME %
1
JOB NUMBER
Line 2
-
-
--
-
-
-
Line 4
104
105
106
109
110
210
52
59
40
59
48
29
203
204
205
206
207
208
- -
.
-----
_--
DOWNTIME %
Line 3
-
1
JOB NUMBER
32
42
302
- -
38
303p
- --.
-
DOWNTIME %
35
25
JOB NUMBER
330E
330N
N/A
DOWNTIME %
33
43
35
39
31
33
43
35
305
306
308
311
403
407
411
34
35
34
40
42
30
56
48
331
331
304
307
310
401
402
408
303s
-
209
____
-
-.
-
_
21
47
40
48
41
45
45
58
409
_ _
55
Figure 4-6 Table of OEE Data by Job
4.2.5 Changeover
Changeover data by job was not available for the Wayne stamping operations. However, many
changeovers were witnessed during this research and a wide variation in the times to accomplish
changeover was seen.
Typical changeovers were in the range of 30-35 minutes but changeover times as low 20 minutes and as
high as 42 minutes were witnessed. The causes for the ranges in changeover times were not directly
obvious however changeover times did vary from one shift to another and by type of press. Times were
also clearly impacted by the number of personnel involved and the urgency of the production needs.
37
Wayne did use standard changeover procedures and certain elements of the SMED or Single Minute
Exchange of Dies [Shingo, 1996] process were in place. An example of this was the error proofing of
various electric and hydraulic lines. Also equipment was organized and color-coded in kits to support a
given job.
4.3 Key Operational Issues
Three key issues face Wayne's current operations and present opportunities for improvement. Those are
downtime, scheduling and changeover. The following sections review these issues and describe the
impact of these issues on the ability to create a stable operating environment.
4.3.1 Downtime
The most significant issue at Wayne Stamping is downtime for both the presses and the blanker. Further
analysis of the downtime data showed there were no individual large contributors to downtime, which
could be easily addressed to free additional capacity and quickly resolve the problem. Downtime is being
caused by a myriad of small issues, which must be fought individually by focusing on process
improvement work and preventative maintenance
The result of this unscheduled downtime is a significant reduction in production capacity that is straining
operations. The planned 5-day, 3-shift operation has been forced to extend operations to near 7 days per
week to meet demand. The price of adding production hours is sacrificing a regularly scheduled
preventative maintenance program.
38
Maintenance/Capacity Loop
+
Open
Press Time
Time Open For
Preventative
Maintenance
PrOdUCtlonl
Capacity
Unscheduled
Downtime
Figure 4-7 Illustration of Maintenance/Capacity Causal Loop
This tug-of-war for open press time creates a reinforcing loop as shown in figure 4-7. More unscheduled
downtime results in less production capacity. Less production capacity leaves less open press time for
preventative maintenance and process improvements. Performing less preventative maintenance
eventually leads to more unscheduled downtime. This type of reinforcing loop can lead to higher
downtime if left unaddressed.
4.3.2 Schedule
The current scheduling process was originally designed as an improvement over a traditional MRP,
forecast-based, scheduling processes that is used in stamping plants. In fact, the paper schedule is used
despite an existing IT based MRP system. Wayne supplemented the forecasted demand with a daily
count of inventory. This verified actual usage levels by the customer and allowed Wayne to sequence
production jobs based on days-of-inventory on hand. This approach, in effect, tries to simulate a pull
system.
While this approach was definitely an improvement of the previous process, it still has several
disadvantages. It takes significant amounts of time and labor to create the schedule each day and is prone
39
to errors. Cycle checkers must physically count inventory levels each night and report them to the
Material Planning & Logistics group which then uses an excel spreadsheet to manually create the daily
schedule. This seems simple, but in reality parts are spread throughout the plant because parts have been
delivered to the line over the course of the day. Additionally, inventory is stocked in several major
warehouse locations and is often difficult to see or count.
The result is frequent errors in inventory counts and therefore the production sequence. Management and
salaried personnel must spend large amounts of time managing the schedule and checking for errors.
Missed errors result in extra die changeovers that further reduce production capacity.
Additionally, this approach provides feedback on inventory status only once every 24 hours. This
feedback is insufficient to properly manage production, particularly when inventory counts may be in
error. Since the minimum or safety stock is zero, stamping operators perform their own cycle checks of
critical parts during the day to ensure production needs are met. This distraction draws workers away
from their intended work and prevents pro-active improvement work from taking place.
Finally, while taking actual usage into consideration, there is no clear direction to production on how
many parts to produce. While operators may know that a particular part is low on inventory and to be
processed next the only limitation on production is the amount of blanks in inventory for that part. Since
operators will want to keep the presses running they will be inclined to run all of the blanks available
whether that is appropriate or not.
4.3.3 Changeovers
Best In Class changeover times for similar equipment are in the range of 7-15 minutes based on Ford
benchmarking. On average between 3 and 4 jobs are run each day on the press lines which means
between 1 and 2 hours of capacity are lost each day on each press line due to changeovers alone. For the
entire stamping operation this means that between 4 and 8 hours of stamping capacity is wasted each day.
Basically, every changeover bleeds a little capacity out of the stock that is available each day. Scheduling
problems cause the need for additional, unnecessary changeovers that bleed a little more capacity from
the system. While these capacity losses might not normally have a great impact, the large unscheduled
downtime means that they are exasperating an already significant problem.
40
SECTION 5: IMPLEMENTING LEAN MANUFACTURING
Attempts to adopt the tenants of the Toyota Production System by other companies have been occurring
since the success of the Japanese automobile manufacturers in the US market. The diffusion of what was
dubbed 'Lean' manufacturing by Womack, Jones & Roos accelerated with the publishing of their book
The Machine That Changed The World, which described the elements of the Toyota Production System
and its structure. [Womack et al, 1990] For the first time, lean manufacturing was portrayed not as a
uniquely Japanese condition but as a manufacturing system that could be implemented. Since then,
literally hundreds of books have tried to document and describe the fundamental principles of lean
manufacturing, and an entire consulting industry has been born whose sole purpose is helping companies
transform their operations from mass to lean.
Despite this, the numbers of failed attempts at transitioning from mass to lean far outweigh the companies
that have succeeded. Even today, the US automakers are struggling to make the transition and fully reap
the benefits. GM had tremendous success using a joint venture with Toyota to create its NUMMI plant in
the 1980's but has struggled to spread the lessons learned throughout the corporation. [Womack et al,
1990]. Ford has had successes in individual plants, but is still working to institutionalize the full lean
manufacturing system throughout its plants. Chrysler, now Daimler-Chrysler North America is struggling
with excess production capacity and costs.
This chapter will examine the elements or building blocks of a lean manufacturing system and discuss the
key elements that are necessary for success. Secondly, it will discuss the difficulties of making the
transition within the concepts of organizational change and some of the different approaches that are
taken. Finally it will use the Manufacturing System Design Decomposition, developed by Professor
Cochran and his Production System Design Laboratory, as a tool to assess the current state of the Wayne
Stamping plant and identify areas for improvement.
5.1 Elements for Lean Manufacturing Transition
The concept of manufacturing as a complex system is not new. By definition the Toyota Production
System was viewed as a complex system composed of certain elements or processes with inputs and
desired outputs. It was also recognized that certain processes or elements of that system were foundations
41
or necessary elements for the system to function at higher levels of performance. Without them, other
processes within the system might function at a lower level of performance or not function at all.
It is also true that making the transition from a mass production environment to a lean environment is a
complex process of building the manufacturing system and ensuring that foundation elements are in place
and functioning before adding complexity. This is not unlike a builder who ensures that components of a
building are in place and functioning before proceeding with construction. Pushing the manufacturing
system to perform without key elements in place is not unlike closing the walls of a building without first
ensuring the installation and testing of wiring and ventilation systems. The building might 'function' but
probably not very well and it's going to be difficult to fix.
Adding complexity to this process is the difficulty of making any significant organizational change.
Successful changes only occur when certain change elements are in place and an organized process is
followed. This section discusses both aspects of this issue.
5.1.1 Elements of a Lean Manufacturing System
In his book, Toyota Production System, An Integrated Approach To Just In Time, Yasuhiro Monden
discusses the key elements of the Toyota Production System (TPS) and the inter-dependence for building
a successful manufacturing system. He identifies seven elements or processes that form the core of TPS.
Those elements are:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Kanban System
Production Smoothing
Shortening Setup Time
Process Layout for Shortened Lead Times
Standardization of Operations
Autonomation
Improvement Activities
Monden also identifies a hierarchy among these elements. This is shown below in Figure 5-1. The most
basic of these elements is improvement activities. "Improvement activities are a fundamental element of
the Toyota production system and they are what makes the Toyota production system really tick."
[Monden 1998] The entire system is built on not only a philosophy but also the successful
implementation of continuous improvement through small work teams. The next building blocks in the
system are autonomation, shortening setup time, process layout and standardized operations. These
elements support the implementation of production smoothing, which allows the implementation of the
kanban system. If all these elements are executed the system will reach its goals of eliminating
42
overproduction, adapting to changes in demand, ensuring quality at each process step, and respecting
employees. Achieving these goals will in turn allow the system to achieve higher profit through cost
reduction, which is the ultimate goal of TPS.
W-cOSM
workess
Of
adW"pla
a
o &=Man
dwn
ebie
Figure 5-1 Elements of the Toyota Production System
Hopp & Spearman in Factory Physics present a more systematic view of the manufacturing system. They
define the manufacturing system as "an objective-oriented network of processes through which entities
flow." [Hopp & Spearman 2001] In this approach there is a fundamental objective which is supported by
a hierarchy of objectives. The manufacturing system is then a network of processes and operations
designed and implemented to fulfill the various sub-objectives of the system. This approach is more
easily adaptable to creating models or simulations of the system and does not recognize TPS as the only
correct answer to a systematic problem.
Again there is recognition of the interrelation of the objectives and the need to achieve sub-objectives for
the system to work as a whole. Unlike TPS however, the systems analysis view shows that there must be
43
trade-offs of sub-objectives to optimize the system as a whole and achieve ultimate objectives. An
example of this is the desire for "high utilization to keep units costs down, but low utilization for good
responsiveness." Hopp & Spearman also emphasize the impact and influence that processes such as
information systems and accounting systems can have on the system as a whole. If not executed properly,
these types of processes will create their own objectives for the system rather then supporting the
achievement of the defined objectives.
5.2 Making the Transition
No matter whether the ideal manufacturing system is defined by the Toyota Production System or a
systematic approach tailored to the individual needs of the business, the system must be implemented to
be successful. Unfortunately, transitioning a business or organization to a new manufacturing system will
likely be much harder then designing the system itself. Machiavelli said, "There is nothing more difficult
to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in tli
introduction of a new order of things." [Hopp & Spearman 2001] The difficulty of change may be the
sole area of agreement between disciples of different production systems.
Creating organization change, and specifically implementing a new manufacturing system, is also a
process that has key elements that are necessary for success. There is widespread agreement on certain
elements that are vital to creating successful change. There are also several approaches for implementing
change that must be addressed. This section will discuss both these elements of change specifically in the
context of implementing lean manufacturing.
