LEAN THINKING (EBUS507)
Assignment No. 2 - Lean tools
Set by Prof Dongping SONG
Date of issue:
27th June 2021
Date of submission: Monday 22nd July 2021 before 12 noon (ELECTRONIC
SUBMISSION ONLY)
Contribution:
50%.
Essay length:
2000 words excluding references and appendix.
Question 1 (50%; maximum 1000 words):
Line Balancing is a classic, well-researched Operations Management/Research
problem of significant industrial importance. Your task is to solve the problem below.
Suppose a production line is designed to operate 7.5 hours per day and supply a
steady demand of 450 units per day. The line efficiency is assumed to be 100%.
The production line performs 12 tasks. The task operation times (in minutes) and
their precedence relationships are given in Table 1. You are required to determine
the number of workstations and the assignment of the tasks to balance the
production line, and meet customer demands by applying the longest-task-time (LTT)
heuristic and the Ranked Positional Weights (RPW) method, respectively. You need
to present and explain the solution procedures appropriately and contrast the results
of LTT and RPW. In addition, you are required to discuss line balancing methods
beyond the case context with supporting references.
Table 1. Description of the tasks, time and precedence relationships
Task No.
Task time (minutes)
Preceding tasks
Task 1
0.61
Task 2
0.58
Task 3
0.51
Task 4
0.36
Task 5
0.56
Task 6
0.73
Task 7
0.37
1
Task 8
0.35
3, 2
Task 9
0.52
5, 4
Task 10
0.32
7, 6
Task 11
0.42
10, 9, 8
Task 12
0.58
11
Question 2 (50%; word limit 1000~1200):
Identify a case study that implements the Kanban systems (please do not use the
case studies used in our lectures and seminars). Discuss the implementation the
Kanban systems in the case context in relation to relevant theories. Support your
arguments with relevant literature.
1
ULMS ASSIGNMENTS – Criteria for Assessment
Extremely thorough and authoritative execution of the brief. Containing
90 - 100%
evidence of significant independent research, reflective, perceptive,
well-structured, showing significant originality in ideas or argument,
aptly focused and very well written, in appropriate register; few areas
for improvement. Potentially worthy of publication.
80 - 89%
Thorough execution of the brief, well-structured, clearly argued. Signs
of originality and/or independent critical analytical ability. Supported by
independent research, materials well utilised; well focused and well
written, displays mastery of the subject matter and of appropriate
theories and concepts.
70 - 79%
Good execution of the brief; well-focused, knowledgeable, strong
evidence of reading beyond the basic texts. Good critical grasp of
relevant theories and concepts.
60 - 69%
Well-structured and well-focussed answer with strong evidence of
reading beyond the basic texts. Thorough and comprehensive in
approach. Displays a good knowledge of the subject matter and where
appropriate displays sound grasp of relevant theories and concepts.
Approach generally analytical.
50 - 59%
Competently structured answer, reasonably well-focused and
comprehensive but tending to be descriptive in approach. Limited
evidence of reading beyond the basic texts. May contain excessive use
of quotations.
40 - 49%
Tending to rely entirely on lecture materials. Almost entirely descriptive
in approach, limited knowledge and understanding of the subject
matter displayed; partial and/or containing significant errors and/or
irrelevancies; poorly structured. May contain excessive use of
quotations.
30 - 39%
Inadequate execution of the brief. Highly partial and/or containing
serious errors; contents partly or substantially irrelevant. Poorly
structured. Displays little knowledge of the subject matter. May contain
excessive use of quotations.
0 - 29%
Seriously inadequate execution of the brief. Failure to focus upon the
question. Seriously short or even devoid of theoretical under-pinning.
Large sections irrelevant. May contain excessive use of quotations.
2