1. MSU, MANKATO – MET 489
4/30/15
Process Analysis & Improvement: Painting at JMP
STUDENT: Christopher Boote
FACULTY ADVISORS: Dr. Agarwal
PROJECT SPONSORS: Jones Metal Products
David Olson
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this report is to outline and discuss our
analysis of the painting process at Jones Metal
Products. Our team was assigned to study the process
as a whole, and implement lean manufacturing
principles. Our method of execution involved several
time studies, observations of the processes as they
unfolded, and placing all of the data into a current state
value stream map. After analyzing the data and coming
up with new ways to improve upon the process used by
JMP, we followed with a future state value stream map.
INTRODUCTION
Originally, our project had been centered on how to
apply the usage of PLM software to simulate factory
operations. However, with the guidance of Dr. Kuldeep
Agarwal, we drifted more towards the idea of how to
apply Lean Manufacturing principles in a certain area of
the factory. In our new project, we would take days to
observe the workers in the painting area. We’d talk with
them, ask vital questions about how they would work in
their stations (approach to certain pieces, steps to
perform, etc.), the tools they would use and how they
worked, and other questions about how and what they
did. We would perform other quantitative studies
(discussed later) to measure each stage of the process.
After analyzing the process, we would then apply lean
methods to suggest improvement for the future.
MAIN SECTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Background
Jones Metal Products (or JMP) was founded in 1942 by
Mildred M. Jones. The company was started originally as
Jones Sheet Metal and Roofing Company to support
KATO engineering, and also provide roofing services to
the community. Down the road, more emphasis was
placed on metal fabrication, which led to the multitude of
industries they cater to today. Our team worked
specifically on analyzing the painting process at JMP.
Problem Definition
Currently, the paint process at JMP is pretty efficient.
However, they are looking to continuously improve the
process, in order to stay competitive in the industry.
There are certain areas that create a bottleneck, or slow
the process down. Overall, they are looking to cut down
on waste, both product and time. Our team was to
explore the paint process, and find these areas that
could use improvement. Once found, we could apply
lean methods and suggest ways to cut down on waste,
and reduce time spent in the paint area.
Objectives
The main objective was to analyze the painting process
at Jones Metal Products. Afterwards, we would use that
analysis and understanding to suggest areas of
improvement in that area using lean principles. In order
to do so, we needed to have specific objectives:
• Define product of study
• Observe the process in entirety, exploring all
steps toward finished product
• Take time studies of the product through each
step of the process
• Construct a Value Stream Map (VSM) of the
painting process
• Construct a future Value Stream Map
• Suggest improvement based on future VSM
Constraints
The production would be constrained by size of the
product or products. It would also be constrained by the
type of paint used, how the product needed to be
treated, according to specifications of the customer. For
us, our constraints in the project were centered around
time. Specifically, it was whether or not we could talk to
certain people, our own availability and theirs.
Design Function
2. The function of value stream map was to take time data
analyzed by us, put it into the VSM, and after careful
analysis by us, determine where time was being wasted
and what could be done to eliminate the muda.
Design Alternatives
After creation and analysis of the VSM, we would create
a future state value stream map. In this future VSM, we
would group certain processes together, and make
changes to streamline the process. More information on
this is provided later in the report.
PROJECT EXECUTION
Define Product
Before we could analyze the paint process at JMP, we
needed to define the product of study. We chose to work
with custom enclosures, one of Jones’ main products.
These enclosures are made for a variety of different
purposes, depending on the customer. However, the
enclosures that we looked at were “outlet boxes” that
housed internal components for generators. These
boxes are meant to offer protection from electrical
connections or other moving parts of a generator. The
main customer in our case was KATO engineering.
Since these enclosures are made according to the
customer’s specification, they can range from small
scale, to very large (as shown below).
Figure 1: Large Heat Exchanger (finished)
Below is another style of enclosure (outlet box), and its
corresponding drawing:
Figure 2: Outlet Box (before paint)
Figure 3: Outlet Box Drawing
Process Analysis - Painting
Once we had defined the product of study, the next step
was to analyze the painting process from start to finish.
This would set up the next part of the project, which was
taking time studies at each step. With the guidance of a
few employees in the paint area, as well as a detailed
map of the shop floor (Appendix D), we were able to fully
understand the painting process. The paint process has
3 main steps: Wash, Paint, and Dry. More detail on each
of these steps is provided below.
Wash
The first step that any part requiring paint will go through
is the wash process. The purpose of washing is to
remove any contaminants on the part that may inhibit the
paint from adhering correctly. Paint doesn’t usually like
to stick well to bare metal, so washing will “etch” the
part, also promoting adhesion. There are two different
wash areas: one is a spray wash for large parts, the
other is a system of 5 dip tanks.
