ACME [Line Balancing]

7/25/2019 ACME [Line Balancing]

1/52

2. ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY

Methodology: Line balancing method has been used with different heuristic to

explore various ways of improving the production process efficiency and

reducing the unit cost.

Increasing the no. of shift per day is the second method used to reduce the

cost per unit and increase the overall efficiency of the process plant.


2/52


3/52

Existing Process- Process Diagram

C I P

(Set up 1)UHT system

Raw MaterialsBlending &

preparation (Set Up )

Coding

Ma!"ine

#septi! $illing

ma!"ineStraw

appli!ation

S"rin%

rappingCarton

'pening

Carton

illing

Carton

luing*istri+ution


4/52


5/52

2.1. EXESTING PROCESS

The Production Process for Premium Mango Juice

The Production process at AM! Agrovet " #everages is pretty much the

same for the $%&ml' %&&ml' and the ( liter si)e of Premium Mango *uice.

The se+uence of the production process for the $%&ml is:

2.1.1 #efore commencing the actual production' there is IP,

leaning in Process: the cleaning of the entire production process with

a solution of cleaning agents dissolved in water which is preheated to

-%&. The cleaning process taes (.% hours.

2.1.2 Then the production process commences' form one side' mango

pulp is extracted from cans and poured into a hopper which leads to a

mixing vessel. At the same time' sugar' citric acid' and aseptic acid are

dumped directly into the mixing vessel.

2.1.3 In the mixing vessel /of capacity $&&g0' batches of $&&g of the

mixture is taen and fed into the blending tan There is a continuous

recycling between the mixing vessel and the blending tan. In the

mixing vessel' the mixture is mixed with water preheated to %%&

/enabled by using heat exchangers0' 1lucose is added in this mixture

separately. In the blending tan' the final (& minutes is used for mixing

by the agitator.

2.1.4 2rom the blender' samples are taen for +uality testing' if the

mixture to conform to specification' then the mixture goes through

filtration pipes' where fibers " suspended matter are removed.

2.1.5 Then the mixture is cooled initially then fed into the #uffer Tan

where it is further to cooled to $&,$$3. 4ere the #alance Tan 5evice

/#T50' having sensors that enable it to supply any deficiency in the

supply of 6uice being fed into the #uffer Tan. The capacity of the

#alance Tan 5evice is $%& ltr. This is the beginning of the 7ltra

4eating Treatment /74T0 process.2.1.6 The mixture then goes to the preheating stage in the tubular


6/52

2.1.7


7/52

2.2.2. Precedence iagram Ta!"e 2

Tas# Tas# Time$min%

escri&tion Preceding'e(uence

a $.% 74T ,,,,

b 8.? Aseptic 2illing Machine a

c 8.? oding Machine b

d 8.? traw Applicator /1lue2illing0

c

e 8.? traw Applicator /traw2illing0

d

f 8.? hrin Crapping /Plastic

2eeding0

e

g 8.? hrin Crapping /Crappinghec0

f

h ? arton Dpening g

i ? arton 2illing h

6 ? arton 1luing i


8/52

2.2.3. Precedence iagram ) *+isting Process

2.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 3 3 3

a + ! d e $ "g i ,


9/52

2.2.4. ,euristic- The &recedence re"ationshi& shou"d not !e io"ated and c/c"e time shou"d not !e e+ceeded.

!xisting ystem: Initially the cleaning in process /etup(0 is started. After that four labor prepares the raw material and Mixing,blending

process /etup $0 is done. After setup ( and setup $ is completed' the main process started. 2or each tas one worer is engaged.

Theses worers wor hourly basis. There are also some permanent staff that loo after the overall +uality' production' pacing and

distribution. Total Tas Time: B=.? Minutes' ycle Time: 8.? Minutes' Theoretical minimum no. of stations B=.?;8.? 9.-? E -. o

there is still scope of improvement in this present system. The following table details the data about the salary.

Ta!"e 3

Positions Monthly alary


10/52

Total Tas Time: B=.?min

2.2.6. 'ummar/ of *+isting '/stem Ta!"e 4

'tations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Tas# ssigned a ! c d e f g h i

ctiit/ Time 2.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 3 3 3d"e Time 3.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 3.3 3.3


11/52

2.2.7. *fficient and d"e Time

!fficiency /um of the activity times0 ; /


12/52


13/52

2.2.8. ost ana"/sis-

ost' variable i0 electricity T. $9?'(9%;month

T. (&'%&9;day T. B?9.-;hr

ii0 1as T. B8'$&&;month T. ('8?-.%;day

T. 8-.$9;hr

iii0 Labor' hourly T. (&&&;day T. ($%;hour /woring

hours - hrs;day0

iv0 Labor ost' fixed T. =&'&&&;month T.

