|
06/06/2012 11:38 AM
|
|
|
I am currently working on a project for my company in a area with high model mix and low volume and very low predictibility. The current line feeds 24 families of similar models and demand is 32 pc per day.
We see a relitivly small number of parts that need rework but in the case we do it is a long process to fix. I am not sure the best way to handle this and still maintain current demand.
Any ideas / Suggestions? Right now we have 1 experienced technician who handles all the rework currently but they are often pulled into other builds or projects so it is not a full time position.
|
|
|
|
|
06/06/2012 12:07 PM
|
|
|
Adam,
Have you looked at the root causes of needing rework/repair? is it the operators? The machinery? The process itself?
Instead of trying to fix the rework process (which is Muda), determine the root causes of needing rework/repair and fix those. Remember, Lean is about zero defects.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
06/07/2012 11:36 AM
|
|
|
ADAM,
First try to do no bad parts, but if you have it isolate units with similar failures, fix and recolect data for again repetition.
Build data base for trends, parts, reference and the most important eliminate root causes of your failures.
Edited: 06/07/2012 at 11:36 AM by Lean Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
06/07/2012 11:37 AM
|
|
|
Hi Adam
You need to go through this with your operators so that you adjust the Standard Work and operator instructions so that quality control is part of the job. In a high mix operation building quality in is far more critical. Allowing bad parts to be passed to the next stage is just unacceptable. High mix is almost a job shop, quality needs to be absolute and checked at the source, not inspected afterward.
Hope that helps.
Robert Drescher
ELSE Inc
Edited: 06/07/2012 at 11:40 AM by Lean Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
06/07/2012 11:39 AM
|
|
|
Adam,
Rule #1 in manufacturing: Support Production!
The fact that you have an "experienced technician" who attends to emergent rework tells me that you recognize the importance of "keeping the product moving", but as in most companies, the urge to "keep people busy" trumps a sustained production flow.
How many men do you have in your local Fire Department? Are they always fighting fires? No! They're training, they're performing repairs and doing a multitude of other tasks. But when the alarm goes off they drop what they are doing and attend to the emergency at hand. I have no problem with your technician attending to other projects, but I do have a problem with him allowing the building to burn down. Give him a pager and have him wear it on his belt. When you need him, push the button. Where ever he his, whatever he's doing, he drops it to attend to your immediate needs.
I was in one company years ago where the bottleneck resource generated $1800 of contribution margin per hour. Management went on a cost cutting campaign and directed the Maint. Manager to cut his staff. He told management to fire him because he refused to obey that directive. In fact he thumbed his nose at them and hired another maintenance guy for the second and third shift, just to insure that the machines never went down, or if they did, he got them back on line within an hour. "$20 per hour verses $1800 per hour..... that's a no brainer"!
Regards
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
06/08/2012 05:18 PM
|
|
|
Adam,
As usual, Robert's post is spot on and hard to argue with.That being said however, may I make a couple of clarifications?
1. I've been in a lot of plants in my career and by far, job shops are the most difficult to plan, control and MANAGE. As such, I really don't know how to define "Standard Work". In an environment where things are NEVER the same, FLEXIBILITY and RESPONSIVENESS are the keys to success. You can never have enough of both.
2. You said Adam, that you see "a relatively small number of parts that need rework". Kiddos and congratulations. You must already be doing what Robert recommended. Insuring that upstream process are in control and capable is your necessary first step.
Keep at it.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
06/08/2012 05:18 PM
|
|
|
Yes the root cause is an underyling issues with in our process. We have some tight tolerances our vendors but our customers need. we yield about 94% good. Each unit scrapped is about $250 so it is worth reworking.
We have eliminated most all other defects but this has been an issue for about 15 years and while our core team of engineers are always looking into new solutions we know we will have rework.
|
|
|
|
|
06/13/2012 10:33 AM
|
|
|
Adam,
Accepting rework as part of any process is, well, unacceptable. I might suggest that your core team of engineers looking at solutions may be the wrong course of action. I have found that those that are doing the actual work on the shop floor are better able to identify root causes and implement solutions. I will probably tick off a few engineers here but they can at times engineer stuff to death.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
06/15/2012 12:11 PM
|
|
|
So, Bill, how do you approach a "new" task (which is never the same as a previous one)?