5.2.1 Key Elements of Change
Change management literature identifies Ten Commandments for executing change. [Ancona et al, 1999]
Those elements are:
1. Analyze the organization and its need for change.
2. Create a shared vision and common direction.
3. Separate from the past.
4. Create a sense of urgency.
5. Support a strong leader role. (Designate or find a champion)
6. Line up political sponsorship.
7. Craft an implementation plan.
8. Develop enabling structure.
44
9. Communicate, involve people and be honest.
10. Reinforce and institutionalize the change.
While Monden outlined the elements of TPS and a hierarchy, this change structure lays out the process
for developing and enacting a change but fails to create a hierarchy of key elements necessary for success
rather than an analytical process. In terms of implementing lean manufacturing, there do appear to be key
elements that are necessary for success.
The first of these foundational elements is the need for a crisis. In the Ten Commandments this is called
creating a sense of urgency. Womack et al refers to it as the creative crisis. Whether the crisis is due to
outside factors or internally created by upper management, a crisis provides several necessary elements
for change. It creates a focus for the workforce and justifies the need to separate from the past or
significantly change current practices. Giving up current practices is extremely difficult and without both
urgency and justification, even well-structured change initiatives often languish for years without ever
taking root and flourishing.
The second necessary element is the complete commitment of top management to implementing the
change. [Monden, 1998] This step is critical for a manufacturing organization because of the functional
organizational structure and hierarchy that is common in most mass production companies. During the
implementation of lean manufacturing, there will be changes that will not be in the best interest of any
individual functional organization, even though the change will benefit the company as a whole. An
example of this is the necessary changes that production and material handling organizations in a
traditional mass production company must make to implement lean manufacturing. Traditional metrics of
these organizations may discourage change. Upper management must be ready and willing to ensure that
the optimization of the whole is chosen over the sub-optimization of the pieces.
The final key element is appropriately evaluating and rewarding the behavior of employees and,
particularly, managers. "The classic problem in large organizations is that top management sets the
general course and the workforce will do it, but the buck seems to stop in the middle." [Cochran, 1999]
All too often the existing combination of business systems and metrics are driving managers and the
organization to continue previous behavior. Resolving this conflict can be extremely difficult since
metrics and business systems are typically based on traditional management accounting systems, which
drive managers to achieve accounting goals rather than customer goals. [Johnson, 1992]
45
5.2.2 Approaches For Implementation
Even if these key change elements are present and an organized process is in place, several important
decisions need to be made on how to implement the change towards lean manufacturing within the
corporation or within a given plant. This section discusses several implementation issues that are often
discussed and debated within the literature.
Top Down vs. Bottom Up:
This issue often occurs in the discussion of how best to spread the lean manufacturing process. Should
necessary changes be mandated from upper management down through the organization or should the
change begin with workers and built up? This issue arises because of the importance of improvement
activities led by small work groups in the development of the Toyota production system. As was shown
in Monden's hierarchy, Figure 5-1, and discussed earlier improvement, activities are shown as the
foundation for the entire system.
This highlights the difference between the hierarchy of a manufacturing system and hierarchy of the
transition process to implement the manufacturing system. While it is certainly true that improvement
activities are fundamental to the manufacturing system, those improvement activities do not
spontaneously appear. Employees must have the proper tools and environment to succeed. For these to
happen management must provide training and implement changes which allow teams to function.
In this sense the proper course of action appears not to be either top down or bottom up, but top down and
bottom up. A top down change process must be implemented to build a bottom up organizational
environment.
Pilot Project vs. Plant Implementation:
This debate concerns whether lean implementation is best done by starting on a pilot project or single line
and then spreading successes throughout the plant or taking on the plant as a whole and structuring
implementation based on a more systematic approach. It is not clear that there is a single answer to this
debate. Results from this research found both plants were found that had been successful building from a
pilot project, as well as plants which had failed with pilot projects several times, and succeeded only after
taking a systematic approach.
Monden clearly endorses the pilot project approach and offers several advantages. [Monden 1998]
Changing a manufacturing process can be very disruptive. Using a pilot project allows experimentation
46
to take place without disrupting the entire factory. As lessons are learned and approaches refined these
can be passed on to other areas in a less disruptive manner. Additionally, creating change can require
significant resources that may not be available to support the entire plant. The pilot project allows the
available resources to focus on a particular area and provide the needed support.
The alternative view comes from the systems view of the manufacturing process. Often there are support
systems or organizations, such as material handling, that interface with all operations of the plant and all
manufacturing lines. It is often difficult to create a separate process to support one manufacturing line
while maintaining the existing processes for the rest of operations. Without proper support systems, the
pilot effort may fail or give less promising results. This approach endorses attacking these systematic
processes first throughout the entire plant. An example might be creating work teams and implementing
quality training throughout the plant, then changing material handling processes and finally attacking
material flow on the lines.
While either of these processes can work in the right situation, the most important message of this debate
is to fully understand the situation and develop an organized plan for implementation. Understand how
this plant functions and how support systems impact the daily operations. Carefully plan the transition
and find a way to work within existing resources constraints.
5.3 Production System Design and Deployment Framework
The Production System Design (PSD) and Deployment Framework is a tool used to determine the
objectives and the implementation of a lean production system. [Cochran, 1999] Developed by Professor
Cochran and his Production System Design Laboratory at MIT, the framework uses the concept of
axiomatic design to ensure that the elements or implementation methods for the production system are
properly aligned with the objectives of that system.
This framework bridges the different views of the lean manufacturing system discussed above and attacks
many of the problems of creating and implementing a lean manufacturing system. It encompasses the
systems view of a hierarchy of objectives and the implementation elements of TPS. Most importantly, it
provides a clear link between the ultimate goals and metrics of the organization and the working level
implementation methods. As a tool it can be used to assess an existing manufacturing system and
compare it with a lean manufacturing system to understand what elements are hampering its performance.
47
The PSD and Deployment Framework contains several elements that can be used to analyze existing
manufacturing systems. The following sections describes, one of these tools, the Manufacturing System
Design Decomposition in more detail, and uses it to assess the operations at Wayne Stamping.
5.3.1 Manufacturing System Design Decomposition
The Manufacturing System Design Decomposition (MSDD) creates two hierarchies. A hierarchy of
objectives or functional requirements (FRs) that define the goals of the system and a hierarchy of the
corresponding implementation methods or design parameters (DPs) that represent how these goals will be
achieved. These hierarchies are not developed independently, but together at each level of the hierarchy.
Each FR is mapped to an execution or DP. The next level of objectives or FRs are then the functional
requirements of executing the DP of the upper level FR. [Cochran, 1999] Each level is the decomposition
of the functional requirements of the level above it.
To provide an example for clarification, the highest level FR in the MSDD is 'Maximize long-term return
on investment'. 'Maximize long-term return on investment' has been decomposed into three, second-level
FRs which are; 'Maximize sales revenue', 'Minimize manufacturing costs', and 'Minimize investment
over production system lifecycles'. Each of these FRs has an associated DP and is decomposed further
into lower level FRs and matching DPs. The MSDD has six levels of decomposition taking objectives
from the high level goals of the organization to the working level implementation.
The concept of axiomatic design was used to guide the decomposition and establish independent FRs
whenever possible. Ideally, a completely independent system design would be developed which would
mean that each DP would only affect a single FR and implementation would be path independent. In
reality achieving total independence is very difficult and DPs often affect more then one objective. In this
situation the design is path-dependent and the order of implementation is consequential.
The MSDD therefore not only addresses the relationships of the objectives and elements of the production
system, but also provides meaningful information about the design of the implementation plan at the
working level. Because implementation of DPs affects the success of meeting the system objectives, an
order or hierarchy of fundamental processes evolves. In order they can be described broadly at the fourth
level of the decomposition as Quality, Identifying and Resolving Problems, Predictable Output, Delay
Reduction, Direct Labor and Indirect Labor. [PSD Laboratory, 2000]
48
5.3.2 MSDD Evaluation and Results
As an evaluation tool the MSDD can be used to assess existing plants and manufacturing systems by
comparing the existing system to the FRs of the MSDD. This approach was taken to evaluate the
Stamping Operations at Wayne.
Using the Manufacturing System Design Questionnaire (shown in Appendix C) developed by Professor
David Cochran and Joachim Linck, the stamping operations were evaluated against each leaf FR in the
lowest three levels on the MSDD. A leaf FR is the lowest level of decomposition for that FR. After
evaluation they were divided into three categories red, yellow, and green, which represent does not
comply, partially complies, and fully complies, respectively. The results of this evaluation are shown by
category in the table below.
Stamping Operations
Red
Yellow
Green
Total
Quality
2
3
4
9
Identifying and Resolving
1
2
4
7
Predictable Output
3
4
1
8
Delay Reduction
4
6
2
12
Operations Cost
0
7
3
10
Total
7
23
16
46
Problems
Table 5-2 Table of MSDD Results
As shown above, there are significant areas where the stamping operations do not comply with the
MSDD. The operations fully comply with only 16 out of 46 Functional Requirements in the MSDD.
Additionally, Stamping has a complete lack of compliance in 7 of the FRs and only partial compliance in
another 23.
Although there is atleast partial compliance in all of the FRs for the categories of Quality and Identifying
and Resolving Problems, these issues are still contributing to problems in other categories because of
dependence. While overall Quality levels in stamping are good, there are issues with eliminating core
49
sources of variation and creating a robust process that is insensitive to input such as material variation.
This difficulty with eliminating root causes is also reflected in the evaluation of FRs in Identifying and
Resolving Problems.
Much more significant problems exist in the areas of Predictable Output and Delay Reduction. Of the 8
FRs in Predictable Output only one is fully complied with and three are not complied with at all. Here the
root causes of the worst offenders are a preventative maintenance program, capable production
information system, and standard WIP management. Delay Reduction has four FRs that do not comply.
These are in the area of managing production batch size, inventory levels, and leveling of the schedule to
reduce throughput time of the system.
While the MSDD reinforced many of the findings identified through value stream mapping and data
analysis, it also provided insight into the potential root causes of the existing problems. The data analysis
provided detailed information on current performance levels, which are the symptoms of systematic
problems, not the cause. The MSDD identifies foundation processes or elements that are not functioning
in the given system and then shows the connection to poor results in performance levels. The MSDD
hierarchy and path dependence shows the direct impact that ailing processes will have on the
organizational goals.
This analysis provides an additional layer of resolution to understanding the system and identifying
potential solutions. Additionally, it provides a means for direct dialog with upper management on how
they can help achieve their own goals.
50
SECTION 6: PROPOSED FUTURE STATE & IMPLEMENTATION
This chapter uses the results of the analysis of Wayne Stamping and proposes a potential future state for
the stamping organization that will address the issues identified. As presented earlier, manufacturing is a
complex system with many elements and often, limited resources. Therefore this proposal will describe
the key elements of the future state, their impact on the system, and also describe an approach for
implementation. Finally, it will describe some of the challenges facing an implementation in this
particular environment.
6.1 Future State Mapping
The current state mapping process, discussed in chapter 4, was used as a tool to investigate and document
operations, then identify areas for improvement. The future state map is also a tool, but one that is
primarily intended as a tool for change. The future state map helps clearly communicate a vision of the
operational structure that is trying to be achieved and helps the development of a concrete implementation
plan.
Ideally, the future state map represents a future that can be achieved in a relatively short time. Imposing
this limitation steers ideas towards a future state that is more realistic and changes that are more likely
within the control of the organization performing the change. This is important because creating small
successes quickly builds confidence in the process and enthusiasm for generating new ideas.
