Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

The area of analysis is the base prep area at Monarch Hydraulics in Grand Rapids MI by bnWs0X

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 2

									                                                                   Jeff Drzewiecki
                                                                   EGR 470
                                                                   3/17/00

                                Analysis Tool Overview
                                    Assingment #6


        The analysis tool that was chosen was a time study. The area of analysis is the
base prep area at Monarch Hydraulics in Grand Rapids MI. Currently the line functions
and meets demand, but it has a lot of room for improvement. The analysis tool that will
be used to study the flow of product through the area is a time and motion study.
        The line currently has several staging areas where product sits awaiting the next
operation to be performed and at time two people doing the same job. When the two
people are working they are fed the product and stage the product in the same area. This
means that they have to move around the other person working in the area. This creates
wasted steps, which leads to wasted time and money. This also increases the probability
of damage to the bases from increased manual handling. The line in it is current
configuration has a flow from one end to the other but the flow lines cross in two places.
         The time study will look at balancing the current line, and other possible
configurations of balanced lines using the same number of people as the current
production system uses.
        There are two methods of recording time study data. The "snap back" and the "
continuous " methods of time study. The snap back method is one where only one cycle
or time or the time to complete one operation is recorded. The continuous method is one
where the through put over a given time is divided by the total time to complete the
operation on the through put. The snap back method is easier to use because only the time
needs to be recorded. The continuous method requires the time to be recorded along with
the number of parts produced over that time and the average to be taken. The continuous
method also gives a record of the complete observation time. The average calculated is a
good reference to compare changes to. The snap back method also does not allow for the
time for the hands to be set back to the zero position.
        Neither of these studies takes into account the experience and physical condition
of the operator. The operator's performance also must rated by the observer and compared
to what is considered to be normal. So the results of the study may need to be adjusted to
what is going to be considered the normal operator to maintain what is considered an
average pace.
        Some assumptions also need to be made when using this study over more than
one operator or shift. It mist be assumed that the way studied is the most efficient or
effective way to do the operation. Time and ergonomic studies should support this. The
assumption also needs to be made that all of the tasks to be completed properly during the
entire study. There is not a universally accepted method for rating the operator's
performance. The ways used most often are judgmental and are not entirely objective. If
short cuts are taken during the test some of the benefits shown by the calculations may be
false.
         The way the line will be studied is to measure the through put for a given set of
parts using the current method of assembly. Then several snap shots of certain operations
will be taken and averaged. The line will then have several different assembly flows
analyzed, and the most efficient will be recommended. The data acquired using the snap
shot data will be used to model how moving certain operations to different operators will
effect the lines production time. The efficiency will be calculated by taking the amount of
product produced over a certain time and dividing it by the total number of parts
produced. There is some room for error in this method. The line will have the operators
doing some things in new ways that they are not accustomed to, and this could give
inaccurate data about the way the line will function in the future. The learning curve will
attempt to be adjusted for in the study, but due to the lack of experience with the line and
the operators the error could be rather large.
         Some of the proposed alternate ways of completing the task with increased output
are having two lines doing the same job, or only splitting up the last half of the prep area.
Having more than one base prep area could also allow the lines to react faster to changes
in parts that they need to supply down stream. They currently change assemblies several
times a day and the more they change the more time gets wasted waiting for the new
parts to arrive. The study will also be looking at the way the product is staged before,
during and after the base prepping occurs. Some recommendations may be made and
supported with data to show how much time could be saved if the distance the operator
moves was reduced. Currently some of the operators have to move around the others to
obtain parts to assemble. This creates confusion and wastes time and money. Some
recommendations may also be made on the location of the line or lines. The closer the
line is to the final assembly area the less time it will take to get the parts there. This study
will attempt to find several different ways to increase the through put of the base prep
area and recommend several solutions with data to support the findings.

References cited:

1. Gavreil Salvendy. Handbook of Industrial Engineering. volume 1. John Wiley and
Sons, New York, New York.

2. Which Work Measurement Tool. Manufacturing Engineering; Dearborne; Mar 1999;
C Bruce Gowan

3. Key Drivers of Reduced Cycle Time. Research Technology Management; Washington;
Aug 1998; Ashok K. Gupta

								
To top