1. Business Case©
For TAM18 203 Cylinder Barrier
Frederic Ellis

2. Business Case for TAM18 203 cylinder barrier
i
Table of Contents
1 EXECUTIVESUMMARY .................................................................................... 1
2 BUSINESS PROBLEM ..................................................................................... 1
2.1 PROBLEM ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 1
3 AVAILABLE OPTIONS..................................................................................... 2
3.1 OPTION 1 – BARRIER .......................................................................................................... 2
3.1.1 Description................................................................................................................. 2
3.1.2 Benefits..................................................................................................................... 2
3.1.3 Costs........................................................................................................................ 2
3.1.4 Feasibility .................................................................................................................. 2
3.1.5 Risks ........................................................................................................................ 2
3.1.6 Issues...................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 OPTION 2 – CONTINUE CURRENT OPERATIONS ........................................................................... 3
3.2.1 Description................................................................................................................. 3
3.2.2 Benefits..................................................................................................................... 3
3.2.3 Costs........................................................................................................................ 3
3.2.5 Risks ........................................................................................................................ 3
3.2.7 Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 3
4 RECOMMENDED OPTION ................................................................................. 3

3. Business Case for TAM18 203 cylinder barrier
1
1 ExecutiveSummary
Currently, TAM 18 is experiencing higher than normal 203 cylinder failures due to rejected
curves. The solutions that are available are:
1. Develop and install a barrier to redirect curves into waste area
2. To continue operating the machine as currently configured
As the most cost effective solution would be the installation of a barrier; due to low
procurement cost, minimal downtime and rapid recovery.
2 BusinessProblem
2.1 Problem Analysis
203 Cylinder has had seventy-seven faults for a total downtime of 5.5 hours from January
until July; extrapolating, this will lead to a loss of 16.75 hours of production. These faults
are due to dropped onto the 203 cylinder housing and then bouncing onto the ledge by the
200 proximity sensor. These curves then become trapped between the 200 proximity sensor
and its target, causing the cylinder to bind up.
Business Problem
The waldorf arm releases curves during lot change start-up or zone 2A faults, afterwards
there is a buildup of reject curves. These curves have become caught in between the 200
PRS and its target, preventing cylinder movement.
Business Opportunity
Installing a barrier to redirect the curves into the waste vacuum will:
 Increase up-time of the Arburg and zone 2A.
 Installation of the barrier could be accomplished on an available maintenance day.
 By reducing this amount of downtime, there could be an increase in productivity in
excess of 64,000 lenses a year.

4. Business Case for TAM18 203 cylinder barrier
2
3 Available Options
There are two options available, creating a barrier to redirect the curves into the waste
vacuum or to do nothing until the Arburg and Epson robot are replaced with a Nestal/
Mitsubishi combination:
3.1 Option 1 – Barrier
3.1.1 Description
Install a sheet metal, angled, barrier on top of the 203 cylinder shroud; this will redirect the
curves into the waste vacuum bin.
3.1.2 Benefits, Goals and Measurement Criteria
Category Benefit Value©
Financial  Increase in total product produced 64,000 lenses per year
Operational  Increase in operational time 16.75 hours per year
Staff  Increased staff utilization to increase yield in
other areas
40 hours per year
3.1.3 Costs and Funding Plan
This is a Rapid Improvement/ Kaizen Event and is not budgeted for, however material and
labor for this project are already on-site.
3.1.4 Feasibility
The use of this barrier would be at the same location that the original waste vacuum was
located at. Therefor in terms of feasibility it has a high chance for success and requires no
modification to operational components (i.e. cylinders, servos or sensors).
3.1.5 Risks
The following are likely risks that can affect this project:
Description Likelihood Impact© Mitigating Actions
Inability to recruit
skilled resource
Low Very High Work with Sheet Metal shop in advance to
have component at TAM; or re-purpose perfect
spacer mounting brackets
Barrier is unable to
deliver required
results
Low High Complete a pilot project to prove the Barrier
will deliver the required results
Additional Barriers
might be needed at
various angles
High Medium Use of thin sheet metal that can be bent to
required angle

5. Business Case for TAM18 203 cylinder barrier
3
3.1.6 Assumptions
The major assumptions associated with the adoption of this option are:
 There will be no business strategy or policy changes during this project
 Prices of raw materials will not increase during the course of this project
 Additional human resource will be available from the business to support this project.
3.2 Option 2 – Continue Current Operations
3.2.1 Description
Continue operating as-is, there is a plan to shift all Arburg units to Nestal units. The Nestal
configuration does not have this problem due to placement of vacuum chute and robotic
transfer vice cylinder based nest system.
3.2.2 Benefits
Category Benefit Value©
Financial  No cost expended $50.00
Operational  No change in operations
Staff  Increased staff utilization 18 hours
3.2.3 Costs
No added cost
3.2.4 Risks
Increase in downtime as problem escalates
3.2.5 Assumptions
The major assumptions associated with the adoption of this option are:
 There will be no business strategy or policy changes during this project
 Prices of raw materials will not increase during the course of this project
Additional human resource will be available from the business to support this project.
4 Recommended Option
Comparing the two options, the moderate expense, flexibility of installation time, and
increased uptime makes the addition of a barrier system to be a cost effective option.