Initially, the focus should be on what can be achieved with the current resources. [Rother & Shook,
1998] This means taking equipment and potentially equipment locations for granted. An iterative
process should be taken. With each successful achievement of a future state another more aggressive
future state can be identified and worked towards. Hopefully, the savings from each change will fuel the
ability to make further more substantial improvements.
With this in mind, a proposed future state map and implementation plan was generated that was intended
to be substantial and realistic. It could be reasonably achieved in a relatively short time and is within the
authority and resources of the stamping organization. It does, however, address the key issues in the
current operations and demonstrate what is possible.
51
6.1.1 Future State Map
The future state map, shown below in Figure 6-1, is intended to illustrate the material and information
flows that are possible in stamping. This section will describe this future state and its elements. The
following section will describe some of the additional key elements or processes that cannot be depicted
but are essential for a stable-manufacturing environment.
Stamping Pull-Based Future State Map
Customers
Production
iers
Hermosillo
Mich. Truck
DelacoControl
Autoblank
Pro-Coil
NothBoy
Shf
Lin In
Order
Electronic?
---------
PEEP
B--y
Line 3
Blanker
Coils
Murata
X days
-Min/Max
For Every Part
Line 4
Figure 6-1 Pull-based Future State Map for Stamping
As seen above, the pictured future state is entirely pull based and built on two centralized marketplaces
for blanks and stamped parts. Kanban systems are used to drive and schedule production process. A
kanban card system is proposed for stamping, while an electronic kanban system is shown for blanking.
This approach replaces the daily schedule that is currently produced and production processes essentially
schedule themselves based on customer usage. This is essential because stamping is one process within a
larger value stream and is not the pacemaker process that should be scheduled. In this environment,
production control is only providing forecasts of changes and verifying that inventory and production
policies are being followed.
52
Centralized Marketplaces
Because of the layout at Wayne and the volume of parts produced it may not be possible to contain all
inventory in just one location immediately, but this should be the goal. Currently there are four major
inventory locations in addition to line-side material.
A centralized marketplace would increase visual
feedback that helps operations and make implementing a card-based kanban process easier.
Fundamentally, the fewer locations the simpler the entire process is to manage. Additionally, this would
help simplify forklift traffic and material flow in the area.
The Murata automated storage and retrieval system becomes the marketplace for blanks in this approach.
All blanks, including purchased blanks, would be loaded and stored in the Murata. Since the Murata
already provides automated inventory tracking this would provide both feedback and management of
inventory levels. Pallets are currently 'ordered' electronically by the press lines and this process would
form the foundation of the electronic kanban process. Additionally, a marketplace would free up floor
space currently used for purchased blanks and enforce discipline in inventory processes since there is
finite storage space.
Inventory Policy
One of the first steps in implementing a card system is deciding how many cards will be in the system.
This determines the total inventory in the system, as well as the maximum inventory levels and number of
racks in the system. Just as critical is setting the minimum inventory target levels or safety stock, which
will trigger production.
Currently, Wayne's real minimum inventory level is essentially zero and there is no target level that is
consistently maintained for each part number. Ideally, minimum inventory targets are based on process
stability, lead-time and the desired customer service level. In this case current processes are not very
stable as evidenced by the 40%-60% downtime. Shutting down the customer is extremely costly and
undesirable. This would indicate the desire for a high customer service level.
To achieve a high customer service level, stamping must carry enough inventory to compensate for the
process instability, downtime levels and lead time variation. In this case, lead-time variation, based on
transportation, is very small but this is over shadowed by the process variation. Changeover times, while
still relatively large, are also minor in comparison to other factors. Current inventory levels, as seen in
Appendix B, often reach zero causing production disruption in stamping. To avoid this and achieve high
53
customer service level, higher minimum inventory levels need to be set. These would be set by job, based
on run size and downtime for that job. Initially, this will increase batch size and reduce the number of
changeovers. As production stability is increased over time, the necessary inventory levels and batch size
will decrease as will inventory carrying costs.
Kanban Cards
The key component of a pull-based system would be Kanban Cards or Production Instruction Cards as
they are called in the Ford Production System. Each card will represent one rack of stamped parts.
Controlling the number of cards in the system controls the amount of inventory in the system. The cards
act as the authorization to produce parts, and when used with a scheduling or heijunka board, they can
provide real time feedback on inventory levels to the production teams.
At Wayne, a signal kanban board for each line would be appropriate based on the team structure. The
signal kanban boards provide the method to implement inventory and changeover policies. If working
properly, the press lines will schedule themselves, and should only rarely need management intervention.
6.1.2 Key Processes
While the future state map and elements described above would address many of the issues identified in
the analysis and decomposition evaluation, there are two core processes that would also need to be
addressed. These are described below.
Problem Solving:
As described earlier, in both the categories of Quality and Identifying and Resolving Problems the key
processes that do not comply with MSDD are all related in one way or another to identifying root causes
and eliminating them. This stamping plant has many of the components it needs to succeed in this area.
It has well-functioning teams, organized by line, who track issues with data and meet regularly to discuss,
identify and resolve problems. They also have been exposed to many of the quality tools that are useful
in these investigations.
What's missing is the time necessary to really identify core problems and implement robust process
solutions. The process also needs to create a systematic commitment to implementing solutions. Too
many process issues are identified but simply drag on unresolved.
54
Maintenance Program:
There were several important red flags identified by the MSDD and most would be addressed by the
future state elements identified above. The key element that is still missing is a 'Regular Preventative
Maintenance Program'. The current maintenance program is not a maintenance program but a crisis
repair program aimed at getting the equipment running when it fails. During this research, this approach
resulted in a equipment failure that disabled an entire press line for six weeks and reduced internal
capacity by approximately 25%. The commitment to schedule weekly downtime for preventative
maintenance is a necessary element for future success.
6.2 Implementation and Transition
While many of the operational problems at Wayne are apparent after analysis and a reasonable set of
solutions can be identified, the path from current state to future state is not nearly as clear. Preventative
maintenance is clearly fundamental to solving the downtime issue, but how do you implement
preventative maintenance and maintain production when there is no free press time and support labor is
scarce. In other words how do you break the causal loop identified in Figure 4-7? Further as seen in
Figure 6-2 below the original maintenance/capacity loop discussed in Chapter 4 is part of a larger and
much more complicated system.
Stamping Causal Loop Diagram
Operating
Budget
#of + 4A
Operators
S afe ty
StockFretm
Changeover
Time
Training
# Of
Open Press
Time
Changeovers
Low inventory
conditions
Schedule
Errors +
Operators
+
+
+
Preventive
Maintenance
Production
Capacity
-
Process
Improvement
ork
+
+
Scheduling
Difficulty
+
Wre
Worker
Knowledge
+
-Unscheduled
n e
Downtime
ManaementExperience
Time
Scheduling
Complexity
Figure 6-2 Stamping Causal Loop Diagram
55
The larger causal loop diagram for stamping, shown below, only begins to show the complexity of the
system at work in stamping. Many issues can only be influenced by management or out of their control.
1,
While the scheduling process is not the single largest problem at Wayne, strategically it is the best issue
to attack for several reasons. As seen above, scheduling and inventory processes directly impact several
other key system elements. Also, these are entirely under the control of management and require very
little financing to implement. It also can reasonably be changed and dramatically improved in a short
time period. As shown below in Figure 6-3, addressing the scheduling problem offers the first step on a
'path to improvement'.
Transition Approach
Pull-Based Flow
Pull-Based Scheduling
It
Stable and Level Production
Downtime Reduction & Continuous Improvement
Figure 6-3 Transition Plan
As seen above, the logic is that implementing pull-based flow will allow a much-simplified pull-based
scheduling process to take place. This will hopefully achieve two primary goals. The first is creating
more stable production operations that will reduce the number of unnecessary changeovers. Second it
will free up significant amounts of management and salaried time to focus on reducing downtime by
improving existing processes.
At this point, with support resources available, a full-scale attack on preventative maintenance can be
launched. Because of current capacity constraints, there may not be enough available press time to do
56
proper preventative maintenance each week even after improving the scheduling process and freeing up
some resources. If this is the case, temporary outsourcing of some components may be necessary to allow
complete initiation of the maintenance program. This outsourcing should be relatively minor and would
demonstrate management's commitment to perform preventative maintenance. As it takes affect and
downtime begins to decline, additional press capacity will become available and these parts can be
reintroduced to the production schedule.
The viability of this approach was demonstrated during the major press failure during this research.
There was a major outsourcing of all the jobs on that press line, but the labor remained and supported the
other lines. With additional resources, those lines were able to perform faster changeovers, and attack
some of their existing problems and resolve them. Wayne clearly has the technical knowledge base
needed to address its process issues, it just needs more time to address them.
6.3 Challenges To Implementation
There are several challenges to implementation that add to the difficulty of making this transition. Some
of these issues are cultural and some are driven by outside factors, such as upper management.
Whichever the case, they are a real part of the problem and must be overcome to implement a successful
change. This section presents some of the factors influencing the changes presented.
6.3.1 Metrics
One of the key components driving the manufacturing system within Ford, and some of the difficulties, is
the current metrics used to evaluate and reward plants. While the FPS Measurables are being used to
compare and evaluate plants, managers are also being evaluated on their ability to meet labor and
overhead targets.
Labor and overhead targets are set each year, for each plant, and then for each area within the plant.
These reduction targets cause several problems for managers within the plant. First they do little to take
into consideration the existing labor and overhead situations within a given plant or a given area within
the plant. An area, such as stamping, might be extremely lean on labor or overhead already. In this case
further reductions do not make the plant more efficient but simply put more strain on employees and
managers. This in turn may increase absenteeism and create a bigger need for overtime to meet existing
production targets.
57
This is clearly the case within the Wayne plant where certain overhead tasks had been cut in order to meet
previous overhead targets. As FPS implementation began, these missing tasks became evident because of
the importance of correct data on supplier quantities, packaging and shipping.
Measuring based on these components, instead of total cost, also drives management to simply address
these budgets rather then look for systematic improvements that might provide a greater impact to the
total cost of the plant. Just like inventory, labor and overhead are components of the greater
manufacturing system that must be evaluated within the context of the whole. Changing any component,
without evaluating its impact on the system, can lead to sub-optimal solutions and unpleasant outcomes.
In the case of stamping, a reduction of labor meant a choice between cutting production press operators or
maintenance support. Either choice would create negative impacts on production operations.
6.3.2 Organizational Overlap
One of the key components of the future state identified is the implementation of a card-based kanban
system to allow tracking of inventory in the system and control production. For this process to succeed it
is dependent on two other organizational groups within the plant.
While stamping controls the organization of the proposed marketplace and the placement of inventory
into the marketplace, inventory is withdrawn from the marketplace by two other groups. The Material
Planning & Logistics(MP&L) group and the South Body Production Area both have forklift drivers who
remove and deliver inventory. If a card-based kanban system were deployed both of these groups would
need to understand their role and be willing to remove kanban cards and place them in kanban mail boxes
within the marketplace.
While this seems like a minor task, it means drivers would have to get off their forklifts to collect the
kanban cards. This could cause resentment and poor adherence to the process. The failure to deliver
cards or the loss of cards would make the process very difficult to execute.
