Lean Thinking and Lean

Manufacturing

ISEN 645
FA2016

Integrate Flow Monitor &

Define Design Instantiate
& Control Remediate
FA2016 Week
1: 29/31AUG
Core Topic / Theme
Introduction to Lean
Technical focus
Core principles and definitions

15week 2: 5/7SEP
3: 12/14SEP
Value
Value / Value Stream
SE; IDEF0; Lean PS design principles
IDEF0; VSM; Value and the Value Stream

Schedule 4: 19/21SEP
5: 26/28SEP***
Value Stream / KD - project
Flow
VSM; KD presentation
8-Step design process; IDEF3; JIT; Cells
Class13:
6: 3/5OCT Flow / Control Line balancing; Task engineering
7: 10/12OCT*** Control Cell design activity; Leveling; Factory Physics Principles;
3EQN/4GRAPHS; Buffer engineering (time, capacity, inventory);
8: 17/19OCT Control
Kanban; CONWIP; integrated Inventory & Production Control
9: 24/26OCT*** Lean supply chain SC Principles; Beer game
10: 31OCT/2NOV Lean supply chain Integration with the PS
11: 7/9NOV*** Perfection: Lean 6σ DMAIC VOC; SIPOC; C/E chaining
12: 14/16NOV Perfection: Lean 6σ DMAIC Gauge R&R; SMED; SPC
13: 21NOV* (MON) Perfection: Gemba Kaizen Implementation planning applied
14: 28/30NOV*** Culture / LPS design - Epilogue Leadership
15: 7DEC* (WED) Project briefings Schedule and timing TBD
16: Final 9DEC 0730-0930a

***KD scheduled review after class at 7p; team leads – quad-chart status briefing (3-5min)
 Prelude to Class13…

• Lean is a paradigm for PS behavior – waste reduction by

institutionalizing a takt that paces the pull from/to the customer
enabled through continuous flow and rapid change over
between production of products allowing us to operate the PS
with minimal “buffering”
• We can envisage a lean PS - Perfect, mechanistic, deterministic
… clockwork precision
• Our job is to vector our PS toward that “PS upon a hill”
• Building the lean watch is not without a great deal of ISEN sweat
equity fueling the fire … “it don’t come easy”
 Lean system engineering is the systematic reduction of “waste” in the production system

Project summary
Approach
Technical objectives

Project news Deliverables and Issues to be

schedule addressed

KD will be here this WED at 7p

New statusing format:
 Each team will email to me the team project status and questions by noon on WED 12OCT;
 I will email all status updates and questions to KD prior to the 7p meeting
 KD can then pace the Q&A
We will end the Q&A promptly at 8p
 Recall, Lean is waste reduction

Week7: your team should be… Principle centric

Takt driven
Visible Flow & Control
Continuous improvement
• Define the nature of the “problem”
• ASIS characterization
• Issues to be resolved (waste and variability elimination)
• Develop preliminary designs and analyze alternatives
• TOBE characterization
• Performance, cost, risk assessment
• Selection of the focal area for detailed design
• Design
• CONOPS (IDEF0, VSM)
• “Production System” specification(s)
• Physical, functional, behavioral
• SOPs
• Define implementation plan
• <<implementation>>
Assume a spherical chicken…
• When physicists are presented with the “chicken or egg” question –
they make an assumption and press on
• In design we iterate through characterizations of both the ASIS and
the TOBE “modes of thought”
• We need a “concept of operation” (perhaps several), even if vaguely
characterized – representations of the vision (TOBE) and of the
current state (ASIS)
• (a) how are we doing? (b) how do we know? (c) what are we doing
to close the gap?
• We want solid requirements to address so that our solution is viable
• There is a natural progression that depends on clearly TOBE
communicating the “nature of the problem” ASIS
• Issues, symptoms, concerns, problems, needs, requirements, solution
concepts…
• We have a set of principles that guide the satisfaction of the Time

