Our management decided to go the Kaizen route.
Our shop MRP was set up for a Forecast system. Managment would forcast how
many of each product would be shipped in a given month throughout the year
based on the previous few years sales for those months. The MPR system
would then come out with job orders daily to fulfill these needs. This
system creates inventory that is taken to the stock room and stored. Things
are run in the highest quantity required to save setups.
"Kaizen" is a complete paridigm shift from that method. "Kaizens" goal is to
reduce inventory and floor space by bringing everything into "cells" and in
production order. Basically changing your Push system into a Pull system.
In kaizen you have say 6,or whatever meets demand, products at a state that
they all could be shipped within a day. When an order needs 4 of the
product the 4 are finished up and brought to shipping (which should be close
if possible). Now your shelf is missing 4 products. The cell before sees
the 4 missing and produces 4 more from that level, and the cell before that
replaces the 4 that are missing at their level, and this continues all the
way down to the part level. In jist you always have the set quantity ready
for the next level up to grab and complete. This eliminates inventory costs
by not requiring the product and each level of it's assembly to be brought
to the stock room logged in and checked out when needed. In the MRP you no
longer adjust quantity on hand because you "always", in theory, have 6 (in
this example) on hand at each level of production.
Clear as mud?
> >Bill Roberto wrote in
> >news:PpQRd.1064$ email@example.com: > >
> >> There were a couple of design engineers from a pretty big company in
> >> the class and I guess I have a pretty good line of bullshit because
> >> they contacted the college requesting me to come to their facility and
> >> help them make their designs more manufacturable. Form, fit and
> >> function. Here is where I need some help from you ME and management
> >> types. Because they are engineers they want to implement some modern
> >> management techniques instead of Bill's cool method of manufacturing
> >> they want me to structure the session around Kaizen or one of the more
> >> popular manufacturing catch phrases. Can anyone nutshell Kaizen? Is it
> >> pretty much structured common sense? Thanks in advance. Anthony? > >
> >I know they want a 'buzzword', 'catch phrase' or something similar, but
> >a buzzword or catch phrase does not help their manufacturing one iota.
> >It can even hurt, because people KNOW it's a catch phrase or buzzword.
> >Real, measurable process improvement, manufacturability improvements &
> >cost reduction only comes if ALL people of ALL levels of a company work
> >together as one team. One of the basis of all those programs (kaizen,
> >etc) is that everything is documented. Here are some of the things you
> >might wish to bring up.
> >Design phase: Designers should go train for some time at the actual
> >manufacturing facility, AS A MANUFACTURING PERSON. i.e. they get their
> >hands dirty actually working with the equipment on the manufacturing
> >floor. This has several advantages, the designer now knows what type of
> >equipment will be running his/her parts. They now know, to some extent,
> >the limitations of that equipment, and how difficult it is to set-up
> >certian things. By working with and beside of the manufacturing floor
> >people for some time, they will get significant insight as to how to
> >make things easier, and thus cheaper, directly from the people who
> >*really* know. The disadvantage to this...is some designers don't want
> >to get thier hands dirty.
> >The designers, in turn, need sit down with all the manufacturing people,
> >including manufacturing engineers, floor personnel, quality, managers,
> >maintenance people, etc and turn all this valuable information into a
> >"Best practices' document that they design by. This document should
> >have several sections and cover most everything related to the design,
> >from the actual design (section thicknesses, allowable bending moments,
> >etc) right through to the manufacturing (use a 6mmR instead of a 5mmR,
> >because manufacturing has two sizes of the custom inserts needed, one is
> >a bit under a 4 mm R, the other is a tad under a 6mmR, but with the
> >6mmR, they can run a 0.6 mm/rev feedrate for the surface finish we need,
> >vs. 0.4 mm/rev required for the smaller insert) and quality side (is
> >that surface finish really required for the function of the part...is
> >this section of the part going to cause problems in manufacturing that
> >will increase scrap rates, and the possibility that a bad part will get
> >to the customer?- Do we really have to call out a dimension that you
> >cannot check, since the customer is going to require data on that
> >dimension from quality?.) This document should become the basis for
> >recordkeeping in the entire design/manufacturing chain.
> >NONE of this will happen, however, if EVERYONE, including the CEO is not
> >bought in on it. EVERYONE needs a say in the process.
> >Now, 6-months down the road...you have the initial document. This is a
> >'living' document, it is not set in stone, it is not a RULE, it is a
> >'guideline of best practices'. You have it..you are designing by
> >it....but how are you doing?....you have no clue. It is like a NC
> >control...without the feedback loop...it has no idea where it's at. So
> >you need some feedback documentation. This can come from a variety of
> >sources, but you need hard data. What is the scrap rate?...what did it
> >go to when you made this change? Did production numbers go up?...Did
> >changeover times go down? Did tooling costs go down? Did the process
> >improve in SPC stability, were they able to narrow the control limits?
> >This information flow back is one of the keys....you 'rate' the issues
> >in your 'best practice' based on this feedback. You may find some aren't
> >a real concern at all, while others have a major impact, and there were
> >a few that were missed. This needs to be done in a continual loop, and
> >the 'best practices' changed as you go to reflect the feedback data.
> >Documentation, documentation. All steps of the process need to be
> >documented, registered, and a version history of all documents kept. > >
> >Drawing reviews.....
> >All design drawings need to be reviewed at many steps along the way by
> >manufacturing. It is much easier to spot and correct possible
> >manufacturing problems early in the design process. It makes no sense to
> >drop a drawing on manufacturing that leaves them wondering how in the
> >hell they are going to make the part. This is a KEY.... Not only does
> >this prevent non-manufacturable parts from making to manufacturing, but
> >it also helps stimulate ideas on the manufacturing side. Say design
> >wants to make something...but manufacturing says they can't with the
> >present process...but design has some good reasons for doing this, i.e.
> >competition is doing it...or the company gains an upper hand on the
> >competition because they 'can't' do it...something that would help out
> >the company as a whole...well...this may stimulate some thoughts on the
> >manufacturing side as to....hrm...maybe if we did this..we 'could' do it
> >at a reasonable cost...and here you have the makings of _real_
> >_measurable_ process improvement. People working together...100 brains
> >can come up with a lot better stuff than just one..
> Just fishing .