Of these two groups, the South Body Production Area presents the largest problems. As discussed earlier,
the body shop is divided into work teams who rotate through the team positions, including material
handling. This means that for the process to succeed, every single employee in the body shop would need
to be trained and comply with the process. Since this is a large, diverse group, there inevitably will be
some problems. The MP&L drivers, in comparison, are few in number and are all senior employees.
58
Since they manage another marketplace of supplier parts already they are much more likely to understand
and adhere to the process.
6.3.3 Inventory Challenges
Consolidating existing inventories presents several issues because of the volume of inventory necessary
and the management of empty material racks. Currently empty racks and empty space take up a good
portion of the stamping marketplace at the end of the lines. Moving all empty racks to one location, such
as the Butler Building, would free up space in this area and provide better visual feedback on inventory
levels. Additionally it would help control rack levels, which has been an operational problem, and
improve traffic flow. Eventually the inventory levels and number of racks will be reduced, freeing up
additional space to allow further consolidation of the inventory.
The inventory that is currently kept in the north building to support north body production presents
special problems. Inventory levels are difficult to track because there is no feedback and the location is
out of sight. The conveyor, which transport parts between buildings, often takes many hours to move
parts and creates its own buffer of WIP and empty racks that is also difficult to track. As a result, there
are often production crises that emerge to ensure that parts are available for this production area and
movement of parts by truck to assure quick delivery. Consolidating this inventory and eliminating the
conveyor as the means of transport would solve these problems but would meet significant resistance.
Since the conveyor is in place, trucking parts is viewed as an additional expense and a waste.
Additionally, north body would prefer to hold the inventory where they have control over it.
There would also be cultural challenges to changing inventory holding policies. The management is very
proud of the inventory levels they have achieved, which are some of the lowest for stamping within Ford
North America. They would definitely resist initial increases necessary to assure customer service levels
and establish a stable pull-based flow. This would be viewed as a step backward both by the plant and
upper management, who are pushing to reduce inventory levels. Interestingly, although a pull-based
schedule process would be a much more significant change in current practices, this element was well
received and probably would not be resisted by management or employees.
59
6.4 Summary of Recommendations
The following table presents a summary of the key actions recommended and a brief description of the
steps necessary to implement these actions.
Recommended Action:
Steps:
Implement signal based Kanban for production
& inventory control:
"
"
*
*
*
*
*
*
Reduce production downtime:
"
*
"
Ongoing steps:
S
Consolidate stamping finished goods inventory
into single marketplace.
Consolidate stamping blanks inventory into
single marketplace using Murata automated
system.
Shuttle parts to North Body via truck.
Size inventory appropriately based on desired
customer service level and current process
stability.
Train Stamping personnel on kanban.
Train Body Shop personnel on their role in
using the marketplace.
Implement signal based kanban for stamping.
Implement signal blanking.
Define Total Preventative Maintenance
required
Schedule/Commit time for regular preventative
maintenance
Outsourcetemporarily, if necessary to achieve
TPM
Auditing of kanban process/cards.
Resize inventory/kanbans in system based on
process stability and demand.
60
SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS
This section discusses three major aspects of the project that was conducted and provides conclusions
about their role in the project. It reviews the tools used in analysis, planning and development of the
project and assesses their value in the process of implementing lean manufacturing. It examines the Ford
Production System as a manufacturing system and its current implementation process. Finally, it reviews
the stamping project itself and draws conclusions about its viability.
7.1 Analytical Tools
There were two main sets of tools used in the project to evaluate the stamping operations at Wayne.
Those tools were Value Stream Mapping and the Manufacturing System Design Decomposition (MSDD).
Experience on this project, with both tools, showed that each are valuable tools in the process of
evaluating and planning manufacturing systems. Additionally, these tools are extremely complementary
and more valuable when used together to analyze a manufacturing system.
Value stream mapping provides an excellent tool to understand the existing process. It is particularly
good at investigating and understanding material and information flows. It also provides a useful format
for the presentation of data gathered during this analysis and the presentation of a future value stream.
It does not however, do well at presenting complex data issues or linking symptoms to processes. If data
needs to be broken down to the job or part level to provide insight, the maps became limited in their
presentation tools. Additionally, the maps provided no means in and of themselves to reduce or scope the
large amount of data that needs collection. Additionally, the focus on material and information flows
largely ignores the supporting business and manufacturing processes and their roles as elements in the
system.
The MSDD, in comparison, presented an excellent tool for evaluating the plant and gaining a systematic
understanding of the cause and effect of processes within the plant. It also allowed an evaluation of
current processes against the framework of a 'lean' manufacturing system and an indication of the health
of those processes. This became very useful in narrowing the scope of the investigation and providing
61
ideas for improvements to the existing system. This, however, would not have been possible without first
understanding the process flow through value stream mapping.
Together the tools provide a complete process for the investigation and analysis of a plant and graphical
means for representing the results. The current state map presents the existing process flow. The MSDD
analyzes the systematic relationships and allows a graphical representation of these ideas. Finally, the
future state map provides a way to present a vision for the manufacturing system based on both of these
analyses. Most importantly, both of these tools are greatly enhanced by the other.
7.2 Ford Production System
The Ford Production System (FPS) plays a significant role both in the implementation of lean
manufacturing within Ford, in general, and at this plant specifically. FPS was clearly designed as a lean
manufacturing system and as transition process. This section evaluates the success of the Ford
Production System both as a lean manufacturing system and as a change process for implementing lean
manufacturing.
7.2.1 Lean Manufacturing System
As described in Chapter 2, FPS was closely modeled on the Toyota Production System (TPS). It's not
surprising then that FPS, as defined, tries to address each of the elements identified in the Toyota
Production System. While Ford uses different names and a slightly different structure, each of the
essential elements of the TPS manufacturing system are identified and documented. In. this aspect, FPS is
successful in defining a lean manufacturing system.
If there are any drawbacks to FPS as a system, it is the level of documentation and bureaucracy that is
used to define and regulate the system. Instead of being limited to a guiding set of principles and a set of
tools, an incredible amount of documentation is used to describe the various processes. In the plants, this
documentation and information is largely ignored because it is simply too unwieldy and time consuming.
In the hectic production environment there just isn't free time available to digest the amount of
information. As a result few of the plant hourly and salaried FPS focals, let alone employees, have done
more outside of training then review the audit guidebook and checklist and rely on their coaches for
guidance. The audit guidebooks have become the de facto instruction manuals for FPS in the plants,
when they were only intended to support the audit process.
62
One area where FPS does need additional information is at the hourly operator level. Currently FPS
metrics are designed to give feedback to plant managers are upper executives on the progress of a plant.
These measurables do little to provide feedback on performance to individual employees or units within
the plant. A key element in developing improvement activities by small groups is continuous feedback on
performance and more of this needs to be developed.
7.2.2 Implementing Change within Ford
The other important area for assessment of FPS that must be performed is its success at motivating
change within the plants and making the transition to its vision of lean manufacturing. In this area FPS
has been less successful. This section discusses three issues, which are hampering the transition within
Ford.
Incentives
While the combination of FPS measurables and plant audits do provide plant managers and executives
with an understanding of plant status and progress, they have failed to truly motivate either the plant
management or the workforce. All salaried and management employees receive annual bonuses that are
at least partially based on individual performance. These bonuses can be substantial, particularly for
managers. However, it appears that no portion of the evaluations or bonuses are tied to the success and
implementation of FPS in the plants for salaried personnel. Until recently plant managers were also not
evaluated on implementing FPS, however Ford Motor Company has tied management bonuses to FPS
performance.
Hourly workers receive annual profit sharing bonuses based on the performance of the company. While
there is some value in this approach, none of the profit sharing is based on the performance of the plants
these employees work in. As a result, there is no personal incentive to care about performance in your
own plant as long as the company is doing fairly well.
In addition to personal incentive problems, there are conflicts in organizational incentives as well. While
plants may or may not be evaluating themselves based on the FPS measurables, they are being strictly
measured for performance to the labor and overhead targets. These targets are structured as annual
percentage reductions, typically 5%-10%, in the budgets for labor and overhead. Plant managers who
implement reductions and meet these targets receive significant performance bonuses. Not only does this
practice promote the wrong behavior within management, it directly conflicts with the goal of managing
63
total cost and implementing a system design. It takes a courageous plant manager to ignore the labor and
overhead numbers even if they know and can show the total cost performance for the plant is better.
Labor Reductions
The result of the labor targets has been a slow but continuous reduction in the labor force at Ford over the
recent years. While this belt tightening has certainly better prepared Ford to handle the current economic
slowdown, it has also directly conflicted with the FPS tenants and the change process.
One of the tenets of the Toyota Production System (TPS) is that improvements from changes will not
result in labor reductions or lay-offs. This tenet was originally a by-product of the existing labor laws in
Japan after World War II, but proved to an important foundation for the change process. Employees will
never enthusiastically promote changes that may result in their elimination. Eliminating the fear of job
reductions greatly enhances the support for change.
Ford wisely also adopted this doctrine when developing FPS and has widely promoted that no employees
will be eliminated as a result of FPS. Unfortunately, in the plants the labor reduction targets have
specifically reduced the number of employees at the same time the FPS implementation and message of
no labor reductions is occurring. This behavior promotes distrust of management and of the FPS process
itself. Inevitably, it greatly hampers the change process and long-term relations between management and
employees.
Training and Roll-Out
The final element that has hampered the implementation is the execution of training and the roll out of
FPS within various plants. The FPS process has a well thought out training process that is designed to
kick off the implementation of FPS. It begins with training of the plant leadership, and then is extended
to include salaried and hourly FPS focals for the plant. Together these people are responsible for leading
FPS execution and extending training into the workforce.
Training for the plant leadership is a week-long class that consists of training on FPS tools, several Lego
simulations, and a visit to a plant that is considered an example of lean manufacturing at work. Training
for salaried and hourly focals covers similar material with more emphasis on the tools of FPS and
implementation. Focals do not participate in a plant visit.
64
Unfortunately, the order of implementation for training is very often not how FPS is implemented. In
many plants, FPS focals are up and running long before training for either themselves or plant leadership
has occurred. Additionally plants are often required to report FPS measurables to upper management
before training or the FPS rollout has occurred. At Wayne, none of the plant management had received
training on FPS and only a small number of the hourly and salaried focals, responsible for FPS, had
received training. The result was a disjointed change process at best and extreme frustration with
management. Management abdicated their leadership role because they simply didn't understand what
their own employees were trying to do or even the language they were using.
7.3 Stamping Project
Through the research that was conducted as part of the project at the Wayne Stamping plant, many of the
advantages and complexities of lean manufacturing became evident. First it is clear that lean
manufacturing is a name for a complex system of elemental and supporting processes that must interact
cohesively to function. Secondly, it is clear that the process of implementing lean manufacturing is, itself,
a complex endeavor that is rooted firmly in the processes of organizational change.
However it is the systematic nature of lean manufacturing that allows it to create the ultimate benefits that
are reached. It is complex because it does not provide for modular incorporation of one tool or another, it
is necessary to attack the system as a whole. Organizational change becomes much more complicated
because really significant results are only seen when the entire system is in place and functioning. While
lean manufacturing is built on small improvements and these results can often be measured, their impact
on the system as a whole is very difficult to quantify. This is what makes it difficult to justify the
resources for small improvement projects using typical project accounting for justification.