I'll bet you have a relative standard process for first steps (such as, read through the task thoroughly to ensure that you understand it, ask clarifying questions when needed, outline an approach you think might work, meet with others to ask their input on your approach ... whatever.) And I'll bet that there is a relatively small set of methods that you typically use -- even though sometimes you have to go outside your comfort zone and try something new or more rarely used.
And I'll also bet that others in your organization who face similar tasks have their own methods for first approaching a new task, and other methods for tackling them.
That's NOT standardized work. If I were in your shoes, I would get my colleagues together and (1) document these first steps and typical methods, as well as any typical diagnostics you run to understand or come up with approaches to new tasks; (2) look for commonalities among your approaches; (3) learn from the differences in your approaches; (4) come up with a standard approach that takes the best of what everyone is doing and have everyone try it out on the next task they take on; (5) measure the outcomes and analyze what worked and what didn't; (6) modify the standard approach and try it; (7) etc. [continuous improvement]
|
|
|
|
|
06/15/2012 12:11 PM
|
|
|
Originally posted by: Boeing_Lean
Adam,
Accepting rework as part of any process is, well, unacceptable. I might suggest that your core team of engineers looking at solutions may be the wrong course of action. I have found that those that are doing the actual work on the shop floor are better able to identify root causes and implement solutions. I will probably tick off a few engineers here but they can at times engineer stuff to death.
Ken
I hate to say this - because I'm an Engineer - but I agree with Ken. (Call me a "reformed Engineer.") I learned from the same Sensei's Ken did and they truly won me over to believing that "cubicle Engineers" (as they called them) were about as bad as it gets.
There's a brave new world right out on the shop floor with lots of opportunity for learning and improvement - for everyone. All of the Engineers that I know that finally stepped out of our cubicles and got some serious dirt under our fingernails have loved working in it.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 10:25 AM
|
|
|
You're not ticking me off, Ken. For the most part, I agree with you.
But I'll add a caveat. Some problems do require a certain depth of technical knowledge of the product and/or process to understand.
Of course I'm not talking about a technical wizard emerging from is lair to swoop in and save the day. That doesn't happen in the real world.
But sometimes you really do need someone with substantial technical education and experience who can work shoulder to shoulder with the operators to dig deep down to the root causes.
The technical staff must respect the operators highly and must also earn the respect of the operators for it to work well.
pc2
|
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 03:20 PM
|
|
|
pc2,
Just for clarification, I wasn't implying that engineers shouldn't be involved. I just read Adam's post as engineers were exclusively looking at the rework issues.
Your last sentence nailed it.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 03:21 PM
|
|
|
Originally posted by: 81653
...We have eliminated most all other defects but this has been an issue for about 15 years and while our core team of engineers are always looking into new solutions we know we will have rework.
15 years?
Think about that for a moment. Companies have been formed, grown to prominence and faded into obscurity in that time.
Entire industries have been created from scratch and transitioned to mainstream.
How many people have you seen get married and divorced in 15 years or less?
15 years is twice as long as all of WWII.
You may want to have a look how your organization has approached the problem.
Originally posted by: 81653
Yes the root cause is an underyling issues with in our process. ....
Well, that's sort of a given. Do you know what that issue is?
pc2
|
|
|
|
|
06/22/2012 03:21 PM
|
|
|
Ok, I guess that I completely missed the boat on this one (and I think that I also just got dis-ed by John).
This dicsussion feels like a tempest in a tea pot. What is it accomplishing? Let me forward a point for further consideration..............
"IT"S ALL ABOUT THROUGHPUT!"
Adam, you don't make a business case for your concerns. It's sounds like you just want to reduce rework. Well, that might be necessary but is it sufficient? If you follow all of the advice offered herein, are you going to push more out the door? Are you going to significantly reduce your cycle time? Are you going to stimulate the market? If not, you're probably working on the wrong thing.
Just my two cents......
Bill
|
|
|
>
Community >
Forums
Send to a Friend