requirements
Bottling line design Project documentation
• Nature of the problem
• IDEF0 model depicting the context of the core transformative activities within which the
“problem” or “issue to be addresses” resides
• Clear description of the issues to be resolved and a statement of design requirements
• Preliminary design and AoA (Analysis of Alternatives)
The “routing” and “bottling line inventory”
• IDEF0 – with VOC mapping (AI0WIN or Visio)
projects will have a modified form of this
• VSM (Visio)
project BOM that I will update over the
• AoA assessment (cost and risk) (format TBA)
next several classes
• Design
• VSM for the selected design (following the 8-future state questions) (Visio)
• Cell design (if appropriate) and line balancing analysis (Visio)
• Transformative process definitions (IDEF3)
• Standard Operating Procedures (Word; format TBA)
• Mixed model scheduling concept definition (Excel)
• Physical layout concept (Visio)
• Implementation plan
• Phased implementation actions and requirements (kaizen events) (MS-Project)
Routing project documentation
• Nature of the problem
• IDEF0 model depicting the context of the core transformative activities within which the “problem” or “issue
to be addresses” resides (for routing we need to explore the activities related to the customer orders and
how those orders are bundled for delivery)
• Clear description of the issues to be resolved and a statement of design requirements
• Preliminary design and AoA (Analysis of Alternatives)
• IDEF0 – with VOC mapping (AI0WIN or Visio)
• VSM (Visio)
• AoA assessment (cost and risk) (format TBA)
• Design
• VSM for the selected design (following the 8-future state questions) (Visio)
• IDEF0 for route generation (IDEF0)
• Transformative process definitions (IDEF3)
• Standard Operating Procedures for route generation and maintenance (Word; format TBA)
• Route “health” monitoring concept definition (Excel)
• Implementation plan
• Phased implementation actions and requirements (kaizen events) (MS-Project)
• Pilot implementation in Encompass
Inventory planning project documentation
• Nature of the problem
• IDEF0 model depicting the context of the core transformative activities within which the “problem” or
“issue to be addresses” resides (for inventory control and management this is the process of planning a
production system – aka “production system planning”)
• Clear description of the issues to be resolved and a statement of design requirements
• Preliminary design and AoA (Analysis of Alternatives)
• IDEF0 – with VOC mapping (AI0WIN or Visio)
• VSM (Visio)
• AoA assessment (cost and risk) (format TBA)
• Design
• VSM for the selected design (following the 8-future state questions) (Visio)
• IDEF0 of the TOBE production system planning process
• Transformative process definitions (IDEF3)
• Standard Operating Procedures (Word; format TBA)
• Inventory management concept definition (Excel/Peachtree/Word)
• Implementation plan
• Phased implementation actions and requirements (kaizen events) (MS-Project)
• Pilot implementation in Peachtree (minimally MS-Excel)
 Phase of Design Tools/Techniques Role in the Lean Production System Design

Understand the [ASIS] IDEF0&VSM Establish needs and Lean opportunities

Establish vision
VSM: leveraging Lean Establish takt and lead time targets
Define and design the
Principles and the 8- Identify cells, supermarkets, and the pacemaker [along with a cut at the production batch size and pitch]
[TOBE]
key Qs directly Establish integrated production control [pull]
Establish high level inventory requirements and supermarkets

Establish specifications for how the requirements will be achieved in the physical production operation – esp. the integrated
Process Design IDEF0 and IDEF3 production control process / procedure. Job descriptions. Many small scenarios are best – reuse is the norm as the same scenario
occurs in many places throughout the design. The VA transformative processes are the focus here.

Task Engineering Work M&M Establish standardized work to drive the PS. If the “atomic” level work is engineered then we are safe from building a house of cards.

GT, WM&M, LB, LL, The heart of single-piece flow is the cell – we need to arrange the tasks into workstations, balance those WS, and do our best to get
Cell Design
SMED, Right-sizing the cell operating at or near the takt. Staffing done in a variety of ways including loops, rabbit chase, bucket brigade, and Little’s Law.

LL, EOQ, EPQ, IC

We have 3 major levers: time, capacity, inventory. We don’t make everything. ABC analysis is used along with MRP-logic to establish
Buffer Engineering models, Kanban,
what to order. Safety stock, usage rates, and acquisition lead time are used to determine how much to order and when.
CONWIP

System performance is the ultimate test of our design. Factory physics and key indicators attune us to places to fine tune our design
Performance analysis 3-Equations, 4-Graphs
and order release from PC to the pacemaker.

Queueing networks, The best way to test the design and integrated control architecture is in context with various sources of variability. Simulation allows
Simulate and refine
Simulation us to play arm chair designer prior to putting our design on stage.