At Wayne, the benefit of going forward with its own lean manufacturing system has been clearly outlined.
System solutions to the systematic problems will great increase the ability to meet customers needs and
should provide a much more stable and ultimately pleasant production environment. Additionally it
should provide Wayne with a means to improve its performance and to achieve its ultimate objectives.
65
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Blue Oval News, "Plant Guide Blue Oval News", www.blueovalnews.com. 9/21/00.
2. De Jesus, Rafael Omar, 2000, "Implementation Of Lean Manufacturing Practices To Improve
Production Performance at Altec Electronica Chihuahua", Leaders For Manufacturing Thesis, MIT
3.
Hopp, Wallace J. and Spearman, Mark L., "Factory Physics", Second Edition, McGraw-Hill. 2001
4. Johnson, H. Thomas, "Relevance Regained", 1992, Free Press, New York, NY.
5.
Kalpakjian, Serope and Schmid, Steven R., "Manufacturing Engineering and Technology", Fourth
Edition 2001, Prentice-Hall Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
6. Kowalski, Joseph S., 1996 "An Evaluation Of The Design Of Manufacturing Measurables For The
Ford Production System", Leaders For Manufacturing Thesis, MIT
7.
Louis, Raymond S., "Integrating Kanban with MRPII", 1997, Productivity Press, Portland Oregon.
8.
Monden, Yasuhiro, "Toyota Production System - An Integrated Approach to Just-In-Time", Third
Edition, 1998, Engineering & Management Press.
9. Nahmias, Steven, "Production And Operations Analysis", Third Edition, 1997, Irwin, Chicago.
10. Rother, Mike and Shook, John, "Learning to See, Value Stream Mapping To Create Value and
Eliminate Muda", 1998, The Lean Enterprise Institute.
11. Womack, James P., Jones, Daniel T. and Roos, Daniel, "The Machine That Changed The World",
1990, Harper Perennial, New York.
12. Zaenglein, Roger Jr., 2000 "External Kanban Systems In Automotive Assembly", Leaders For
Manufacturing Thesis, MIT.
13. Ford Motor Company, 1999 Annual Report.
14. Ford Motor Company, "Ford Production System - Guidebook for Effective Measurables Overview".
1999
15. Sorge, Margerie, "The Ford Roll Continues," Automotive Industries April 1999.
16. Ancona, Kochan, Scully, Van Maanen, Westney, "Organizational Behavior & Processes," 1999.
South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, Ohio.
17. Cochran, David S., "The Production System Design and Deployment Framework," Society of
Automotive Engineers, Inc. 1999.
66
18. Cochran, David S, and Dobbs, Daniel C, "Evaluating Plant Design with the Manufacturing System
Design Decomposition," MIT Cambridge, MA 1999.
19. Production System Design Laboratory, "Manufacturing System Design Decomposition," Laboratory
for Manufacturing & Productivity, MIT 2000.
20. Shingo, Shigeo, "Quick Changeover for Operators: The SMED System," 1996 Productivity Press
Development Team.
67
APPENDIX A: CURRENT STATE PROCESS MAPS
This appendix presents the current state process maps that were developed for each of the press lines.
The maps were broken out by press line to facilitate the presentation of the material flows for each of the
press lines.
Current State Process Map
For Stamping Press Line 1
Customers
6-Month Forecast
L2
Mich. Truck
6-Month Forecast
B
Schedule
hDad
Cy
Atblank/
L
IDaily
iving
- *
chedule
yn
.South
Blanker
7
\
Murata
Blankes
Body
stamping Jobs
1E
01 106
2 109
103 1
59
C
Coils
North Body
10
Electronic Data
Purchased
Paper Schedule
Blankes
Silver Dome
Inventory Data
==
>
Material Flow
(push-based)
Butler Bldg
Figure A-1 CurrentState Process Map for Press Line 1
68
Current State Process Map
For Stamping Press Line 2
6-Month Fo rcast
6-Mont
-
Forecast
Shipping-7
0OW
4UM
Prod
Wayne Body
Mm
Murata
Blanks
Coils
-
-
-
s
.s
North Body
CO
Electronic Data
PurchLsed
Paper Schedule
Blanks
Silver Dome
Shipping
fe bs
j
Inventory Data
130
Material Flow
(pusi-based)
131
203
I
20
27
"S
_jNo
Butler Bldg
Figure A-2 Current State Process Map For Press Line 2
Current State Process Map
For Stamping Press Line 3
Customers
6-Month Forecast
-
6-Mont
-Hermosillo
-
Mich. Truck
Forecast
~
Pro-Coi
/CPrld
LZZ ZIJ~
A
Wayne Body
South Body
Murata
Blanks
L
RecingC
_
I
Electonic Data
Paper Schedule
Inventory Data
a
-
Material Flow
(push-based)
Purchased
Blanks
_
________________
/
North Body
0_
Silver Dome
Stamping Jobs
303p 348
3I.
305 403
Bel
Butler Bldg
Figure A-3 Current State Process Map For Press Line 3
69
Current State Process Map
For Stamping Press Line 4
Custo
6-Month Forecast
6-Mom
Forecast
]ers
1Wayne Blady
South Body
L
ABMacala
-vinE
la
1Purchased
Electonic Data
Shipping
Silver Door.
Blanks
Paper Schedule
Inventory Data
330M 407
Materal Flow
(push-hased)
I
331N
Butler Bldg
4"
Figure A-4 Current State Process Map For Press Line 4
Current State Process Map
Summary of All Stamping Press Lines
Customers
6-Month Forecast
6-Mont
[irk
Forecast
/Z
outh
Body
Murata
cnt
Blan
WdyLin
LCn
s
North Body
econiPurchased
-
-
*
Paper Schedule
-
Inventory Data
-
2
3a
Silver Doe
Shipping
Blak
Material How
(push-based)
Butler
Bldg
Figure A-5 Combined Current State Process Map For Press Lines
70
APPENDIX B: BATCH AND INVENTORY DATA
This appendix contains batch and inventory data that was collected at the Wayne Stamping Plant during
the course of this research. The following is a brief explanation of each of the groups of charts depicted.
Batch Data
The charts for batch data are presented in two ways. First they show the batch data in terms of piece
count or quantity produced in the batches. Second, the same data is shown normalized by 'Days of
Inventory' for each part number, or stamping job. The 'Days of Inventory' for each part represents the
quantity of that part number required for each day's production on the assembly line. Normalizing the
data this way gives a clearer understanding of the batch sizes in relation to demand. Both charts are
presented for each press line and are broken out by stamping job.
Jobs Run
These charts show the number of jobs run on each press line over a three-week period. This data provides
an idea of how many changeovers should be required each day currently and allow a comparison between
presses.
Total Inventory
These charts show the total volume of parts produced on each press line normalized by the amount of
inventory required. These charts provide a running picture of how well each press line is doing at
keeping up with demand on a daily basis and show the weekly cycle that occurs.
Inventory By Job
These charts show the amount of inventory on hand each day broken out by job and press line. While
there is a lot of data on these charts they provide a good picture of the amount of variation in inventory
levels that is being held of each of the parts.
71
LINE 1 - Batch Size Data (Min, Max, Ave) By Job
7/29 - 8/31
10000
e E 8000
D
4000 -
-
2000-
MIN
MA6000
X
1'AVE
101
102
103
104
105
106
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
210
110
109
JOB
Figure B-1 Press Line 1 Batch Production Data by Piece Count
LINE 1 - Batch Size Data (Min, Max, Ave) By Job
7/29-8/31
0
12.0
,
-510.0
o 8.0
MIN
MAX
Ac60
S4.0
nAVE
~2.0S 0.0-
I
I
101
102
103
104
105
106
109
110
210
JOB NUMBER
Figure B-2 Press Line 1 Batch Production Data by Days of Inventory
72
LINE 2 - Batch Size Data (Min, Max, Avg) By Job
7/29-8/31
10000 --r-
8000
6000
MIN
4000
MAX
2000
--
0 -
i
i
I i
i
100 110 130131 203204205206207208 209210
JOB
Figure B-3 Press Line 2 Batch Production Data by Piece Count
LINE 2- Batch Size Data (Min, Max, Avg) By Job
7/29-8/31
12.0
10.0
'4-
0
CO
Cu
2~
0
N
C,)
0
4.'
Cu
I-
0
4.'
0
C
8.0 8.0
6.0 6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1
I
.1i
in
lit,
I
7
MIN
MIN
MAX
SAVE
+ '
I
100 110 130 131 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
JOB Number
Figure B-4 Press Line 2 Batch Production Data by Days of Inventory
73
LINE 3 - Batch Size Data (Min, Max, Ave) By Job
7/29-8/31
10000
8000
, 0
6000 C-)
2 4000
m
I
-
MIN
MAX
MAX
SAVE
mAVE
CUQ)
2000
0
302 303p 303s
304
305
306
308
310
311
403
JOB
Figure B-5 Press Line 3 Batch Production Data by Piece Count
LINE 3 - Batch Size Data (Min, Max, Ave) By Job
7/29-8/31
%I.-
0
N
C0
7.0
6.0
5.0
0 4.0
Q) 3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
MIN
MAX
SAVE
302 303p 303s
304
305
306
308
310 .311
403
JOB Number
Figure B-6 Press Line 3 Batch Production Data by Days of Inventory
74
LINIE 4 - Batch Size Data(Min, Max, Ave) By Job
7/29-8/31
8
7
6
0
MIN
5
MAX
C
u
0
3
SAVE
2
1
--
--
-
-
rp
JOB Number
Figure B-7 Press Line 4 Batch Production Data by Piece Count
LINE 4 - Batch Size Data(Min, Max, Ave) By Job
7/29-8/31
10000 -8000
0
6000
8
4000
MIN
MAX
a
AX
E& 2000-
m
200
r-
=AVE
O W
W
C0 CY)O
CY)
Z
~-CM
co
M~ r-
CX)
0)
0
a
JOB
Figure B-8 Press Line 4 Batch Production Data by Days of Inventory
75
Line 1 - Number of Jobs Run
6-
5 -L
~fl-.-
Daily
Average
LCL
E1
z
0
Date
Figure B-9 Press Line 1 Number of Jobs Run Daily
LINE 2 - Number of Jobs Run Daily
C
U,
.0
.0
E
z
7
6
5
-+--
4
3
2
1
0
--
-
Daily
Average
UCL
LCL
r
Date
Figure B-10 Press Line 2 Number of Jobs Run Daily
76
LINE 3 - Number of Jobs Run Daily
8.0
C
0c
(0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3n
*-
-V
Average
UCL
LCL
E0
0
Daily Summary
2.0
1.0
0.0
80 (b\t
COP10
8 CV
cb\
Date
Figure B-11 Press Line 3 Number of Jobs Run Daily
LINE 4 - Number of Jobs Run Daily
>%
8.07.0-
o
4.02.0
0
E
z
Average
UCL
1.00.0-
Date
Figure B-12 Press Line 4 Number of Jobs Run Daily
77
LINE 1 -Total Inventory Daily (in Days)
3 .0 ----
-
-
-
-
-
2.5-2.-Daily
. . . . .. .Average
1.5- f
UCL
0
1.0 -T
LCL
0.