?'B8(.%B;day

v0 5epreciation T. $-?'8&$ T. =B%?.B;day / ?&

days in a month0

- The cost of ra materia"s hae !een e+c"uded due to discretionar/

reasons and the fact that it aries on the aerage een"/ ith &roduction(uantit/.

4ourly Fariable cost !lectricity cost H 1as ost H Fariable Labor ost

B?9.- H 8-.$9 H ($%

T. 8?(.&9;hr

Time in (stshift B9%min 8& 9.=$hrs

Fariable ost for (stshift 9.=$hrs x T. 8?(.&9 T. B==-.&9

Fariable ost for weely production /8 days0 T. B==-.&9 x 8 T.$==--.B$

2ixed labor cost per wee ?B8(.%B x 8 T $&98=.$B

5epreciation ost per wee =B%?.B x 9 T 88(9?.-


14/52

Total ost per wee Fariable ost H 2ixed labor cost H 5epreciation cost

T/$==--.B$ H $&98=.$B H 88(9?.-0

T ((8=?(.B8

Ceely production 5aily Production x no. of days --& x 8 %$-& cartons

7nit ost;arton T. ((8=?(.B8;%$-& T#. 22.15carton


15/52

2.3. OPTION ONE

,euristic- The &recedence re"ationshi& shou"d not !e io"ated and c/c"e

time shou"d not !e e+ceeded.

old tart

Total Tas Time: B=.? Minutes

ycle Time: 8.? Minutes

Theoretical minimum no. of stations B=.?;8.? 9.-? E -.

o there is opportunities to increase the efficiency of the system. In this

alternative' no. of stations has been reduced to =. arton 2illing and arton

1luing tass have been assigned to only one station instead of two. Thus

efficiency is increased to -8.=%@ and idle time is reduced to (?.&%@. As no.

of wor stations is reduced' the variable labor cost is also reduced. o the

ost;carton is reduced to $$.&? from $$.(%

2.3.1. Precedence iagram Ta!"e 5 $&tion *%

Tas# Tas# Time

$min%

escri&tion Preceding

'e(uencea $.% 74T ,,,,




c


d

f 8.? hrin Crapping /Plastic2eeding0

e

g 8.? hrin Crapping

/Crapping hec0

f

h ? arton Dpening g

i ? arton 2illing h

6 ? arton 1luing i


16/52


17/52

2.3.2. Precedence iagram : &tion *

2.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 3 3 3

a + ! d e $ "g i ,


18/52

2.3.3. 'ummer/ of &tion * Ta!"e 6

'tations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Tas# ssigned a ! c d e f g h i;

ctiit/ Time 2.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 3 3


19/52


!fficiency Total tas time ; /


20/52

2.3.5. ost ana"/sis


J T. (&'%&9;day J T. B?9.-;hr

ii0 1as T. B8'$&&;month J T. ('8?-.%;day

J T. 8-.$9;hr

iii0 Labor' hourly T. =&&;day J T. (($.%;hour /woring

hours - hrs;day0

Labor' fixed T. =&'&&&;month J T. ?'B8(.%B;day


reasons and the fact that it aries on the aerage een"/ ith &roduction

(uantit/.

5epreciation T. $-?'8&$ J T. =B%?.B;day / ?& days in a month0

4ourly variable cost !lectricity cost H 1as ost H Fariable Labor ost

B?9.- H 8-.$9 H (($.%0

T. 8(-.%9;hr


ost for (stshift 9.=$hrs x T. 8(-.%9 T. B-==.&9

Fariable ost for weely production /8 days0 T. B-==.&9 x 8 T.$=?=B.B$




21/52


$=?=B.B$ H $&98=.$B H 88(9?.-

((8??9.B8

Ceely production %$-& cartons

7nit ost;arton T. ((8??9.B8;%$-& T#. 22.03carton


22/52

2.4. Option TWO



If ycle time is taen as ($.8 minutes.

Theoretical minimum no. of stations Total tas time;ycle time

B=.?;($.8

?.=( E B

In this option effort is made to reduce the no. of stations by increasing the

ycle time. 4ere it can be seen that the wor stations are unbalanced with no.

