dinamica fabril

Post on 24-Apr-2015

188 Views

Category:

Documents

4 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

TRANSCRIPT

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com1

Basic Factory Dynamics

Physics should be explained as simply as possible, but no simpler.

– Albert Einstein

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com2

HAL Case

Large Panel Line: produces unpopulated printed circuit boards

Line runs 24 hr/day (but 19.5 hrs of productive time)

Recent Performance:• throughput = 1,400 panels per day (71.8 panels/hr)• WIP = 47,600 panels• CT = 34 days (663 hr at 19.5 hr/day)• customer service = 75% on-time delivery

What data do we need to decide?

Is HAL lean?

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com3

HAL - Large Panel Line Processes

Lamination (Cores): press copper and prepreg into core blanks

Machining: trim cores to size

Internal Circuitize: etch circuitry into copper of cores

Optical Test and Repair (Internal): scan panels optically for defects

Lamination (Composites): press cores into multiple layer boards

External Circuitize: etch circuitry into copper on outside of composites

Optical Test and Repair (External): scan composites optically for defects

Drilling: holes to provide connections between layers

Copper Plate: deposits copper in holes to establish connections

Procoat: apply plastic coating to protect boards

Sizing: cut panels into boards

End of Line Test: final electrical test

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com4

HAL Case - Science?

External Benchmarking• but other plants may not be comparable

Internal Benchmarking• capacity data: what is utilization?• but this ignores WIP effects

Need relationships between WIP, TH, CT, service!

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com5

Definitions

Workstations: a collection of one or more identical machines.

Parts: a component, sub-assembly, or an assembly that moves through the workstations.

End Items: parts sold directly to customers; relationship to constituent parts defined in bill of material.

Consumables: bits, chemicals, gasses, etc., used in process but do not become part of the product that is sold.

Routing: sequence of workstations needed to make a part.

Order: request from customer.

Job: transfer quantity on the line.

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com6

Definitions (cont.)

Throughput (TH): for a line, throughput is the average quantity of good (non-defective) parts produced per unit time.

Work in Process (WIP): inventory between the start and endpoints of a product routing.

Raw Material Inventory (RMI): material stocked at beginning of routing.

Crib and Finished Goods Inventory (FGI): crib inventory is material held in a stockpoint at the end of a routing; FGI is material held in inventory prior to shipping to the customer.

Cycle Time (CT): time between release of the job at the beginning of the routing until it reaches an inventory point at the end of the routing.

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com7

Factory Physics®

Definition: A manufacturing system is a goal-oriented network of processes through which parts flow.

Structure: Plant is made up of routings (lines), which in turn are made up of processes.

Focus: Factory Physics® is concerned with the network and flows at the routing (line) level.

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com8

Parameters

Descriptors of a Line:

1) Bottleneck Rate (rb): Rate (parts/unit time or jobs/unit time) of the process center having the highest long-term utilization.

2) Raw Process Time (T0): Sum of the long-term average process times of each station in the line.

3) Congestion Coefficient (): A unitless measure of congestion.• Zero variability case, a = 0.• “Practical worst case,” a = 1.• “Worst possible case,” a = W0.

Note: we won’t use quantitatively,but point it out to recognize that lineswith same rb and T0 can behave verydifferently.

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com9

Parameters (cont.)

Relationship:

Critical WIP (W0): WIP level in which a line having no

congestion would achieve maximum throughput (i.e., rb) with minimum cycle time (i.e., T0).

W0 = rb T0

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com10

The Penny Fab

Characteristics:• Four identical tools in series.• Each takes 2 hours per piece (penny).• No variability.• CONWIP job releases.

Parameters:

rb =

T0 =

W0 =

a =

0.5 pennies/hour

8 hours

0.5 8 = 4 pennies

0 (no variability, best case conditions)

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com11

The Penny FabThe Penny Fab

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com12

The Penny Fab (WIP=1)The Penny Fab (WIP=1)

Time = 0 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com13

The Penny Fab (WIP=1)The Penny Fab (WIP=1)

Time = 2 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com14

The Penny Fab (WIP=1)The Penny Fab (WIP=1)

Time = 4 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com15

The Penny Fab (WIP=1)The Penny Fab (WIP=1)

Time = 6 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com16

The Penny Fab (WIP=1)The Penny Fab (WIP=1)