0.0 -
Date
Figure B-13 Press Line 1 Total Inventory Maintained Daily
LINE 2 - Total Inventory Daily (in Days)
3.5
Daily
2.5----
2.0-
Aerage
1.5
UCL,
LCL
1.0
0.5
Date
Figure B-14 Press Line 2 Total Inventory Maintained Daily
78
LINE 3 - Total Inventory Daily (in Days)
2.0
-
0-
-
1.5
Daily
Average
>
1.0 -
LCL
0.5
0 .0 -
- -.-.-.-
-
Date
Figure B-15 Press Line 3 Total Inventory Maintained Daily
LINE 4 - Total Inventory Daily (In Days)
2
15
Average
UCL
1
LCL
05
Figure B-16 Press Line 4 Total Inventory Maintained Daily
79
LINE 1 - Days of Inventory By Job
1010
910
-101
8.0
6.0
S
102
-.-
-1103
-- 104
4.03.02.0
1.0
-105
10
9
0.0
...
. .1
-110
t
4%
,
4
4
---
210
Date
Figure B-17 Press Line 1 Inventory Maintained Daily By Job
LINE 2 - Days of Inventory By Job
12.0
10.0-
-+-100
0
G)
C
0
5
8.06.0 -
-a-131
--
203
204
_
40
205
2.0
-
206
207
0.0
-208
1Z
-209
Date
Figure B-18 Press Line 2 Inventory Maintained Daily By Job
80
LINE 3 - Days of Inventory By Job
1.0
10.0--302
0-
8.0-a-
303s
6.0
0
304
305
306
4.c
2.0
308
-
310
0.0---
311
-
q~
--
c\-
403
Date
Figure B-19 Press Line 3 Inventory Maintained Daily By Job
LINE 4 - Days of Inventory By Job
- 307
- - ...
330
5
-
330.2
4
331
-*-331.2
K
~711
1
0
(-
401
402
-407
Date
40
411
Figure B-20 Press Line 4 Inventory Maintained Daily By Job
81
APPENDIX C: MANUFACTURING SYSTEM DESIGN QUESTIONAIRE
This appendix contains a copy of the Manufacturing System Design Questionnaire developed by
Professor David Cochran and Joachim Linck. The intent of the questionnaire is to support the use and
application of the Manufacturing System Design Decomposition (MSDD) process. The questionnaire is
used to assess a given manufacturing system against each Functional Requirement (FR) in the MSDD and
evaluate on compliance with the MSDD.
This questionnaire was used as a tool to assess the current manufacturing system at the Wayne stamping
plant. The results were then used in coordination with the Value Stream Mapping process and data
collection to identify core system problems and areas for improvement.
The following pages contain the questionnaire itself.
82
Prof. Davi S. Cochmn
Asociate Professr of'
Mochzutd Engineu* Mrr
e-Ail:
77 Massachusetts Ave.
Room 35-130
Cambzidp, MA 02139
Tel 617 -258 6769
Fax: 617 - 452 2288
hnp:#psdanitodu
*
*ochnuoniltedu
CambIdge,
Dear snvcy pfcq1t
Januaty 22, 2001
,
We gnmdy apprecite yowr me xndeot filing oit Ie questOrnaist.
The qpsstxnwakre consistS of two pans. Pkase answer all qncstias tithcr by
checking the appropiate boxor by wt-ng in the blank space provided,
Please retumr the qucaomai= tofr addeu shown above,
, pkm
If you have any quesions about the quesi
or Prof, David S, Cotrn at the adtm show# abovt
dctct Jovhim Luck
Thank you voy mucL
Sincsuty,
A '4
Prof David Cocman
loachin lnck
Pledue of Conridendalt,
lnfimmion provid in this quesliowiaire win n"t be pmesetd or published in
any way that would identi y any penso plant, or ctnprny wihout the witten
permission of tha vompmy.
PAe I O5
83
Part1: ManufacturingSystem Design QuAtionnaire
Plant InfornYOtin:
Please proide lh *lowlng
Company name:
nuns'
namw
flwm. idmelhfy the
OMWY
Pwat
A
toumvnAsn so we can ge in touch wlt you tot ft
______________________________
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Y" rn for wt h on ar* OcmphInO VW qsstlonnhre.
v"s 1*0W VQnf) Swawo pVOQ*mo@@S*y to PoPI*tflwr o pot For *!oiRI S
4# m m rm neuivvwan hnvw tmwn nwraw 1enwia wydvwn meee and aweanb
Value Strea amine
Street
ZP code
State:
Respondent
Name d respondent
Respondents tuncion:
Phone numbr
Fax
xmber
email
Page 2 ds
84
PartI: Manufacturing System Design Quesdonnaire
I Which Industuy segment best Identues yoursysm?
Can con
AUtomcve
Cons^" Products F
Eeftren
Eletronis F
Aemrpace and Defense
Indusit ma*tnvy
am nwA&*t
rn
Mining and met F
Med"a deos F
F
09.
2. What products or* made in the ntue
vtrem?
3. Please identify the opratnat* Wre used to make the product(s).
4. Product 4ntormation
a) How many different produt(s)
do you produce in ho value
stream?
b) How many products do yu
produce per day?
c) What Is the approxkMat
sirze of the productfs)?
(cubi frk
d)
PbSI
What
is the approximate weight?
a) How many pat does the
oroduct conSist o?
Pame 3 of 5
85
Part / Manufacuring System Design Questonnaire
5. Quality related metrics
a) intermal dated ral
b) interal scrap rate
c) doted Met of strippedf prudueb
t
1
0. Operating metics
a) Numberof Opewtna 5 pvrday
b) Number of operaIng houn per sleudurd
novvonertime shiftt en* mwus breaks)
c) Numr of operomng days pa wock
d) Number of regular
days peyear
prodcin
-Weekdy
*Satwur__y_
d) Number of ovrwime
7. Delivery related
k
-rdea
d-y perar
netrics
st ctaomer reguested ddiver datsa
ream to coninad d*rr dates
hl shonent freouencv to vour custo
c) yeary prernhim fnight costs
1%]
IN)
(SmensF day)
hOUwsand $1
1,
Pae 4 ot15
86
PartI: ManufacturingSystem Design Questionnaire
S. Iwnftory rofat~t mobfs
What werf yow tinenby levl4?
(In fracions of shft)
a)fnlshed gocxh
iw
b) raw materkel
C) niatmetie goods i
d) ihterMett goods 2
0) Irmndnile goods 3
W ktsredbt* goods 4
9. Other inatuics
a) Occupied toot space
(indt macining- asseoy. stcflge.
jWshfti
It shbts
(#sbMs)
Pt sft)
tIowin SW w
e
aiskss0
b) Parsonne
- number of dreot waders (a# shifts)
number of Indlrmt woekers (id sh8t4
nwmber of other persone (al sNeft)
v) Captat emjdo0yed
d) Return
on assets
Phounnd$I
N
Thank you vy much - Oea vor4nue with PaU
Pace 5 of 5
87
Responte4t n00:
COmpany name:
POure /fmotCO:
Plans locadton:
hiAtt Nfrram Snare:
____________
Panl.: Manafacturing System Desig Qestiennaire
CII
Asam
we*
tmlnatW wicmhe *eulnnwbW "ats
10*
Fa~ure mete SitE ciNnit an
-
wwc.C Modacasafdeeeatsf*ebtotwwn~
ftd* iMIt
Ih Wore ci fewts cand
*lvt ** MW"
CW
"
0
-
p(0V04111qfrn * 84
Uprinui ito vmany veined am fts job
We ontlnucusfl AnprMe frbk6tt pteftte.nt
S
_________
O te
0
0
0
0
0
aetr
5
0
00 0 0
0' 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
2
3
4
Oement
0
0
0
* many pour doesa tht it Poo vOer
4c40 on trtn cr Van
ke theSe tvs
Pam It
0
0
0
Comeant
$
A
0 tchs kow ustrn ad dawwt'eeny
Ofac.&Sl"
-
0
4
tw
We have srerdd tenn
-
0
0
1
-
3
Mww
"f" "*
rflndhpndn
Trallnu program
-
2
paw
Page 1 of 14
88
PartIh ManufaturingSystem Design Quesionnaire
Q12
Enauto that operator cowmlstvntly performs tasks
c orrecl .
3tsncfaW wot
mqAQy
3
0
0
is
We erf-ers vial every operaior
acrcwdin fabO womrk roAmod
prOfle
00
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 000
the twAs
00
00 0
0
srngv
Ensure tftt osraior huwAnatanon do not tranait *rtny
to defects
012
# Comnent
Work rnetIodS hae been 44*4~ for wCh ersOctO
Viiriantn im qztettyit reduced s1hor by e4uetq #h
M
Mt Oet
t lItO*Ah Ov.m& t*M
-
5
4
lmwacs are trrrolved in craw"bng 1w moat methods
A wAftrn cy
of opereioss etndardok
avnib at each sinton
-
wme
methods
12
-
dom,
gvW
a
tnr-Oat
awN
-
istak poaol OpwStiooe $PotakYak)
1 2
3
5
4
rka.heY dstee we f-~ally
-
g'wovk
tot tt d efetde ed du ret sed
swiq*a
-We
Ohvm dcwt~teain0
peratorscod for help
-
0
A tNe
rpt
Eliminate mathod afssanabe
Process ln deskin
c#usn*
0 Q 0 00
0y
00n
0
din net
4"nt si*n
4Wgl
1 1 5 4
ethodl,
We ortbet-abe reedmctIsb
014
Et~lnwtsa nvaelori~1 ns$Vbt,* cauwos
Suppler quchre proeram
0
0
ukhly is our mer one citetn i selectkq
We oopserato
-
-
with suvplirs to ensure Watt free
demmix, of pwts
PAM-ill
0
0 0
aoof
e
ee
Comment
0__________
0
0
iaqns
4
0
0_________
0
______
don4 no
5
5
0
0 0 0 :0 0
0
0 0 000
0
0 0 0 :0 0
n***s*1 ut
I cnvfng m$mMr4 4 0ite free.
t
II u coWpeete wt siers.
or aft how you o it
0
0
0vnwgst
1213
-.
$
0 0
0
Comment
v*M
*M________
0
ulrngfr
ercovng. cur oparators io bnpnw, wol
-We
0
00
WW t
Commepg
0
destae
Vageiott
89
PartII: ManufacuringSyem Design Questionnaire
Q2
on the tarne
fllustmsnt
Center process moan
Process paramoler
agree
142 3
Ptocestt
-
o
s0o
0 0
meet is only set wilin
on-IWK
W *M0
y
:Wt*f 4they are
-
SPdfid*10
p for__e" 0 t
*l&AqigwithinU~w
4
Cmm
0 0n0
0
0
0Wl not
0
0
0 0 00
0 0
0r0
0
____ _ __kA
0
f(04 WVoWgh $tPC
Reduce nots in oreceslnptsts
QM
dtsjw
tl
ConMelfion of common tiUtia IbtO nt*Igtbl
tIno I*
4~
#Mgy
do "ew
et
W
tee.
