kanban an integrated jit system

2,811 views

Published on

Published in: Engineering, Business, Technology
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,811
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
101
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

kanban an integrated jit system

  1. 1.  Introduction  JIT philosophy • Elements of JIT • Functioning of JIT • Objective of JIT • Capacity utilization of JIT • Advantages of JIT • Disadvantages of JIT • Companies adopted JIT  Kanban System • Pull system-kanban system • Advantages of Kanban • Disadvantages of kanban • Comparison of kanban to others • Case studies • Reference
  2. 2.  Japanese are good at manufacturing.  They will probably tell how the Japanese captured a large share of the global-market by creating world- class standards in design, materials, and management.  The concept of time-based management is nothing new for managers outside of Japan and has been in practice for many years  However, the Kanban process involves more than just in time deliveries and inventory controls. This will focus on interlinked components and features which constitute the japanese Kanban process of time-based management
  3. 3. The philosophy advocates:
  4. 4. 1. History of Just-in-Time  Incorrectly rumored to have been invented by Henry Ford.  Actually invented byTaiichi Ohno ofToyota.  Ohno’s system designed to handle varying volumes/various parts.  Nothing more than good, common sense manufacturing.
  5. 5. 2. From Supermarket to Shop Floor  Ohno is believed to have gotten his JIT idea from U.S. supermarkets. Customers pull items from shelf. Empty space on shelf is signal for stocker to replace item. If items are not bought, no replacement required. When item become low, stocker reorders from supplier. Customers take only what they need because they know items will be restocked.  Ohno applied the same concept to manufacturing.
  6. 6. 3. What to Expect  JIT is more than an inventory system.  It is an operational philosophy which includes: A set-up time improvement system. A maintenance improvement system. A quality improvement system. A productivity improvement system.  A properly implemented JIT system should: Produce products customers want. Produce products only at the rate customers want them. Produce with perfect quality. Produce instantly with zero unnecessary lead time. Produce with no waste of labor, material or equipment.
  7. 7. Respect for the contribution that Employees can make. Good relationship with suppliers. Reduction of set up time. Flexible work force. Reduce lead time and preventive maintainence. A demand pull system in which material only flows when needed.
  8. 8. Involves keeping stock level to a minimum. Stock arrives just in time to be used in production. Works best where there is a close relationship between manufactures and suppliers. Goods not produced unless firm has an order from a customer. Aims to get highest volume of output at the lowest unit cost.
  9. 9. Materials purchased just in time to make component parts No demand – no production Finished goods assembled just in time to be sold to customer.
  10. 10. 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 30 10 20 % Capacity Utilization 60 Production Lead Times (days) 40 50 Traditional Manufacturing JIT Manufacturing
  11. 11. Increase in cash flow. Reduced in deterioration. Reduction in stockholding costs. Less space required for stock. Closer relationship with suppliers.
  12. 12. Dangers of lost sales. May lose bulk-buying discounts. High dependence on supplier.
  13. 13. Just-in-time (JIT): Pull vs. Push System In a push system, such as an Material Requirements Planning (MRP) system, we look at the schedule to determine what to produce next Driven by pre-determined production schedule In a pull system, such as JIT, we look only at the next stage of production and determine what is needed there, and then we produce only that Driven by demand JIT uses Kanban system to implement a pull system
  14. 14. What is Kanban? “card” or “visible record” Kanban is a simple part- movement system that depends on card and boxes to take parts from one work station to another on a production line How to use it? A Kanban is attached a container, when the container is filled with items produced When the container is free up, the Kanban is removed from the container and put back to the receiving post
  15. 15.  Kanbans are used to control flow of production A free kanban at the receiving post signals need for production Production stop, if all kanbans are used Kanbans are recycled when a container is unloaded at the next step of production More kanban more containers used at the same time larger WIP
  16. 16. The Kanban process utilizes two different kinds of cards- transport and production kanban. Both of the cards do not have to be used simultaneously in a production process.  The Transport Kanban contains information from where the parts originated and its destination. When only this card is used, it is know as a simple Kanban process. In this system component are ordered and produced according to a daily schedule  The Production Kanban, on the other hand, outlines to what extent and when work has to be accomplished by a specific station on the production line. Together with the transport Kanban, it is known as an integrated kanban process.  Toyota of Japan has taken the example discussed above one step further. Here, certain component are directly supplied from suppliers to the production line. The transport Kanban is simultaneously used internally between the warehouse and the production lines. This is an excellent example of the integrated Kanban system.
  17. 17. Receiving post Kanban card for product 1 Kanban card for product 2 Fabrication cell O1 O2 O3 O2 Storage area Empty containers Full containers Assembly line 1 Assembly line 2
  18. 18. Storage area Empty containers Full containers Kanban card for product 1 Kanban card for product 2 Fabrication cell O1 O2 O3 O2 Assembly line 1 Assembly line 2
  19. 19. Storage area Empty containers Full containers Receiving post Kanban card for product 1 Kanban card for product 2 Fabrication cell O1 O2 O3 O2 Assembly line 1 Assembly line 2
  20. 20. Storage area Empty containers Full containers Receiving post Kanban card for product 1 Kanban card for product 2 Fabrication cell O1 O2 O3 O2 Assembly line 1 Assembly line 2
