Using Lean Tools to Transform Our Business Processes - Tim Conrad, Gates Corporation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Using Lean Tools to Transform Our Business Processes - Tim Conrad, Gates Corporation

on

  • 630 views

Tim Conrad, Gates Corporation - Speaker at the marcus evans Manufacturing COO Summit held in Las Vegas, NV, April 16-17, 2012, delivered his presentation entitled Using Lean Tools to Transform Our ...

Tim Conrad, Gates Corporation - Speaker at the marcus evans Manufacturing COO Summit held in Las Vegas, NV, April 16-17, 2012, delivered his presentation entitled Using Lean Tools to Transform Our Business Processes

Statistics

Views

Total Views
630
Views on SlideShare
630
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Using Lean Tools to Transform Our Business Processes - Tim Conrad, Gates Corporation Using Lean Tools to Transform Our Business Processes - Tim Conrad, Gates Corporation Presentation Transcript

  • Gates CorporationProcess Improvement Using Lean Tools
  • Gates Powering Progress!
  • Traditional Thinking• Focus on  machines hi• Define Value Add• Standard Work• Work Balance Work Balance
  • Machine Utilization Urethane Belting• Target is 85%  1,200 (secs) PNP Study Cell 6 11/11/10 Target Balance (secs) YAMAZUMI SUMMARY 510 Utilization Utili ti Y CURRENT STATE Totals (Seconds) 89 8% Pick and move tool Takt Time (secs) 600 VA 1,000• Actual 25.3% NV 89 8% Pick and move tool NV NV 89 8% Pick and move finished slab NV WNC 11 1% Pick and Move Demold WNC WC 42 4% Crane Wait WC• Gap = 59.7% 0 0 800 0 0 0 Takt Tim e 600 600 WC 405 38% Wait Choice WC WNC 197 18% Wait no Choice (Operator) WNC Target Balance 510 LD 14 1% Wait (Breakdow n) LD WN 139 13% Movement w ithout Parts WN 0 400 8 Stop 0 7 LD 0 6 WNC 0 5 WC 0 4 WN Stop 0 0% Stop Stop 200 3 NV 1076 Total Scan Time At A Glance 14.4 Total Linedown & Breaks VA / WK NV 2 WK 1062 < Linedown & Breaks 89 178 853 < Linedown, Breaks & Wait No Choice Waste NC Waste C 1 VA 670 139 80.38% Position Efficiency Takt Time 25.17% Utilization of Efficiency 600 Target 27 1.53 Total Scans Per Hour 0 1 2 Balance 510 Copyright 2008 Gates Corporation - Rev. 5
  • Machine Utilization• Why is the PNP not meeting its target? Cause & Effect Stratification Chart Wait for mold # Molds in Cell Trial to see after Auto (4) molds run Run mode of PNP VMM Run-In slow Operator Utilization: 8 hr Crane home position Man observation was 85% / Slab drop-off slow Cord cycle slow Jacket Applicator cycle time Process System downtime 49 sec/slab to drop & home from top Use schedule to set reliability sequence & Slab pick cycle slow 56% of time: No priorities?----Est 6% Moves by PNP Semi-Auto Mode (All gain Machine Crane Utilization 25% moves req Op Input) (8hrs observation) 18% of time: Op not available to Set Run Mode from Centering/Homing initiate PNP Semi Auto to Full part of Crane moves Slow moves Auto: Est. 18% Gain Cord bins too far from point of use (4 slabs) Scrap data from No visual Kan Ban on Mold Marks Crane delay on tape for mandrels YTD, 12 pcs/shift moves Materials Pad degradation & swelling scrapped, (0.25 slabs)----- through life due to wear & Knit tube prep batched cause defects & demold (Not one-piece flow) Teflon tubes for knurled pads Pack method contains wrinkled from supplier extra non-value-added Method changed & operators handling of belts following: Documentation needs f ll i D t ti d Methods to be updated with more detail Jacket labeling batched (Not one-piece flow)
  • New Paradigm • How can we correlate machine productivity  and operator productivity? d t d ti it ? Plant Name Position Position Position Position Position Position Position Position Position Position Position Position Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency Avg Effici. 52.0% 86.1% 57.3% 98.0% 95.9% 74.0% 97.8% 85.9% 91.2% 64.0% 80.2% Utilization Utilization Utilization Utilization Utilization Utilization Utilization Utilization Utilization Utilization Utilization Utilization Avg Utiliz. 45.6% 45 6% 66.4% 66 4% 52.6% 52 6% 89.1% 89 1% 83.1% 83 1% 66.3% 66 3% 86.2% 86 2% 77.1% 77 1% 81.1% 81 1% 54.6% 54 6% 70.2% 70 2% Scan Time (min) 497.6 Scan Time (min) 529.4 Scan Time (min) 501.4 Scan Time (min) 553.3 Scan Time (min) 521.8 Scan Time (min) 540.7 Scan Time (min) 547.6 Scan Time (min) 520.3 Scan Time (min) 518.1 Scan Time (min) 31309.4 Scan Time (min) #VALUE! Scan Time (min) #VALUE! Lines/Hour (min) #VALUE! Average  Total # of Operators 70%  10 Operator  Utilization Utili ti100%80%60% Build & 40% Cure only  43%  43%20% Operator  Utilization 0% 4508 Cure Cutter BuilderGrind Pack Bank 1 (15 -18) Bank 2 (19-22) Grind Pack 4501 Builder 4501 Grind/Pack Cut 4501 Cure 4501 Profiler 4501 Shaper 11 12 Average
  • What does this tell us?• We need to balance  operator utilization  Operator “Wait” Observations t tili ti Operator  Wait Observations with machine  Cord Lay No Mandrels To build utilization tili ti No Specs No Slabs to cut/incorrect• Studying operator  No Stock utilization will help us  Nothing to Do Mechanical Downtime see opportunities to  Equipment  Availability improve machine  No Slabs to grind Waiting on Mold Handler utilization Evaluating Quality
  • Results  Optimize  crane  Change  g Add  movementsScheduling  cooling  Rules capacity