12
Icornt ant asaqgnchte cnau t valimntn a
Ct'14 euet,
1)
0
Rfls
outset
0
0
'We
h;Wo M"0005~eeead.
twrmiure P.Mat1 eaWSe Mt*, GISK q*
We4i
a
e imn ttocess
otnit rea$#v
Reduce Irneect at Inpt ases en neoceee
032
-
RI It
sr-nge
_________
0
_____e
0
0
zwewfrp
2
0
__________
doncu
#
00
0
00 0
0
ow procesees tnacttle to
0itwibwoge rond utsdie (eg. seteri or
p vtttmeiI hnk enress
:0 00
We hawe standard proc#*nv to tuntwoS* root
rS4sa qof aleV vmadlan.
00
sIMM#
nng'y
bs&~
$ectne dowutus am ImmeadIi*ely nobicd (ce.
W0004" WreretionM 4n ay oe netest desk")
We t44 GnEt* vsoth s MeAnn boards or radf
cowwnnceahicns to S"gnsl ttc ocourreeme 0#
00
4
s5
3
We have man*
12
-
0
-
mracsic tesip,
Idanify disruatIons Ownee tev "rtco
tactnnt*d operator sumpflne rate of enesment it
-
-
0
0
0
Comment
0 er 0 OWkf0 to 0 dol 0
1
-
5
-
Thhnnes frm
aid0 thems0
beo they can Aset the orc&eS cutout
-
4
atn.
J
4
5
does
Commur
.r
nwtv
0
Comment
0000
0 00000
diomntoa.
-
Operators can natty isiete er they mre stead C
anNr4 SchedAt
ariat"e if" " ***roi *oe " " "n
'an H
*'a ""ty ow*ed
0 0 0 0 0
0 000
0
00
_
_
_
_
Pqr ouJ
90
PartI:
Man ufaturingSystem Design Quesionnaire
Vft$* Identdty diarupttons where they scur
doefs
2
1
-wrut
OctaO tot*ed tO
i&f*Duuv:b4 a
I
0
are qrk
0
Rhl Jdentlywhat the disruptionls tig
Coontot sensltve tseflac&
"o dle*tn ti
Myom expuset dbtittnuamn oes Vis
es
n
r
arv
2
s 5
3
o
Q Q Q
00
Comment
o
o
_________
________
-'_________
o o o o *o0
we #my I*agnew
Identfi cotrect suasort reunaincs
Slnn y
th 1ero moofd; 510W
$SeO-itted .uoo f#esource. #orOa
R122
dor not
-'
at a Prodflo unit Is kinp be~,
R121
0___
:0
snngy
nasy to reonrt Ie~g maccudelag min sddma'
ol 4spni
0
,ksMWrer
t We ae adad spens
Braadewra
Comment
0
0
0
0
0
1
-
0
at
-0
0
0
0
......
n be m..ed by
hne,dbwnll
do'anstrutw procames became yropnmmm
semated from each other eer physicfty or
SVOI* taroe tnfltev
-Our
5
4
df
0eM 0
poects thy 0t oows lImedift ted
oprat#ws
diwupond 40g twennwm
-
3
____
otsagEr@S5p~t
NW
de
Smry
dOW
_
$p#
Rapid wuppott conlact prov-*dur*
04 rmn,*nwW-Wem doviw
FsO4 e 1
.t q. wAie rncers, 51 tO c
12
l0DpA
deA In
*wrm
R123
kklyCte c
ionnm tach
Oect, by
tk s d
dIngr'
oft-
1 2
We avee hiaemaion devIces (e.g. a
rMlpne
-
Part I I
Pnu
which
dkpmy aS tme
sthaw " C*We
NNdoN
ufiapom and acet0 a
bae to understand a"rim urln*.
0
0
0
MinmI
e flike MOr support recurte to undarstoat nre8
dIsruption
dpW
SVt*M that conveys What the dIarutiAlos it
-
0
0
wr navdece
-
3 4
2
1
0
0
0
0
veznmgly
a__ ec
_
34
0M0d00
0
0
nd_
0
dots plo
Arvo
5
00
000
0
0 Comment
5
a Comment
0
0
Ah 4 of 14
91
Part H: ManufacturingSystem Design Questionnaire
Rt3
v $oi~ obems lmmwdiltv
-Sandard method to identf asd oHmtnaute rn.I
"S*w4
12
INO Weow slandard p,.codeg t ..
4*X&.RW
____#r~~
dkisjt
v
a Comment
45
0 0 0 0 0
Wre oy# iren4utrl Orwt sesOr* wern we dscua
pettsllr1n and develop s0tutee t p0e00nt
teaccWact,
To keep proMtuln MNAt nO usWay SPOe
pcotlr artp t-wOR"erwiy. ReoCcrMenO of t
4#fUJpOtS # kk44 Sir" T* roCa wan It sA
Opeatrwx 0P 1ta tap I tt c Ov eo tov
-
Psi
0
00
00 0
mihorty to
19&4 flC*tt&rv SFtO'S be rvnot mq Sensions.
00000
SeAng
to^v mfld yVU chtarcterue yorpeifM
ienb .ns
praceSA (t*Am bset. Klflte
Mnwt !O0*At riven Vt)
d40r"aN
1
040 ot*0tl hawe
reaArq th(Or ts
toe o.w'*cc*W
-
)vtn o produce,
-
Mm tol VnoeAo
e
O.era a brave ow
2
34
5
0 0 0 0 0
s u*dtand VAst to proom,
and how to poodue.
0 0 0 0 0
. acces to . roc. We r.m.."i
St We cr~on hpve aroithOr dtgsN*ons to 1iR*Xng
0
0
Enswe avaltebtift of reevant croduotlon informug
Capable and teleable
onnornaiErsoterM
-
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 000
0
Comment
0
0
0
0
NAlaw WrItOnti regewdig productON Is MO*
imlpant to you7 rOw do y CnOmmmnime
the
t
riwnobtcet andi rnak. # acami
-
Part it
da *d eaptms krow whet, whenk pod-how awd
they wb sumesod to crvoy,. rnstoteft. prdin
ropar? Please 0et the i#oi ways l banfer thtee
Pagt $ of 14
92
PartI: ManufacturingSystem Design Questionnaire
PI2t ensue that souuemeot Is *anly envicnbl
Macns deaioned for servlc*a*bliyf
srt
don A
dmi
1
0
aae
abl toptflm uwlend sawoa chetkS
*4Nbhl abrfpti
I
g p0odudn
-Wtt
-
th aba ty w
w"o icM eqtw
0ia
0
00
0
5
4
3
comment
_________
0
0
0
0
tdentimn
requtremeis tot its desgn tg. aocusiti4Mty.
2
0
0
0_______
0
0;0
0
no~a b t to rmonto "e pecesa
eadwnswebAefty om "crooneeb
Repwarp 4wevt WusAyNY uid
by otAd0
I-rtatts or the equipmnnt Vwnmot
a n tnne
-
n
m
Pt?? Srvice oulpmatqufl
Asaula: a raventative malnteneace program
0
0
0
0
We dedicate a porlkin c every day sofely 10
mrovantt maowMriene M few 0* trevufiva
tr lonarcea citatite
2
00
W- are o vtsf beind p
Wouo ot soB dflo WW
no nne foe' preva a mnhvma. Repair fl
ms mbfrienno.
000
-
0 0
0
0
__
v
4TV
3
4
O
410
0 Coszuenl
5
00 0
0
000
00000
0
Our eqipmnar4 mwe toeh are An o tip *We of
Wadnews at si ties
00000
0
_
_
_
painereentgag of Ie do yu dedicate for
.efeoMive esinerfce?(Sne for Frrventlve
manemarca SaratAisl p'vdution foe)
-
-
Pail
0
0
nope prope mwrenamce as a Stratefy for
AOv*e4WV schedtt trobnc.e
Wen
-
0
atfysnwt
404ate
1
-
0
Moat peientago l 0oe I&iost d"n to wnledAd
myntnanoe? iunschedue) nauktrane I
vp 6 of. 14
93
Part II: Manufacturing System Design Questionnaire
Reduce wariabt!itl of Rsk comMe0lon tha
Stindard work methods to Provide repeAM.
O
mraceeaina te
Pill
-
-
00
Vwiai' im work cmn#.tin tim is b"q "jw
MtOuO
. work Omdw
sitter w4 0% *e.
acttatcr tWnint1
0 0
Essure atetltAbltv of workers
Perfect Attndanc Preoram
#
00 0
0
0 0
i
0 0 0 0 0
We*+ c"OnwtcinOm of tOw ame took ohme wirts
atwon cmnetors.
"em a high vaftvmo Ot work cwpteltm w
between eotes of the some operator.
PUZ
12345
We tmt each ope'etvi etefi btetati e iwiude
in the workt itlttta.ios
the .rhtar
Viies n
ifm !,-.tAm operdto is wtbe to
'
* *"
w" ""ob o 1 t*%
A "n w
Rt" eyJe (the wink loops eo fleae and opertns
can Mbit each otherk.
-
4t3 y
2me
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
It se-gre
stefy
0
Comment
0
-
125145
-
* Op+rsos ae#t thei WO MOn
* wtn thy
ore oseuosed w be theea
0
Op'ralorscm c work r ahead of chAdle and tei n
0 0000
ur.wrMItd bmnk
-
Unlanned seteem aan efects Ow Oft to
p trdct to
10ht&ie
i'
What sur 1~
pcr yar lonly
arage percentage of sew'Ielsm
unpunmed absMeelei such as
at watt Olce)
ComMea
00
0 0
000
00 0
- --
-- -
mlrntss. not ahowim
Part II
94
PartIf: ManufacturingSystem Daign Quesdonnaire
Ork not intarrupt production for worker ailowama
454)
Mutual Relief Siten W1e
SMAwon
-
404ew
cress-tralnOd wetters
0 0 0
pt sat aloweitat j#.4 1wt psnttte hfllfl
ruwae wed to orodion dimzpbans
-
as r o atrea t to e e Gpos
w6t t you
hepung Uveyn prott* hqgh quahy prehCta
-
dae*Ow
ok
1Wan
S
Vi w hae strdnd prctodtrms in place for rraja
AWW41
45
0 Comment
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
tn
-
CWC*in
ttine
rt0 - eiM g el04 tr-nd ta g Pert in
arn 0n
des4gtig teir workptce - having suggafions
OfltbN imfltvt - oilier
aroated -
c/ chae catted ii
Wheat
-
the peius quetiet In
-
elate?