1stations having (&.( minutes of idle time while no. 2'3and 4having )ero idle

time. The efficiency of the process is also reduced to 9-.$% which is less than

the existing process. The unit cost could be reduced to T $(.%- in this option

which is $.8@ lower than the existing cost per carton.

2.4.1. Precedence iagram Ta!"e 7 $&tion T>%

Tas# Tas# Time

$min%

escri&tion Preceding

'e(uencea $.% 74T ,,,,




c


d


e

g 8.? hrin Crapping/Crapping hec0 f

h ? arton Dpening g

i ? arton 2illing h

6 ? arton 1luing i


23/52


24/52

2.4.2. Precedence iagram : &tion T>

2.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 3 3 3

a + ! d e $ "g i ,


25/52

2.4.3. 'ummer/ of &tion T> Ta!"e 8

'tations 1 2 3 4 5

Tas# ssigned a !;c d;e f;g h;i;ctiit/ Time 2.5 12.6 12.6 12.6 9

d"e Time 10.1 0 0 0 3.6




26/52

2.4.5. ost ana"/sis

Total time for shift B9%min.


J T. (&'%&9;day J T. B?9.-;hr


J T. 8-.$9;hr

iii0 Labor' hourly T. %&&;day J T. 8$.%;hour /woring

hours - hrs;day0




(uantit/.



B?9.- H 8-.$9 H 8$.%0

T. %8-.%9;hr


ost for (stshift 9.=$hrs x T. %8-.%9 T. B%&?.&9

Fariable ost for weely production /8 days0 T. B%&?.&9 x 8 T.$9&(-.B$




27/52

$9&(-.B$ H $&98=.$B H 88(9?.-

((?=8(.B8


7nit ost;arton T. %-'B?8.8-;%$-& T#. 21.58carton

etup time ( =& minutesetup Time $ =& minutes


28/52

2.5. Option THREE



old tart

Total Tas Time: B=.? Minutes

ycle time: 8.? Minutes

Theoretical minimum no. of stations B=.?;8.? 9.-? E -.

#ecause there is fractional part' (&&@ efficiency is not attainable. #ut there is

good chance of improving the process if theoretical minimum no. of stations

could be reali)ed. In this option precedence diagram $ has been followed.

There is no preceding tas for tas h/carton opening0 in precedence diagram

$. o tas aand tas hhas been assigned in station 1while tas iand tas

have been assigned in station 8. This way it was possible to balance all the

worstations and idle time could be reduced to only $.$@. The cost per carton

is also reduced to T $(.=$ which is (.&B@ lower than the existing cost per

carton.


Tas# Tas# Time$min%



29/52




c

e 8.? traw Applicator /traw

2illing0

d


e

g 8.? hrin Crapping /Crappinghec0

f

h ? arton Dpening ,,,

i ? arton 2illing h'g

6 ? arton 1luing i


30/52

2.5.2. Precedence iagram : &tion T,?**

2.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 3 3

3

a + ! d e $

"

g i ,


31/52

2.5.3. 'ummar/ of &tion T,?** Ta!"e 10

'tations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Tas# ssigned a;h ! c d e f g ;ctiit/ Time 2.5


32/52




33/52

2.5.5. ost ana"/sis

Total time for shift B9%min.


J T. (&'%&9;day J T. B?9.-;hr


J T. 8-.$9;hr

iii0 Labor' hourly T. -&&;day J T. (&&;hour /woring

hours - hrs;day0




(uantit/.



B?9.- H 8-.$9 H (&&0 T. 8&8.&9;hr


ost for (stshift 9.=$hrs x T. 8&8.&9 T. B-&&.&9

Fariable ost for weely production /8 days0 T. B-&&.&9 x 8 T.$--&&.B$




34/52


$--&&.B$ H $&98=.$B H 88(9?.-

((%9B?.B8


7nit ost;arton T. ((%9B?.B8;%$-& T#. 21.92carton


35/52

2.6. Option O!R



&erating 2 shifts in one da/-etup Time ( is re+uired only for cold start

and et up $ can be done during process time of first shift. o for second

shift process time is substantially reduced. This will also allow the system to

run for only three days per wee to meet the weely demand of %$-& cartons

of mango 6uice. The other four remaining days in a wee could be utili)ed for

producing (liter and %&& ml products. Three extra supervisors are employed

for the extra shift: one +uality supervisor' one production supervisor and one

pacing supervisor. #y using this option the cost per carton could be reduced

to T $(.&$ which is %.(@ lower than the existing cost per carton.