Lean 6σ along with a core set of other Lean tools are made manifest throughout the Lean PS in order to help us prognosticate issues
Sustain 6σ
rather than rely on diagnostics to continuously lean and improve the system
Little’s Law is the F = ma of Production!!! Production physics is the backbone of Lean PS specification
Can we use LL to assist in determining the number of operators to use in a Rabbit chase to staff a Another common LL
12 station assembly cell? If the desired takt rate for the cell is 45s and the operator lead time for representation
the 12 stations is 195s, then just as for the TWI assembly process the WIP = # operators WIP = TH * CT
operating in parallel = 195/45 = 4.333 ~ 5 operators in a rabbit chase might work

Little’s Law [for Lean]: WIP = (Production Rate) * (Lead Time)

• Takt = 1/Production rate [Production Rate is often referred to as the Throughput [TH]]
• Lead time = WIP * Takt [restating LL for our Lean needs]
• Note that CT is often used in place of LT … depends on the application – we should engineer the CT
• Caution!!! Lead time may be loaded; it is the sojourn time; contains “waste”

The long-run average number of customers in a stable system L is equal to the long-run average
effective arrival rate, λ, multiplied by the average time a customer spends in the system, W; or
expressed algebraically: L = λW.

Notice that also were using LL when we calculated the theoretical minimum number of WS for line balancing
WIP = [sum of task times] / takt = # of Workstation required to cycle the cell at takt
Value Stream Process Models: Basis for Measured Improvement
Assuming a long
run PS in the
steady state (the Measure task Measure
arrival rate is performance process
strictly less than performance
the service rate),
then we can
leverage LL
throughout the
enterprise Measure
organization
If our TH is 1/takt performance
Task
then we can
estimate the
performance of Core Processes
the system as
designed.
Organization Activities
 "My logisticians are a humorless lot ... they know if my
campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay."
- Alexander

10OCT Lecture Plan

Quiz6
Project

1: Resource assignment and alignment

2: Cell design activity

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
-George Orwell
M1:
Resource assignment
 http://www.lean.org/lexicon/operator-balance-chart

OBC, briefly…
• Resource allocation is very
clear when the task times
involved are deterministic
• Variability (driven down
and out under a lean-6σ
effort) is a complicating
factor making exact
determination imprecise
• The operator chart is used
to visually align and assign
tasks to each operator
One measure of “balance” is: ∑(task times) / (max time allocation * # operators)
OBC
• Identify the current
task/operator assignment
• Layout on the OBC
• Reengineer tasks to balance –
note that the target CT is ~90%
of the takt (why?)
• Chart the new assignment
• Note that the “bars” depicted
here are actually a composite
reflecting the tasks assigned to
that operator (workstation)
• As with many operations – the
tasks are often sequential, thus a
strict precedence relationship is
implied (though this should be
investigated)
• Estimating the number of
operators required?
• (sum of task times) / (target CT)
• 193 / (0.9*38) = 5.64 ~ 6
Resource requirements determination
• We have some general equations (which at their core are really
restatements of Little’s Law) for calculating requirements
• Steady state – stable systems – are what we design for, thus our
calculations are for systems that are stable
• When it comes to cells we have choices – it still comes down to what
or who is waiting – will the operator dictate the cycle time of the cell
(if so which operator)? or are we bound by the machine time (if so
which one)? – so something or someone is dictating the CT
• We have resource allocation and assignment strategies that we can
employ to achieve the best from our cell design – loops, rabbit chase,
buck brigade
Determination of Equipment Requirements

Given the desired production rate at each processing stage, NB: Isn’t this a
we can determine the number of required machines: restatement of Little’s Law?

 n Pij  Tij  WIP=TH*CT

𝟏
Mj     𝑾𝑰𝑷 = ∙ 𝑪𝑻
i 1 H ij  𝑻𝒂𝒌𝒕

where Pij = production rate for product i on machine j (units/period),

Tij = processing time for product i on machine j (hrs./unit),
Hij = time units available per period for the processing of production machine j (hrs.),
Mj = number of machines of type j required,
n = number of products.