  21. 21. Storage area Empty containers Full containers Receiving post Kanban card for product 1 Kanban card for product 2 Fabrication cell O1 O2 O3 O2 Assembly line 1 Assembly line 2
  22. 22. Storage area Empty containers Full containers Receiving post Kanban card for product 1 Kanban card for product 2 Fabrication cell O1 O2 O3 O2 Assembly line 1 Assembly line 2
  23. 23. Storage area Empty containers Full containers Receiving post Kanban card for product 1 Kanban card for product 2 Fabrication cell O1 O2 O3 O2 Assembly line 1 Assembly line 2
  24. 24. 1. Each container must have a card 2. Assembly always withdraws from fabrication (pull system) 3. Containers cannot be moved without a kanban 4. Containers should contain the same number of parts 5. Only good parts are passed along 6. Production should not exceed authorization
  25. 25. A simple and understandable process. Provides quick and precise information. Avoids overproduction. Is minimizing waste. Provide quick response to change. Low costs associated with the transfer of information. Control can be maintained
  26. 26. A breakdown in the Kanban system can results in the entire line shutting down Keeping the Kanban resized as demand changes can be slow and difficult to manage
  27. 27.  KANBAN Vs OPENAGILE Compared to Kanban, Open Agile takes a more philosophical approach to project management as can be seen from the three rules it is built on11: 1. Truthfulness 2. Consultive Decision-Making 3. The Learning Circle Hence, Open Agile compliments the more process oriented Kanban with respect to employee morale. KANBAN VS. SCRUM AND XP In Scrum, the use of a Scrum-Board is prescribed, whereas Kanban enforces Kanban-Boards. Both are basically card walls, either physical or virtual. In comparison, Kanban adds WIP limits which we will discuss in the next rule. XP does not make any prescriptions on using visualisation techniques or even attributes any big importance to workflow visualisation as it would take too much time from programming tasks.
  28. 28. Another difference between Kanban and the other two is that Kanban uses these work in progress limits to change the basic project management paradigm from pushing work downstream, i.e. from development to testing, to pulling it from upstream. KANBAN VS. THE REST We could go on comparing Kanban to many other agile development methods, as for example Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM) In any case, Kanban makes no restrictions or assumptions other than to apply the principles mentioned in this document.
  29. 29. 1. MONEYSUPERMARKETING  Moneysupermarkting is one of the United Kingdom’s leading comparison website.  This case study shows how they were able to improve their delivery process through the introduction of kanban.  In some way other software companies were facing too many simultaneous tasks  Through adopting kanban, they were able spot the bottlenecks and blockers within there system and to address the issue’  The visualization using kanban board gave an end-to-end flow and allowed the resolution of bottlenecks as soon as they occurred.  David Anderson presents a case study from 2004 on how Dragos Dumitriu managed to improve the processes of a Microsoft development team based in India. This team had the reputation of having the worst customer service within Microsoft and Dumitriu was determined to change that. By applying the Kanban method, i.e. workflow visualization and limitation as well as mapping the value stream and implementing the pull-system, Dumitriu was able to spot and solve most of the problems faced by the Indian team. They were able to detect and solve bottlenecks 2.FROM WORST TO BEST IN FIVE QUATERS
  30. 30. In the end, even though they did not implement all the possibilities of Kanban, the results of these few small changes were impressive: •They managed to eliminate an originally overflowing backlog entirely in just over a year. •They reduced the lead time from an original 155 days to 14 days. •The due-date performance on the 25-day delivery time target was 98 %. •The throughput of requests had risen more than 300% and lead times dropped by more than 90%. 3. KANBAN AND SCRUM - MAKINGTHE MOST OF BOTH The second part of the previously introduced book “Kanban and Scrum – making the most of both” provides an exhaustive case study about a Swedish game development company’s transition from Scrum to Kanban. The case study introduces how they set up teams, addressed stakeholder needs and how they established the Kanban boards and WIP rules.The results presented were that they managed to resolve bottlenecks, achieve a constant work flow and most importantly that by adopting Kanban they were better able to meet deadlines
  31. 31. 4.CONVERTING A SCRUM TEAM TO KANBAN (CRISP CASE STUDY) This industrial success story is about a Swedish consulting company named Crisp and a French software company named Nuxeo  Before this conversion, Nuexo’s Scrum team had major problems in meeting deadlines. As a result, the main client was not satisfied and a project failure was certain. As the development team was using Scrum, their burn-down-chart confirmed the issues and provided evidence that Scrum was not the way to go in this case. After transitioning to Kanban, improvement results were visible after only two weeks. Progress occurred also in another form, meaning that a previously unknown bottleneck was detected. For the first time, employees were able to see that the testing department couldn’t handle the work load
  32. 32.  Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_In_Time  Kanban-an Integrated JIT System, http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1848/japan21.html  Parker, K., 1993, Manufacturing Systems. American Software Inc., Wheaton: 11(9).  Treadwell, M. A., and Herrmann, J. W., 2005, “A Kanban Module for Simulating Pull Production in Arena, Institute for Systems Research,” Proceedings Winter Simulation Conference, Orlando, FL, 1413 – 1417.  Marek, R. P. Elkins, D. A., and Smith, D. R., 2001, “Understanding the Fundamentals of Kanban and Conwip Pull Systems Using Simulation,” Proceeding Winter Simulation Conference, 921 - 929.  Akturk, M. S. and Erhun, F., 1999, “An Overview of Design and Operational Issues of Kanban Systems,” International Journal of Production Research, 37(17), 3859 – 3881.

×