Dperating $ shifts in one day

Time for (stDperating ycle B9% minutes

Time for $ndDperating ycles /etup one is re+uired only for cold start' et

up $ can be done during process time of first batch.0' J

Process time B& x 8.?min $%$min. / for B& batches of $$ cartons0

Total time for $ shifts B9%min H $%$min 9$9min. J ($.($hrs.

5aily output is --& x $ ('98& cartons


36/52


Tas# Tas# Time$min%


a $.% 74T ,,,,


c 8.? oding Machine bd 8.? traw Applicator /1lue 2illing0 c

e 8.? traw Applicator /traw 2illing0 df 8.? hrin Crapping /Plastic 2eeding0 e

g 8.? hrin Crapping /Crapping hec0 f

h ? arton Dpening ,,,i ? arton 2illing h'g

6 ? arton 1luing i


37/52

2.6.2. Precedence iagram : &tion @?

2.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 3 3

3

a + ! d e $

"

g i ,


38/52

2.6.3. ost na"/sis


T. (&'%&9;day

T. B?9.-;hr

ii0 1as T. B8'$&&;month

T. ('8?-.%;day

T. 8-.$9;hr

iii0 Labor' hourly T. (&&&;day J T. ($%;hour /woring

hours - hrs;day0

iv0 upervisors /?0 T/%&&&H 9&&& 9&&&0;month each

T (=&&&;month

T 9?&.99;day

T =(.?%;hr

iv0 Labor' fixed T. =&'&&&;month J T.

?'B8(.%B;day

T.B?$.9;hr



(uantit/.

ost' fixed 5epreciation T. $-?'8&$ T. =B%?.B;day

4ourly variable cost

!lectricity cost H 1as ost H Fariable Labor ost

B?9.- H 8-.$9 H ($%

T. 8?(.&9;hr

Fariable ost per day ($.($hrs x T. 8?(.&9

T 98B- %9


39/52

Ceely variable cost 98B-.%9 x ?

T $$=B%.9(

upervisors daily cost =(.?% x B.($

T ?98.?8

upervisors weely cost ?98.?8 x ?

T (($=.&-

2ixed Labor ost T. =&'&&&;month

T. ?'B8(.%B;day

T ?B8(.%B x 8

T $&98=.$B;wee


Total Ceely ost weely variable cost H upervisors cost H weely fixed

labor cost H Ceely 5epreciation ost

$$=B%.9( H (($=.&- H$&98=.$B H 88(9?.-

T (((&(9.-?

Ceely production (98& x ?

%$-& cartons

7nit cost per carton T. (((&(9.-?;%'$-&

T#. 21.02carton


40/52

2.". Option I#E



&erating 6 shifts consecutie"/-etup Time ( is re+uired only for cold

start and et up $ can be done during process time of previous shift batch.

o from the second shift onwards process time is substantially reduced. This

will re+uire the system to run for only $-.=$ hours in a wee to meet the

weely demand of %$-& cartons of mango 6uice. The other six remaining days

in a wee could be utili)ed for producing (liter and %&& ml products. ix extra

supervisors are employed for the extra shifts: Two +uality supervisor' two

production supervisor and two pacing supervisor. Three supervisors' one

from each department will be woring for - hours. Then the other three

supervisor will tae over and wor till permanent supervisors tae over at

-Kcloc in the next morning. #y using this option the cost per carton could be

reduced to T $&.(= which is -.-%@ lower than the existing cost per carton.

Time for (stshift B9% minutes' Time for $ndshift $%$min' ?rdshift $%$min'

Total time for 8 shifts B9%min H $%$min H $%$min H$%$min H$%$min

H$%$min ('9?%min. J $-=.(9 min;shift J$-.=$hrs.