This is the formula provided in the FE reference handbook

Example

CIN-A1 Workcenters are used to produce three types of parts, {1, 2, 3}. Production rates
and unit processing times for the different items are given in the following table:

Item type Production rate Unit processing time

i Pi (units/day) Ti (min./unit)
1 100 6
2 200 9
3 50 12

The facility operates one shift per day (8 hrs./day = 480 min./day). Determine the
number of workcenters required to meet production requirements.
Hi = min. available to process item i per day (Hi = 480 min.),
MA = number of workcenters. Take the
Ceiling of
 3 Pi  Ti  100  6  200  9  50  12 
MA       6.25  7 workcenters CIN  A1.
i 1 H i   480 
Employee Requirements - Manual Assembly

In the case of manual assembly operations, the number of employees

required is determined in the same way machine requirements are calculated:

 n Pij  Tij 
Aj   
i 1 H ij 

where Pij = production rate for assembly operation j of product i (units/period),

Tij = standard time for assembly operation j of product i (hrs./unit),
Hij = time units available per period for assembly operation j of product i
(hrs.),
Aj = number of operators required for assembly operation j,
n = number of products.
Multiple operators multiple machines: how many machines do we assign to an operator?

Multiple Activity Chart Analysis of Multi-Machine Assignment

Does it cost more to have the OP idle or the MC idle?

O-1 M-1 O-1 M-1 M-2 O-1 M-1 M-2 M-3

0
R
L-1 L L-1 L L-1 L
2 I R
I&T I&T LEGEND:
R
4 U-2 U O : Operator
M : Machine
6 U-2 U L-2 L L : Load
R R U : Unload
R
8 L-2 L I&T I : Inspection
I&T U-3 U T : Travel
10 R : Automatic run
L-3 L : Idle time
12 R
U-1 U U-1 U I&T
14 R
U-1 U
L-1 L L-1 L
16 I R
I&T L-1 L
18 R R I&T R
U-2 U U-2 U
20

After an initial transient period, the operator reaches a routine cycle

Reaching “steady state”
• In this diagram from the text the operator
reaches a steady routine at time t=12min
• From that point on the operator can
service all 3-machines during a 9min cycle
• These man-machine charts are very
useful for planning operator activity in a
cell where we expect multifunctional
workers to work more than a single
workstation
Employee Requirements - Machine Operators
• The number of machine operators required depends on the number of machines tended by one or more
operators. The determination of the number of machines to be assigned to one operator can take two
approaches:
 Deterministic ,
 Probabilistic [markov models, queueing models, simulation].

• A deterministic approach is to employ the multiple activity chart. This chart shows the multiple activity
relationships graphically against a time scale. The chart is useful in analyzing multiple activity relationships,
specially, when non-identical machines are supervised by a single operator.

• Let a = concurrent activity time (loading, unloading, etc. – actions that require the simultaneous
participation of both operator and the machine),
b = independent operator activity time (inspecting, packing, etc. – actions that can be
performed independently of the machine; “in parallel”),
t = independent machine activity time (automatic run),
n’ = maximum number of machines that can be assigned to an operator.
Employee Requirements - Machine Operators
at 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 These are identical,
n'  ′
𝑛 =
ab 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 semi-automated MCs

Is the operator waiting

on the MC or is the MC
• Note that n’ may be non-integer.
waiting on the OP?
• Let m = (integer) number of machines assigned to an operator,
Tc = repeating cycle time,  at m  n'
Tc   (1)
I0 = idle operator time during a repeating cycle, m(a  b) m  n'
Im = idle time per machine during a repeating cycle.
(a  t )  m(a  b) m  n'
I0  
 0 m  n'
m(a + b) is the work content for the operator and the
m(a  b)  (a  t ) m  n'
machine cycle will be (a + t). Clearly the difference is the Im  
idle time. If m>n’ then the repeating cycle time will be  0 m  n'
m(a+b). But if we assign fewer machines than ideal [m<n’]
to the operator the cycle time will be dominated by the
loading, unloading, and machine time
Employee Requirements - Machine Operators (cont.)

• Let c1 = cost per operator-hr.,

c2 = cost per machine-hr.,
TC(m) = cost per unit produced, based on the assignment of m machines per operator.