3. Spray Wash Area
Figure 4: Spray Wash Station
The spray wash area is used for large parts that wouldn’t
normally fit in the roughly 4’ x 7’ x 4’ dip tanks. Here they
use a mixture of water and a metal wash/prep (named
GF Seal Prep) through a pressurized wash. The amount
of time spent washing a part here depends on the size of
the part and the operator. We were told that the operator
would know when the part was fully clean by the bluish
tint on the metal (pictured below).
Figure 5: Finished Sprayed Part
Tank Wash Area
Figure 6: Tank Wash Station
Figure 7: Tank Wash Showing Crane
Right next to the Spray Wash station is the more
commonly used Dip Tank station. All of the smaller parts
produced by JMP come through this station, usually in
large batches. Multiple parts are placed on a rack that is
about the length and width of the tanks and moved
between each one using an overhead crane. This area
produces the most consistent parts, since each tank is
temperature regulated, as well as time. Tanks 1 through
5 are as follows:
1. Ultrax 92D – Cleaner (5 to 15 minutes)
2. Rinse Water
3. Zircobond 4200D – Metal Etch (2 minutes)
4. Rinse Water
5. Hot Rinse Water (used to speed up drying time
by ~10 minutes)
After tank 5, the parts are set out to dry before they go in
for paint. If the operator has time, they will spray the
parts thoroughly with compressed air, to speed up the
drying even further.
4. Figure 8: Visual Aid and Thermometer for Tank 3
The images above are examples of the process control
of each tank. The poster gives information such as the
chemical in the tank, target temperatures (thermometer
in figure 8), and how much time the part(s) can spend in
that particular tank. All five wash tanks have both of
these objects, ensuring a perfect wash every time, as
long as the operator follows guidelines.
Paint
After all of the parts in the batch are dried off, we move
to the next step: painting. There are two different
methods of painting at JMP: hot pot and p-mix.
Hot Pot
Figure 9: Hot Pot Paint Booth
The Hot Pot system of painting requires the operator to
manually mix a batch per order size or parts to be
painted. The Hot Pot system is primarily used for short
production runs or small orders that require a special
color. The products that we observed for our time studies
used this paint method, because there was only an order
for 40, so only 40 were painted at that time. For our
example, the mix was 1 gallon of primer to 1 gallon of
catalyst (or hardener). As with the p-mix system, parts
generally travel along a system of conveyors, controlled
by the painter. These conveyors are equipped with
hooks, so the painter can reach every angle of the part.
Once done painting, the painter can move the painted
parts to the drying/shipping area with the touch of a
button.
Figure10: Drying / Shipping Area (Hot Pot side)
If parts are in a hurry to get out of the door, the two heat
lamps (shown above) are used to speed up the curing of
the paint.
P-Mix
Figure 11: P-Mix Paint Booth
The other method of painting at JMP is the P-Mix
system. The P-Mix paint is generally used for long
production runs with one color, as opposed to the Hot
Pot system. In this system, each color is already mixed
in huge barrels in a back room and then fed to the spray
gun. Colors are changed with the touch of a button
outside the paint booth (pictured below):
5. Figure 12: P-Mix Control Panel
This one touch of a button gives the operator ease of
use, and full control over the paint system. This system
is optimal for JMP’s big customers that request the
majority of their parts in one color. A couple of customers
that fit the criteria are KATO Engineering and Caterpillar.
Similar to the Hot Pot system, most parts that get the P-
Mix travel along a conveyor. In our case, the size of
enclosure would determine whether it traveled along
conveyor, or painted on a stand.
Figure 13: Enclosure After Paint
Drying
After paint comes drying, and you would think that would
be pretty straightforward. However, Jones Metal uses a
few methods to dry the finished product.
Figure 14: Drying Area
The first option is air drying. If the product is on or ahead
of schedule, regular drying would suffice. This method is
simple, letting the parts dry by hanging on the hooks.
Figure 15: Heat Lamps
The second option, touched on a little bit previously, is
using heat lamps. These lamps use high intensity
infrared light to speed up the paint’s curing process.
These lamps are located on the Hot Pot side, where they
are mainly used.
6. Figure 16: Drying Oven
On the other side, the conveyors from the p-mix side
travel into the big metal box pictured above. This is a
giant oven used for rapid curing of painted products.
Parts will generally travel through this oven if they are in
a hurry to get out the door. This is a very efficient
process in terms of drying, but as far as energy costs go-
probably not.
Time Studies
After analyzing the entire painting process from start to
finish, it was time for the actual data part. In order to
construct a proper value stream map, we had to find out
the amount of time the product spent in each stage.