41/52

2.".1. P$%&%'%n&% Di()$(* T(+,% 12

Tas# Tas# Time $min% escri&tion Preceding 'e(uence

a $.% 74T ,,,,b 8.? Aseptic 2illing Machine a

c 8.? oding Machine bd 8.? traw Applicator /1lue 2illing0 ce 8.? traw Applicator /traw 2illing0 d

f 8.? hrin Crapping /Plastic 2eeding0 eg 8.? hrin Crapping /Crapping hec0 f

h ? arton Dpening ,,,

i ? arton 2illing h'g6 ? arton 1luing i


42/52

2.".2. P$%&%'%n&% Di()$(* - Option I#E

2.5 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 3 3

3

a + ! d e $

"

g i ,


43/52

2.7.3. ost ana"/sis

ost' variable i0 !lectricity T. $9?'(9%;month

T. (&'%&9;day

T. B?9.-;hr

ii0 1as T. B8'$&&;month

T. ('8?-.%;day

T. 8-.$9;hr

iii0 Labor' hourly T. (&&&;day J T. ($%;hour /woring

hours - hrs;day0

iv0 upervisors /?0 T/%&&&H 9&&& H 9&&&0;month T

(=&&&;month

T 9?&.99;day

T =(.?%;hr

iv0 labor' fixed T. =&'&&&;month J T.

?'B8(.%B;day



(uantit/.

ost' fixed 5epreciation T. $-?'8&$ T. =B%?.B ;day


B?9.- H 8-.$9 H ($%

T. 8?(.&9;hr

Fariable ost per wee $-.=$hrs x T. 8?(.&9 T.(-$%&.%B

upervisors weely cost =( ?% x (8 T (B8( 8


44/52


?B8(.%B x 8

$&98=.$B


Total Ceely ost weely variable cost H upervisors cost H 2ixed labor

cost H Ceely 5epreciation ost

(-$%&.%B H (B8(.8 H $&98=.$BH 88(9?.-

T (&88%%.(-

Ceely production --& x 8 %$-& cartons

7nit cost per carton T. (&88%%.(-;%'$-& T#. 20.19carton


45/52

2.. E/i0tin) #0. P$opo0%' Option0

2.8.1. 'tations; *fficient time; d"e Time; a"ancing; ost om&arison Ta!"e 13

Dptions


46/52

2.8.1.1. Ara&hica" Presentation f 'tations n "" Process


47/52

2.8.1.2. Ara&hica" Presentation f *fficient Time om&arison f n "" Process

*fficienc/ om&arison

9-.?-8.=%

9-.$%

=9.- =9.- =9.-

&

$&

B&

8&

-&

(&&

($&

( $ ? B % 8

&tions

*fficie

ncies


48/52

2.8.1.3. Ara&hica" Presentation of the d"e Time om&arison f n "" Process

d"e Time om&arison

$(.9

(?.&%

$(.9%

$.$ $.$ $.$&

%

(&

(%

$&

$%

( $ ? B % 8

&tions

B2d"eTime


49/52

2.8.1.4. Ara&hica" Presentation of the ost@nit om&arison f n "" Process


50/52

2.8.1.5. Ara&hica" Presentation of the B hange in costcarton om&arison f n "" Process


51/52

2.8.2. ause) and)effect diagram

Guality Mango Pulp Cater

IP

Dther hemicals itric Acid

Type

upervision

Training Age

Ability Maintenance

-ow

Produ!ti.ity/

0uality and

"ig" !ost

Met"od( Produ!ing ui!e)

Material

Ma!"inePersonnel


52/52

3. C@' ?*MM*T'

The preceding discussions briefly covered the existing salient features of AM!

Agrovet and #everage Limited a growing food processing local company. The

existing manufacturing process of Premium Mango *uice has been analy)ed and

examined to find further improvements in cost' operational efficiency. everal

approaches; alternatives to see and find more efficient and cost effective line

balancing of the process. !ach approach has been analy)ed in terms of

percentage utili)ation' cycle time' throughput time' percentage idle time and cost

per unit of the products. Three line balancing approaches and followed by a two

shift and a six shift approaches have been considered. The idea was to balance

the production process by reducing the number of stations. 2inally an approach

of line balancing with =9.-@ efficiency has been found with minimum number of

eight stations. Thereafter in an attempts to reduce the per unit cost a two shifts

and then a six shifts have been suggested increasing the capacity per day. 4ere

the elimination of set up time has been found to be useful in reducing the cost

per unit.

?.(. >ecommendations

Dption ? is recommended because option ? is found to be balanced with =9.-@

efficiency and comparatively lower costs. Dverall productivity enhancement by

increasing the number of shifts according to the demand per wee will further

reduce the unit cost. 4owever' option $ is recommended for lean period of winter

season as the demand is low at that time. #ut low per unit cost will help capture

substantial maret share by offering special discount which would in turn help

gain competitive advantage. Dption B and % may also be considered during pea

season of summer when production rate is much more important than the price.

ACME [Line Balancing]

Documents