'rteese c"Ode)
onb a teen s biting wedl trained
-tubing
-rt
ic
dnsgng Itsr workplace - having etggesbocs
arnreraed nmwnear mcmntvua
Pl
enurw Ibat pat I me available to 00
smagiw
OAsr
rttia
doAs
Standard work In preass tA#utwesn a-aelme
Comm-ex
i~wentory t*3ween S4
W 0 Nrv6 OAndAwd faf *0
ach pat,
vAsift
-Operabonls
unvsttr
taov i,
-
P14.2
y
ho apanty
gnotruibti
wr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
in
Ow
Wr
ipCr
insists pOPer ttiwlap of pin atitts
Parts moved to dow slreaaM operations aeertdin;
NM*
dkawrr
Wstgt
ar
A TF
"off* aedpter*r C a jiatdr4nef beats.
freuency at mneltioi dellnry is 6nart e
cr'urnpton as Opposed to poIset dobav toiest
SThe
-
a
|V|** wt l"fo"''
wAv~tVift
Prt It
of deW"na*o
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0
00 0
0
00
____
____
drW, OI
0
,
.-
tAuved dj* to
Comment
Pae *of 14
95
Parti: ManufacturingSystem Design Questionnaire
srrgly
Redue lot Ulay
Rednction of transfer batch size (is ass-ece 0*o
TI
d
A*
OE2
1
000
fThe WTnUI " trn bafti *&0 is auay wwMar Ui
2 hoiss of gwaducdon matWim
0
or
ozo
W*
3
2
5
4
0-----
0
0
0
COimeat
0
0
0
0
#
"4pos cSMW44 qua**#" bew&e&n
*w#M, a 4- eeth bvi manspoft5h ONm
We W4a V*W
-
-o
nwnbe or posft
Weine timt t UWI$I
721
dews not
Onpb
0rRS4
OEW
Denltfn or groupIng of customers to ebeIovy tab
W
£24
*i"1
within Adeal an*e
1 2 3 4 5 9 Comment
We dptswwe 1Sta tne at an w*8 ege of a
00i190n roe
~nendatflin
-
0
0
0
0
0
0
_
_
_
_
_
_
cettt ka* r etaboawe here ar
frthbout the value stream and production pace is
ba*ed on btd tfIn
- *e $c yu
vnst-
dewnwe te minter of ftwn
for a
How do yot dotftikeINe cyle tmes t4e each
opwrsoin #t vWW *feles
.an*
Ensure that automat.c ccl. tame emnImuwm at
time
Design of appropriate aulosiaSIe work cnslent at
0eh etehUho
T221
n- rM1Y
dAie_
1
-
prir ocesses
We 4esin Ou Mt~tiU*
cVyle tuma losely matches the lAM "tIe,
M tat the
we longer Ow t
bmw, we try to dMeO the operaton Ie two r Oe
00
When sitamtnl yh00 mw
-
tether wan bering to mAciwnes pe
0
2
,vmgy
atWW
3
4
00
5
de
w
t
-
or
COMmit
00 0
000
0
ft ths
sjre cerstoest
-
PIAt 1
Wve %UtAY y Wyto nrnle iii naiter of meclnes
by decreactog th eycle tOOM per meewt regadles
of taw oe
0 0 0 0 0
0
Eas9 sf14
96
Part II: ManufacturingSystem Design Questionnaire
T221
that manual cyde tne 4* takt tme
Ensur,
Do shgn at appropflata operator work
rr
Oktrrr
)(
We doesign each cparawIor wink "oo to n as danM
1K*
laM Otr
4
3
2
1
-
dws MW
i
-
stontwustoAp
0
0
0
ms vK44"O
0
$
__________
0
0
0
Wt SAk mW vCyle
wi ty o divit the operation Oifttw or more
waOmn to achieve a Wnl with snch operation
(ratier tfa he ng two opeistas perh~uanng tW
T23
-te
-
Ensure lvqy cyvle tins mis
Stacoer crouafutan of parts Wih difRetSd twts l
-
fa
imanvct uwnt
2
0
5
4
0
0
n larer
0 0
-t-
tM
ow
Cm ment
Q
pryumd we snutal parts W1
-----
tkts.
anief t 1*
0
04T nun sizes ufOwal on onsmpt" w rut ot WO
'
fty
"" ri""*t#"
""it """ow
h O
0
0
0
0
0
______
-
a valeis ;toad* ooAwt 4 th_____or
tte
T23
3
0
Sist*
OPP&
rigi
gem
______
1
ts oMt ae fer
Comment
vr_ sigfy
om
EItin* that Daft arrtval tate is se4al Se sto ict rle* o 10r
Ardvat ot pars at downstreur operation*
1.4 pl~it
at
aEt acw
1
0
O W ul ai~41C aross the process fte.
-
Woof
a tiomw t
2
3
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
dons
0
Comment
0
______
*O
vmt kwnume wvn oat* of cuslonw deAin
t Owe
0
0____
VaKie stream
1I
Reduce run aie delay
Paaeusin t fthee ste mix uwt quantity during
tacht dsmafl Inteval
ctdtatsyd
uty mt
t ouco
e
Wve frvcluenrv puodre fiOe 40f losn) than
* W0
OMd
sar
) sit partcW
l.yol oaf day thael the dVowflk**W
cttoWfit
ds AhE
-,"y
dmharr
12
3
4
5
0
00000
0
00 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0
Wna Vhm u r po~hv Ms eivnrttlg nor smss fr ir
deweft
aoarMaXMo?
Comment
0
-
part I
97
PartH1: ManufacturiA System Desixn Questionnaire
fT
Provide fnowledgmoi dastmied product oin $Jve
typel and ouwwttIe$
#t*4
sttoviv
#.rsrx
4Wkr
APt
______
informaton fl** fWom downstream customer
1
Wsuha oalyen
-OurOpatr
T3?
00
in
terproct*mloncca
0 0
0 0
a
0
ocst
Produce In sufficmlnity sma ran sioes
0 0 0
0 0 0
:0 0
0 0
** O Po*tg*"hi""w*
-
WeOn ontmotetupine
o
enltrfe whit he #mo rwne is ante
to y *tc* S~w$ tine 0 0 0
-
We have low Setup thAs
Ova.am1d %,Ou* stream
for aqutpMa ien
-
WO'
"Uf
"nd t hays
e0
o
W*v -
M
*ip"
OW so Ilm OW
r 00 tins r
5
0
0
o
.Mwwgbs
tAA~
yt
4
0
0
* t0
0
0 0
nnurr
aunt
2
3
_____
_______
4
*41
0 Cemmen
0
0
0
-
_o
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
0 0 me**0
0
0
os "Y;
amo
5
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
1
r' bci*%t and gnefts
o
0
Retiree traasportstion delay
Matedal now moiented layout desian
-
_
fi
1 2 3
-
0_____
0
0
Wrer co
em
eqilpment
t4
Comment
0
________es
Dettw quick chaneover for materIWW badig
sthedtt
0
s
Of fts ch"Ae Ocee
uMMOpmrahnWCe* NYsd*Md
-
4
00
*
tonemet
3
2
ach acter
Th shop hoo: ivym hot kmoi derir"n
puft l
Papiie
4
98
PartII: ManufacturintSystem Design Questionnaire
TSI
tnsvn 11cM support actIvItIes 6. hOt Interfere will
production actvitIes
g
.ayg
Sbsystems and equipment conlgeund to sopera
support and productIon access rete'
1234
*Dokwy
or n"we"e do"
pi 001400Q
algca ItS
-
to t
t
due t the noed for fork hit to vmv
MWtsAWWhndfng and
0
~esU" produg"to
Mhi vAwt
Enstethet mgoduowctltiez
one another
0
0
0 0
0 0 000
bo tt
up
070erW hnusnwtl poderm. a8ent, wIth
dnatt ithe scandsrdsd ws6
TSI
0
0
wesnw"p
owm
hso to leave
rtow nalenat.0
0
000
o
large bina
lo"s 0%4"e
Oes nt oMf the owe o fthe oromacn
-
5
0 Comment
0
00
_
0
_
0
0
00
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
00 0
wtermtn wi sfty wu
dolt
v dmot
Ensts coordination and sepstalio Wi peoductin
work paterms
3
Solov
wmaew*"*" wOf
-o TMdo" not iteadro
ci pnorshoei
100 **
0
olMIN SMmiat asperoffi ad WAt*
VMnerftbCqoslkmsdlnthe ti*4 4$Ina.-4
4o00 act Mt #olve Owing orulon
-TMA
7$)
Ensure that
support aucfliss
neeldemaunt tentlneriane wi~ one sooth
Ensure coordination and sepalon of support wt
osterms
0
0
xrcng
jwe
-
0
-
i
Dil .l, 444"a timepeators epend aft noftowciue added
tasks at each staden
Mac Ninas*& st~i"St
dseleo I* to eutortomlows
$
C tmment
lai 0 W 0 toO n
0
0
0
s
cure
12
*h 48t
eastise~,
o
twA#s-0tt4l#*
med
n.ooti c o f.Sw W
mw KThe
*
p&
iien cateeitdudatin 0* Oifl phtI*
ckes nc4 iust ev0a
durin operationr
4
0
0
An,
4
5
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
SfrUn*A'
0
00000
p9?*$Z usutoty w4al ea macic" w0 imlhe
100 vwe #ne As trshed.
Sr des gned to etmninste w ncited tot
erltt
o ils hemr
cy .n
4oMalrss
AMIU
0 0
_________
dmnaa
a
-
Comtment
now
ovinltmg fortvgue almdtme wesen at oamc
steli it * orltv ci lIsten design
c
-
________
4w not
nw*
3
00
s&mne
0
Ceoawrs
0
00 0 0
00 0 0 0
0
0
PIt
24.14
99
PartII: ManufaduringSystem Design Questionnaire
012 Enable worker 4o oprfte mmu than ci mathlea
statlon
Tslen 1h workers to onerat mutIpta statlons
mvftt
XfrpnAy
Qsvm
____
4A not
anN
u
we
o
ow*.orss
Th*
oW tWnVwr
00 00 0 0
am w~
0
w
fat ln" "rtdd
Plnt nii''""s are
Ae$.ot,
nfme*i ""a"''p""
-
Em
w
Offievn
Wusemt.e w s;d moton ci esaratmaies
0
0
0
0
0s,
0.
_
_
_ _
o
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
:0
0.0 inst
mngfy
4not
____fa
*tafmwn
Configure machins I staons to rtduce walkng
diaung*
0
4 i
-
Comment
d~itn.t"
teng aqwmsa4MO firm d "n
W1* t#ujw*y
IaOf "VeOiWgr.
cosder thner
dr oramabaloon
-tost
ton
"awatone
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
&Ao
dowsi
stepr
smiw
watetd motion toppeters' work
-
______
0
0
0
riot " ave to wat Asy,0
022 ltomMIr
0
0
-
Standard tos 0eqU*muett locO0d atsadh *Men
12
-
wt bev.
-
Thou tc'prt.sm
vp We Rk*isit
Otte to coiditn
-
US"aw"Ns"rAh""I"it""
.. task y .huqi "*
nsw
sttknq wm*"a in teen sn
3
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 00
0
0 0 0 0 0
4
a
Commeng
0
0
0
100
PartIi: ManufacturingSystem Design Questionnaire
023 Uitnlaw waseud motion in opmrfots work, bae
4^m*4
triwvh
NW
A3
Ergonomic Irfracs betweena t woflv, tmachislbwctl
and ktaure
1 2
-
'wr*evc.
N.cowflsrtl~rn O0c
*etert, *cis mt
wt w"W*wZ
lw
3
0 0 0
MWarr
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
**tZa****W
Comment
0
-
o
otut dosiqtr
aigr
Bkalanced wmtk-0oo.
123
-
5
4
Bamntchk work. Mops o pedarm s an fMpoflf
.ystm desin c2'ea.vt
4
0 0 0 00
Mw
0 Comment
5
0
" is ~ *vtie case POTwvMNn &tea cOgerots
gome o idla fat pat of Ow t dv ce. white s we
busy far the arire cvfle.
We Oftm 4*wgn wot low kW Oe
weaopenet flomgwe.- o tos 9
e sane team
'
tO
fO
e
0
O iv0 0
0 O
0
_____
panf1
101