Methodology
For our time studies, we would be observing a certain
product from the moment it arrived to be washed, all the
way to the finished product to be shipped. Ideally, we
would’ve liked to observe enclosures being painted, but
our schedules never lined up right to the enclosures in
paint. Instead, we observed another product (Appendix I)
through the entire paint line, and took our time studies
that way. We chose to split the times up by stage:
Washing, Painting, and Drying. We used a simple phone
stopwatch, and had somebody record times on a
notepad. Afterwards, we were able to calculate the time
per square inch, and compare that time to the rough
surface areas of the enclosures. The surface area of the
observed part was 1734.13 sq. in.
Results
Our studies started at the wash tanks. We measured
time starting from the moment the operator placed the
parts onto the rack. For this study, 18 parts were washed
at a time (for space purposes). The complete list of
times is attached in the appendix, but this section will
give a brief overview. We were able to conclude that the
full wash process, arrival to dried part, took a total of 36
minutes. We observed that the parts in Tank #1 were in
for much longer than spec. (13 minutes, when the spec
is 5 minutes max) shown below:
Figure 17: Tank #1 Specification
The extra time in the wash seemed to have no adverse
effects on the product, but adhering strictly to the
specification could cut wash time down significantly.
The next step to observe was the actual paint process.
We were told that the down time between washing and
paint depends on the order size and color to be painted.
For our studies, the order size was 40 parts, so the paint
process did not start until the full order was through the
wash process and ready for paint. Once the parts were
in the paint area, the painter would then do a final scuff
and wipe down of the piece, further ensuring good
quality. For the 40 parts we observed, 79 minutes were
spent on prepping the parts alone. Once the paint got
rolling, parts traveled quickly along, with an average of
35 seconds per part. The total time spent in the paint
area was 49 minutes, including the time moving the
conveyor, and random down times. The conveyor was
advanced every 4 parts, and added 30 seconds each
time it was moved. There were 3 instances of down time:
one was a problem in the back paint room, one part had
to be cleaned again, and the paint ran out at the 37th
part. These down times totaled 15 minutes. Upon
completion of the time studies, we found the time per sq.
inch to be 0.111 seconds. This number includes both
prepping and paint. We then used that number to
calculate the amount of time per enclosure. The small
outlet boxes (768.125 sq. in.) came out to be roughly 1.5
minutes per box. The medium enclosures (10,158.33 sq.
in.) calculated out to be about 18 minutes per part.
Remember these times include both prep and paint of
each enclosure.
As for the drying process, once again our schedules
could not accommodate observing such a long process.
Because of the schedule conflicts, we were not able to
take time studies of the drying process. However, the
paint has a curing time of 15-30min touch dry, or 72
hours fully cured
(at 77°F (21°C)). The addition of the
oven or the infrared lamps speed the drying process
considerably, but since most parts are air-dried, our
focus was mainly there.
7. Value Stream Mapping
In our value stream map, we decided to label the
shipping part of Jones Metal Products as the customer
and the previous processes (welding, metal bending,
and cutting) as the supplier. Times will vary given the
quantity of parts, or size, but for our purposes, and the
sake of similar data, we decided to create our current
map on a single product. Our value stream map, in its
current state, starts of in washing.
Figure 18: Wash Process VSM
After receiving the product from the previous stations,
we either spray wash the product (large generator
covers usually receive this kind of treatment), or they are
sent into a chemical bath treatment (Wash).
Figure 19: Drying Process #1 VSM
After the treatment, they are then sent to the first drying
station (Drying 1).
Figure 20: Painting Process VSM
After the parts are dried and residual chemicals are
removed from the surfaces, the products are hooked
onto a conveyer belt and sent into the painting area
(painting). This process involves pull over push since it’s
the painter who will call for the products from drying and
start the process.
Figure 21: Drying Process #2 VSM
The next step varied depending on time constraints, and
the drying properties of the paint. If there is time, and/or
the customer allows for it, the preferred method of drying
the paint is to let it be air dried. They will also put the
finished products under infrared light to help speed up
the process (Drying 2 process 1). If there is a lack of
time, and/or the customer demands it, they will go with
the alternative method, which involves sending the
pieces through the oven. This method does dry the
product faster, but is very costly. Also, some paints don't
behave the same way as others and may not dry in the
desired way for the product.
After the final drying process, the products need to be
held in inventory for a minimum of 72 hours for the
painted product to be completely cured.
In this current state value stream map, all recorded times
are in minutes. The full VSM can be found in Appendix
F.
Figure 22: Takt Times
Shown above is calculated Takt time for all of the steps
in the painting process. This showed us that the
processes we needed to focus on were the washing,
8. painting, and second drying processes.
Future Value Stream Mapping
The improvements to the painting process include
integrating the drying 1 and painting process into a
manufacturing cell. What we will do here is the moment
the parts come out of the final wash, instead of letting
them sit and be blown for drying; we will use the
conveyor belt to pull parts out of the washing as needed.
