Factory Project.pdf

1

Department of Industrial Engineering

Professor Shashi Shathaye

Chinmay Raval

Estevao Pinheiro

Nikunj Jadawla

M N - G Y 7 8 9 3 : P r o d u c t i o n S c i e n c e F a l l 2 0 1 4

HAL Inc. Case Study Production Science

December 14, 2014

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to thank Prof. Robert Albano for his guidance and unconditional

support throughout the course.

Thank you.

Chinmay Raval Estevao Pinheiro

M.S. Industrial Engineering M.S. Industrial Engineering

[email protected] [email protected]

Nikunj Jadawala

M.S. Industrial Engineering

[email protected]

3

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................................... 2

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

INTRODUCTION (CURRENT SCENARIO) .................................................................................................. 5

PROBLEMS FACED ........................................................................................................................................... 6

DATA .................................................................................................................................................................... 7

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM ........................................................................................................................... 8

CALCULATIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 9

VUT CHART (CURRENT SCENARIO) ....................................................................................................... 10

VALUE STREAM MAPPING ......................................................................................................................... 11

VUT CHART (RECOMMENDED) ................................................................................................................ 12

LAYOUT OF PROCESS CENTERS (CURRENT SCENARIO) ................................................................. 13

LAYOUT OF PROCESS CENTERS (RECOMMENDED) .......................................................................... 14

IMPROVEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 15

SUGGESTIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 16

4

ABSTRACT

HAL, Inc. is a major manufacturer of computers and computer components producing Printed

Circuit Boards (PCB's, also referred to as "Panels"). The plant was built in 1982 and has

approximately 450,000 sq. ft. of manufacturing space which represents an $80 million investment.

The company makes two families of products:

Small Panels: These are 10" x 15" panels, the overall demand for which is gradually

declining. There are roughly 40,000 different types of these panels, most of which are

made for replacement parts in older computers.

Large Panels: These are 19.5" x 24" panels, currently having 150 different types of large

panels but the number for which is steadily increasing. They are primarily used for

personal computer cards.

5

INTRODUCTION (CURRENT SCENARIO)

The plant runs a 3 shift/day schedule but works for only 19.5hrs/day when breaks, lunches and

shift changes are considered. For both the product families, the company follows a basic sequence

of manufacturing operations:

1. Treater Process

2. Lamination-Core

3. Machining

4. Internal Circuitize

5. Optical Test and Repair - Internal

6. Lamination - Composites

7. External Circuitize

8. Optical Test and Repair - External

9. Drilling

10. Copper Plate

11. Pro-coat

12. Sizing

13. End-of-line Test

Some of the above stated process (specially Treater, Lamination, Copper Plate) are shared

between the two product families. But before 1990, Large Panel line had a very low volume and a

small range of part numbers. During that time order acceptance and scheduling were handled by

the Production Control Department. The Manufacturing Department ran the line as the number of

products was small, became accustomed to a de-facto rule of running only 1 part number per day

on a process. Managing the line was easy as very few changeovers were required and the operators

could develop a rhythm.

By 1990, the number of large panels had increased to about 150 and the de-facto rule was no

longer viable. Capacity estimated by the manufacturing department was to be more than 2000

panels/day, but the daily output was around 1400panels/day. The actual amount of processing

time required to make the PCB was less than 2 days and the manufacturing cycle times had grown

to 34days. The number of PCB's (WIP) in the line had averaged about 47,600 in the recent months.

While, the objective was estimated to be 3000panels/day.

6

PROBLEMS FACED

Following problems were faced by the company, which were discussed during the 4:00 meeting

of all the first line managers:

Manufacturing department kept on changing the MRP schedule as per their needs of

meeting the high priority customer orders. Due to this, the Production Control

Department had to always change the MRP schedule as and when the manufacturing

department prioritized the work. This made queues to build up and longer delays.

The production control department contended that the 34 days cycle time actually had a

20 days frozen period. Because of this, the manufacturing dept. made releases

depending on forecast which were often poor or wrong resulting in wrong products

being released. This in turn built up extra WIP in the system because of work waiting in

the queue.

The bottleneck machine moved from one machine to another because of variable

breakdown amongst the various machines. This made it very difficult to manage the line

since the WIP required to meet the schedule was not available due to machines breaking

down.

Understaffing was another reason for a machine becoming a bottleneck and hence the

Large Panel Line seemed to be running below the expected capacity.

Manufacturing said that the numbers generated for capacity by the manufacturing

engineering team were unrealistic, even though the manufacturing personnel didn't have

convincing reasons. Also, the workers were not motivated enough, which led to

underproduction.

Continuous evolution of products made it difficult to standardize the processes being

used by the company.

Errors were detected in a very later stage rather than detecting them in an earlier stage

which led to loss of inventory, which in turn resulted in yield loss and/or rework and

thereby resulting in loss of high capital.

Managing the line was difficult as there was an uneven demand placed on the Large

Panel Line. This was so because there was under production in some months while there

was over production in the other leading to building up high WIP.

7

DATA

A team of engineers from Manufacturing, Manufacturing Engineering and Production Control

discussed about the capacity of Large Panel Line and compiled a set of capacity numbers

representing the basic flow through the Large Panel Line. The data for the current production line is

as follows:

8

PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM

External Internal

Treator Tower

Lamination Presses

Lamination Machining

Circuitise

Internal Test & Repair

Pro-coat

EOL Sizing

Copper Plate

EOL Test

External Test & Repair

Drills

9

CALCULATIONS

10

VUT CHART (CURRENT SCENARIO)

11

VALUE STREAM MAPPING

12

VUT CHART (RECOMMENDED)

13

LAYOUT OF PROCESS CENTERS (CURRENT SCENARIO)

Drills

Copper Plate Internal

Test & Repair Procoat

EOL Sizing

EOL Test

Circuitize

External Test & Repair

Lamination

Machining

Lamination

Presses

Treater Tower

14

LAYOUT OF PROCESS CENTERS (RECOMMENDED)

Drills

Copper Plate Procoat Internal Test &

Repair

EOL Sizing

EOL Test

Circuitize

External Test & Repair

Lamination

Machining

Lamination

Presses

Treater Tower

15

IMPROVEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A new plant layout was designed which was streamlined and was favorable for the easy

flow of products as it minimized the distances between workstations. Thus, reducing the

non-bottleneck time.

Increase the capacity of critical stations: Increasing capacity is enough to reach the

production of 3000 panels/day, but value of WIP increases. This can be overcome by

reducing the variation.

Workers should be cross-trained to perform tasks on various stations to reduce or minimize

understaffing problems.

To reduce the machine breakdowns which cause bottlenecks, schedule preventive

maintenance.

Maintenance reports must be checked and discussed in the daily meetings.

Introduce Push/ Pull boundary in the production flow process to maintain standardization

of parts and reduce variability in products.

Implement quality control checks at major stations to detect the problems in early stages of

the production process.

16

SUGGESTIONS