Time = 8 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com17

The Penny Fab (WIP=1)The Penny Fab (WIP=1)

Time = 10 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com18

The Penny Fab (WIP=1)The Penny Fab (WIP=1)

Time = 12 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com19

The Penny Fab (WIP=1)The Penny Fab (WIP=1)

Time = 14 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com20

The Penny Fab (WIP=1)The Penny Fab (WIP=1)

Time = 16 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com21

Penny Fab Performance

WIP TH CT THCT 1 0.125 8 1 2 3 4 5 6

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com22

The Penny Fab (WIP=2)The Penny Fab (WIP=2)

Time = 0 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com23

The Penny Fab (WIP=2)The Penny Fab (WIP=2)

Time = 2 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com24

The Penny Fab (WIP=2)The Penny Fab (WIP=2)

Time = 4 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com25

The Penny Fab (WIP=2)The Penny Fab (WIP=2)

Time = 6 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com26

The Penny Fab (WIP=2)The Penny Fab (WIP=2)

Time = 8 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com27

The Penny Fab (WIP=2)The Penny Fab (WIP=2)

Time = 10 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com28

The Penny Fab (WIP=2)The Penny Fab (WIP=2)

Time = 12 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com29

The Penny Fab (WIP=2)The Penny Fab (WIP=2)

Time = 14 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com30

The Penny Fab (WIP=2)The Penny Fab (WIP=2)

Time = 16 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com31

The Penny Fab (WIP=2)The Penny Fab (WIP=2)

Time = 18 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com32

Penny Fab Performance

WIP TH CT THCT 1 0.125 8 1 2 0.250 8 2 3 4 5 6

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com33

The Penny Fab (WIP=4)The Penny Fab (WIP=4)

Time = 0 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com34

The Penny Fab (WIP=4)The Penny Fab (WIP=4)

Time = 2 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com35

The Penny Fab (WIP=4)The Penny Fab (WIP=4)

Time = 4 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com36

The Penny Fab (WIP=4)The Penny Fab (WIP=4)

Time = 6 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com37

The Penny Fab (WIP=4)The Penny Fab (WIP=4)

Time = 8 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com38

The Penny Fab (WIP=4)The Penny Fab (WIP=4)

Time = 10 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com39

The Penny Fab (WIP=4)The Penny Fab (WIP=4)

Time = 12 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com40

The Penny Fab (WIP=4)The Penny Fab (WIP=4)

Time = 14 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com41

Penny Fab Performance

WIP TH CT THCT 1 0.125 8 1 2 0.250 8 2 3 0.375 8 3 4 0.500 8 4 5 6

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com42

The Penny Fab (WIP=5)The Penny Fab (WIP=5)

Time = 0 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com43

The Penny Fab (WIP=5)The Penny Fab (WIP=5)

Time = 2 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com44

The Penny Fab (WIP=5)The Penny Fab (WIP=5)

Time = 4 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com45

The Penny Fab (WIP=5)The Penny Fab (WIP=5)

Time = 6 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com46

The Penny Fab (WIP=5)The Penny Fab (WIP=5)

Time = 8 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com47

The Penny Fab (WIP=5)The Penny Fab (WIP=5)

Time = 10 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com48

The Penny Fab (WIP=5)The Penny Fab (WIP=5)

Time = 12 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com49

Penny Fab Performance

WIP TH CT THCT 1 0.125 8 1 2 0.250 8 2 3 0.375 8 3 4 0.500 8 4 5 0.500 10 5 6 0.500 12 6

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com50

TH vs. WIP: Best Case

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WIP

TH

rb

W0

1/T0

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com51

CT vs. WIP: Best Case

02468

101214161820222426

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WIP

CT

T0

W0

1/rb

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com52

Best Case Performance

Best Case Law: The minimum cycle time (CTbest) for a given WIP level, w, is given by

The maximum throughput (THbest) for a given WIP level, w is given by,

otherwise.

if

,/

,CT 00

best

Ww

rw

T

b

otherwise.

if

,

,/TH 00

best

Ww

r

Tw

b

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com53

Best Case Performance (cont.)

Example: For Penny Fab, rb = 0.5 and T0 = 8, so W0 = 0.5 8 = 4,

which are exactly the curves we plotted.

otherwise.