We will need to add fans and Infrared lights (which are
already purchased and used) to dry the parts as they are
hung. This will allow the parts to be ready for pulling into
the next station. We could possibly extend the conveyor
system to come closer to the wash station. This would
allow the operator to put parts directly onto the paint line
from washing with minimal movement and effort. There
will also be a supermarket before the washing process
which uses a Kanban system of pulling parts.
Another change that we will make in order to reduce the
down time on the washing station is to add covers to the
final wash station. This is necessary because we have
seen instances where the whole process, which
depends on the baths being at a certain temperature,
could not be started because the last bath was too cold
to start the process. We don’t know the exact time
improvement adding these covers will make, but we
expect it to make an impact.
BUDGET
Aside from labor hours, this project of analysis and
improvement had no budget.
RESULTS
Based on our observations of the paint process, and
analysis of the future state VSM, we were able to come
up with a few ideas to improve the process. These
improvements start with the lean principles described in
the previous section. Aside from the lean principles,
there are a few physical upgrades that could be made,
one being an extension of the conveyor system.
Extending the conveyor over to the wash area would
allow an easy transition of parts from washing to drying
to painting. With this system, there would be no
inventory sitting between the washing and painting
processes. This would also allow the wash operator to
wash more parts in the time it would’ve taken them to
blow dry the washed parts. Some parts with small
crevices would likely still need to be blow dried a bit, but
the time would still be reduced. Another improvement we
thought of was having the conveyor constantly moving at
a slow pace. This would eliminate the 30 seconds or so
that the painter has to stop painting in order to advance
the parts on the conveyor. However, we would need to
keep the speed low enough (~0.15 ft/s) so that it does
not interfere with the painter. We could see a significant
reduction in time using the moving conveyor. Last, as
stated before, covering the wash tanks when not in use
would improve the process by keeping the wash in its
effective temperature. In order to provide constant
results, the wash tanks need to stay in spec.
temperature.
CONCLUSIONS
From our study and analysis of the painting process at
JMP, we were able to grasp a great understanding of the
methods used. This understanding helped us to
construct a Value Stream Map, and also to come up with
potential improvements. The Value Stream Map was a
very helpful tool in showing us areas in need of
improvement. The current process used by Jones Metal
Products is a good one, however it could stand to use a
few upgrades. For starters, we decided to extend the
conveyor belt so it would eliminate the need for a second
inventory before going to the paint station. We also
decided on adding fans and infrared lights along the
conveyer belt to speed up the drying process after the
products leave the washing station. In the paint station,
we decided to make the conveyer belt slow moving so
the painter would only need to focus on painting instead
of having to stop and move the line after finishing every
4 or more products. Overall, we learned a lot about how
even a well-working process can be improved upon
using lean techniques. In the future, we can see even
our suggestions being superceded by others, since lean
manufacturing is an ever changing process.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Jones for
steering us in the right direction, and coming up with a
feasible project to complete on such short notice. Also,
we would like to thank Dave Olson for setting aside his
time to work with us and help us through this project, as
well as the employees at JMP for their cooperation. Also,
we would like thank Jesus Contreras Villegas for all of
his help in gathering information about the paint process.
APPENDIX
INDEX
A: Small Outlet Box CAD Drawing
B: Medium Outlet Box CAD Drawing
C: Large Heat Exchanger CAD Drawing
D: Paint Area Shop Floor Drawing
E: Time Study Data
F: Value Stream Map
G: Primer Sealer Spec.
9. H: Future-State Value Stream Map
I: Observed Product (Rhino Hybrid 44”)
APPENDIX A: SMALL OUTLET BOX CAD DRAWING
14. APPENDIX E: TIME STUDY DATA
Time
Studies
-‐
Painting
Process
WASH
(18
parts)
Step
Time
Total
Parts
arrive
9:50
AM
10
min
Wash
start/Tank
#1
10-‐10:13
3
min
Tank
#2
10:14
38
sec
Tank
#3
10:16-‐
10:18
2
min
Tank
#4
10:19-‐
10:20
1
min
Tank
#5
10:20
39
sec
Drying
10:20-‐
10:26
6
min
Total
9:50-‐10:26
36
min
PAINT
(40
parts)
Step
Time
Total
Set-‐up/Prep
10:35
AM
Finish
Prep
11:54
79
min
LUNCH
BREAK
12-‐
12:30pm
30
min
Start
Paint
12:39
Finish
Paint
1:28
49
min
Total
128
min
PAINT
DOWN
TIME
Issue
Time
Problem
back
room
7
min
Re-‐clean
part
1
min
Mix
paint
-‐
ran
out
@37
parts
7
min
Total
15
min