Tc
TC( m)  (c1  m  c 2 ) (2)
m

• Substituting (1) into (2),

 (c  m  c 2 )(a  t ) m  n'
 1
TC( m)   m
 m  n'
(c1  m  c 2 )(a  b)
Employee Requirements - Machine Operators (cont.)
• We want to find the value of m that minimizes TC(m). Again – there is no
magic here, simply a
decision to make as to
• Note that for m < n’, make m large  TC(m) (),
whether it is more cost
and for m > n’, make m small  TC(m) (). effective to have the OP
idle or the MC idle?
• If n’ is integer, n’ is the optimal number of machines per operator.
Calculate the ideal
Otherwise, let n < n’ < n+1. In this case, TC(n) and TC(n+1) have to be compared: assignment, n’. If it is a
TC( n) (c1  n  c 2 )(a  t )   n n' fraction then look at the
    whole numbers
TC( n  1) [c1  ( n  1)c 2 ]n(a  b)   n  1 n
bounding that decimal
number of machines.
c1
where   c2 .
Compare the costs.
• If  <1, assign n machines per operator.
If  >1, assign n+1 machines per operator.
Example
Semiautomatic machines are used to produce a particular product. It takes 4 minutes to load and 3
minutes to unload a machine. A machine runs automatically for 25 minutes in producing one unit of the
product. Travel time between machines is 20 seconds. While machines are automatically running, the
operator inspects the unit previously produced; 75 seconds are required to inspect one unit. An operator
costs $15 per hour, and a machine costs $40 per hour.
a) Determine the number of machines assigned to an operator to minimize the cost per unit produced.
a = 4 + 3 = 7 min., b = 20 + 75 = 95 sec. = 1.58 min., t = 25 min.,
c1 = $15/hr. = $0.25/min., c2 = $40/hr. = $0.67/min.

7  25
n'   3.73
7  158
.
(0.25  3  0.67)(7  25)
TC(3)   $24.0
3  m* = 3 machines/operator.
TC(4)  (0.25  4  0.67)(7  158
. )  $25.03
Example (cont.)
b)For what range of values of machine cost per hour, c2, will the optimal assignment
determined in part (a) be economic.

TC(3)  TC(4),

(0.25  3  c 2 )(7  25)

 (0.25  4  c 2 )(7  158
. ),
3

(0.25 + 3c2) 1.24  (0.25 + 4c2),

0.0607  0.27c2  c2  0.225,

c2  $0.225/min. = $13.48/hr.
Anatomy of the Cell and our responsibilities
• Standardized work
• Rapid changeover
• Balanced workstations
• Multifunctional operators
• Layout/Location [‘U’]
• ~ 4’ aisle
• WIP and inventory De-couplers
to protect against variability
• Operator assignment strategy
• Workload leveling and
sequence strategy
• Resourcing including raw
material and parts
• Linking with pull
 4 key terms: leveling, balancing, sequencing, synchronization

Cell formation highlights

• Machines are arranged according to the sequence of operations
• U shape with 4’ aisle
• Parts are made in the cell on a one-piece flow basis
• Operators attend to more than one process
• Takt time dictates cell cycle time
• Operators perform their jobs while standing and walking
• Machines are modified for quick C/O, zero defects, high reliability, and walk-away switches
• Migrate towards smaller, slower, dedicated, less expensive machines
• Cells that use equipment that was initially designed for stand-alone operation in a job-shop layout are called
interim cells
• Unique manufacturing technology often developed in house
• All manufacturing cells are designed to provide a WIP-Cap within the boundary of that cell. The
WIP-Cap ensures that work-in-process will not exceed are predetermined level – normally not
more than twice the number of machines in the cell
Cell Types: Manufacturing and Assembly
 LE ch.3
Design Axioms
1. Each machine in a U-shaped cell operates independently of any other machine
2. Minimize information requirements on the cell
3. Cell CT is dictated by the downstream Takt [bound on cell output]
4. Balance operator time within and across loops
5. Loop time should be close to cell takt
6. U shape minimizes travel and makes precedence clear
7. Workstation: Make one, unload one, check one, load one, move one
8. Minimize C/O times
9. Enforce zero defects policy at each workstation within the cell
10. Redesign machines to be single-cycle automatic
11. No parts into the cell without authorization; no parts moved from cell w/o authorization
12. Decouple all operations/machines in the cell with single item of stock between machines
13. Cross train all workers in the cell
14. Any individual machining time is strictly less than takt
15. In a cell w/ multiple operators – movement paths for each operator loop must not cross
 Recall the axiom regarding paths that cross