4 if

,2

,8CTbest

w

w

otherwise.

4 if

,5.0

,8/THbest

ww

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com54

A Manufacturing Law

Little's Law: The fundamental relation between WIP, CT, and TH over the long-term is:

Insights:• Fundamental relationship• Simple units transformation• Definition of cycle time (CT = WIP/TH)

CTTHWIP

hrhr

partsparts

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com55

Penny Fab Two

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com56

Penny Fab Two

StationNumber

Number ofMachines

ProcessTime

StationRate

1 1 2 hr j/hr

2 2 5 hr j/hr

3 6 10 hr j/hr

4 2 3 hr j/hr

rb = ____________ T0 = ____________ W0 = ____________

0.5

0.4

0.6

0.67

0.4 p/hr 20 hr 8 pennies

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com57

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=0)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

2

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com58

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=2)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

4

7

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com59

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=4)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

6

7

9

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com60

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=6)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

8

7

9

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com61

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=7)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

8

12

9

17

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com62

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=8)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

10

12

9

17

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com63

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=9)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

10

12

14

17

19

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com64

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=10)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

12

12

14

17

19

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com65

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=12)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

14

17

14

17

19

22

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com66

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=14)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

16

17

19

17

19

22

24

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com67

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=16)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

17

19

17

19

22

24

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com68

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=17)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

22

19

27

19

22

24

20

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com69

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=19)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

22

24

27

29

22

24

20

22

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com70

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=20)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

22

24

27

29

22

24 22

22

Note: job will arrive atbottleneck just in timeto prevent starvation.

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com71

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=22)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

27

24

27

29

32

24

2524

Note: job will arrive atbottleneck just in timeto prevent starvation.

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com72

Penny Fab Two Simulation (Time=24)

10 hr

2 hr

5 hr 3 hr

27

29

27

29

32

34

25

27

And so on….Bottleneck will just stay busy; all others will starve periodically

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com73

Worst Case

Observation: The Best Case yields the minimum cycle time and maximum throughput for each WIP level.

Question: What conditions would cause the maximum cycle time and minimum throughput?

Experiment:• set average process times same as Best Case (so rb and T0

unchanged)• follow a marked job through system• imagine marked job experiences maximum queueing

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com74

Worst Case Penny FabWorst Case Penny Fab

Time = 0 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com75

Worst Case Penny FabWorst Case Penny Fab

Time = 8 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com76

Worst Case Penny FabWorst Case Penny Fab

Time = 16 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com77

Worst Case Penny FabWorst Case Penny Fab

Time = 24 hours

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com78

Worst Case Penny FabWorst Case Penny Fab

Time = 32 hours Note:

CT = 32 hours= 4 8 = wT0

TH = 4/32 = 1/8 = 1/T0

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com79

TH vs. WIP: Worst Case

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WIP

TH

rb

W0

1/T0

Best Case

Worst Case

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com80

CT vs. WIP: Worst Case

048

121620242832

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WIP

CT

T0

W0

Best Case

Worst Case

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com81

Worst Case Performance

Worst Case Law: The worst case cycle time for a given WIP level, w, is given by,

CTworst = w T0

The worst case throughput for a given WIP level, w, is given by,

THworst = 1 / T0

Randomness? None - perfectly predictable, but bad!

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com82

Practical Worst Case

Observation: There is a BIG GAP between the Best Case and Worst Case performance.

Question: Can we find an intermediate case that:• divides “good” and “bad” lines, and• is computable?

Experiment: consider a line with a given rb and T0 and:• single machine stations• balanced lines• variability such that all WIP configurations (states) are equally

likely

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com83

PWC Example – 3 jobs, 4 stations

State Vector State Vector1 (3,0,0,0) 11 (1,0,2,0) 2 (0,3,0,0) 12 (0,1,2,0) 3 (0,0,3,0) 13 (0,0,2,1) 4 (0,0,0,3) 14 (1,0,0,2) 5 (2,1,0,0) 15 (0,1,0,2) 6 (2,0,1,0) 16 (0,0,1,2) 7 (2,0,0,1) 17 (1,1,1,0) 8 (1,2,0,0) 18 (1,1,0,1) 9 (0,2,1,0) 19 (1,0,1,1) 10 (0,2,0,1) 20 (0,1,1,1)

clumped up states

spread out states

Note: average WIP at any station is 15/20 = 0.75, so jobs are spread evenly between stations.

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com84

Practical Worst Case

Let w = jobs in system, N = no. stations in line, and t = process time at all stations:

CT(single) = (1 + (w-1)/N) t

CT(line) = N [1 + (w-1)/N] t

= Nt + (w-1)t

= T0 + (w-1)/rb

TH = WIP/CT

= [w/(w+W0-1)]rb

From Little’s Law

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com85

Practical Worst Case Performance

Practical Worst Case Definition: The practical worst case (PWC) cycle time for a given WIP level, w, is given by,

The PWC throughput for a given WIP level, w, is given by,

where W0 is the critical WIP.

br

wT

1CT 0PWC

,1

TH0

PWC brwW

w

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com86

TH vs. WIP: Practical Worst Case

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WIP

TH

rb

W0

1/T0

Best Case

Worst Case

PWCGood (lean)

Bad (fat)

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com87

CT vs. WIP: Practical Worst Case

048

121620242832

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

WIP

CT

T0

W0

Best Case

Worst Case PWC

Bad (fat)

Good(lean)

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com88

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

WIP

TH

Penny Fab Two Performance

Worst Case

Penny Fab 2

Best Case

Practical Worst Case

1/T0

rb

W0

Note: processtimes in PF2have var equalto PWC.

But… unlike PWC, it hasunbalancedline and multimachine stations.

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com89

Penny Fab Two Performance (cont.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

WIP

CT

Worst Case

Penny Fab 2

Best Case

Practical Worst C

ase

T0

1/rb

W0

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com90

Back to the HAL Case - Capacity Data

Process Rate (p/hr) Time (hr) Lamination 191.5 1.2 Machining 186.2 5.9 Internal Circuitize 150.5 6.9 Optical Test/Repair - Int 157.8 5.6 Lamination – Composites 191.5 1.2 External Circuitize 150.5 6.9 Optical Test/Repair - Ext 157.8 5.6 Drilling 185.9 10.0 Copper Plate 136.4 1.5 Procoat 146.2 2.2 Sizing 126.5 2.4 EOL Test 169.5 1.8 rb, T0 126.5 33.1

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com91

HAL Case - Situation

Critical WIP: W0 = rbT0 = 126.5 33.9 = 4,187

Actual Values:• CT = 34 days = 816 hours (at 24 hr/day)• WIP = 37,000 panels• TH = 45.8 panels/hour

Conclusions:• Throughput is 36% of capacity• WIP is 15 times critical WIP• CT is 24.6 times raw process time

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com92

HAL Case - Analysis

WIP Required for PWC to Achieve TH = 0.63rb?

354,2)1187,4(64.0

36.0)1(

64.0

36.0

36.01

0

0

Ww

rrWw

wTH bb

Much lower thanactual WIP!

Conclusion: actual system is much worse than PWC!

4.1055.1261187,4400,37

400,37

10

brWw

wTH

Much higherthan actual TH!

TH Resulting from PWC with WIP = 47,600?

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com93

HAL Internal Benchmarking Outcome

“Lean" Region

“Fat" Region

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

WIP

Th

rou

ghp

ut

(pan

els/

hou

r)

BestWorstPWC

CurrentTH = 45.8WIP = 37,000

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com94

Labor Constrained Systems

Motivation: performance of some systems are limited by labor or a combination of labor and equipment.

Full Flexibility with Workers Tied to Jobs:• WIP limited by number of workers (n)• capacity of line is n/T0

• Best case achieves capacity and has workers in “zones”• ample capacity case also achieves full capacity with “pick and

run” policy

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com95

Labor Constrained Systems (cont.)

Full Flexibility with Workers Not Tied to Jobs:• TH depends on WIP levels• THCW(n) TH(w) THCW(w)• need policy to direct workers to jobs (focus on downstream is

effective)

Agile Workforce Systems• bucket brigades• kanban with shared tasks• worksharing with overlapping zones• many others

© Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000 http://www.factory-physics.com96

Factory Dynamics Takeaways

Performance Measures:• throughput• WIP• cycle time• service

Range of Cases:• best case• practical worst case• worst case

Diagnostics:• simple assessment based on rb, T0, actual WIP,actual TH• evaluate relative to practical worst case

top related