No strange Loops allowed…

A word on the use of decouplers…
• Decouple process steps
• Control cell WIP levels
Basically, decouplers are used to combat
• Stock on hand for MM production variability in its many forms whether
• Poka-Yoke [defect prevention] through bad design or imprecise
operation
• Inspection/quality checks
• Part transportation We discuss inventory types and sizing
next class
• Part orientation
• Part registration
• Part delays for inspection
• Part transformation [heating, cooling, drying, …]
Cell operator assignment strategies
• Loops – require balancing
• The worker’s time is the cell cycle time
• Use of “Parallelism” [but not called that] and the advantages of not having to
balance the cell
• Rabbit Chase
• Bucket Brigade

• The Perfect Cell

• N-workstations, operating with takt-like efficiency …

• Now back to Reality – brought to you by variability

• Decouplers within the cell mop up variability
• Other levers include: OT, increasing resources, redesign, outsource, …
 max loop time of all the operators governs the TH of the cell not the MC time; note that we assume the MC times
Loops 101 are all less than takt – if not then our problem is clearly insurmountable to begin with. Regardless the cell will not
produce without the operators. • Suppose cell1 manufactures 2-types of transmissions: A & B.
• Daily Demand for A: 200 units: B: 300 units
• 480min of availability daily
• Takt = 57.6sec  TH = 0.96part/min
• Time at each WS for load/check/unload is 20s; 5sec walk
between; 10s DH to TH and L1 to P; cell load and unloading is
50s every step is single cycle automatic machine except P

Loop time =
operator WS task times +
cell load/unload times +
walk time

If the max loop time > takt then we

If we look at takt with respect to the types individually,
continue to add workers
then we have a problem; but as with balancing we look
at the weighted average and build an estimate for the Max Loop [w/ 1 op] = 10*20s + 2*50s + 55s
“composite cell”  note that the max composite WS = 355s [infeasible]
time is “Packaging” at 56sec < Takt Max Loop [w/ 2 ops] = 190s [infeasible]
… Loop [w/ 5 ops] is feasible
P = 56min = [200*50 + 300*60]/500
 As mentioned previously – at some
point we have to specify how the
pull will operate – the rules

The roundtrip CT will take 12min:

1. Assume only full containers will be moved from Cell1 to cell2.
Empty containers from cell2 to cell1. Assume a full container
has just been emptied at cell2.
2. MH moves the empty container from cell2 to cell1 [6min]
3. At cell1 the empty container is placed at the output of cell1 and
the full container is moved to cell2. The full container arrives at
cell2 in 24min after the empty container was picked up
4. Each full container generated at cell1 holds 24 parts
5. Cell1 cannot produce until an empty container arrives.
 Drive Pinion Case
study

• From job shop to lean cell

• U shaped cell
• Multifunctional workers
• Identify the feasible operator loops
1-operator Loop Calculations
• Data for the loop calculations and the path
for a single operator are shown here. The
workers spend 3s walking between
machines and from I/O stations
• CT for the cell = manual tasks + walk time
• CT = 86s + 24s = 110s = 1.83min/part
• Cell production rate is ~33parts/h
 2-operator loop
• Loop1 = 41s + 12s = 53s
• Loop2 = 45s + 12s = 57s
• CT for cell = max[53,57] = 57s
• Output rate = 57/60 = 0.95min/part =
63 parts/hr
3-operator loop The 40s loop is an issue though since WSs

• Loop1 = 31s + 9s = 40s

5 & 6 are both at 45s which makes the
max bottleneck output = 45s/60s =
0.75min/part = 80parts/h
• Loop2 = 30s + 9s = 39s
• Loop3 = 25s + 9s = 34s
• CT for the cell = max[40,39,34] = 40s
• Output rate for the cell = 90parts/h
Enough of loops – are there other ways?
• Loops require line balancing
• There are other strategies that eliminate the need for balancing the
work across loops and essentially parallelize the work
• We can add as many operators as we have workstations
• Easy to speed up and slow down the cell CT as the Takt changes
• Works better for assembly cells, but can work in either

• Rabbit Chase
• Bucket Brigade
Rabbit Chase
• All operators execute all
cell tasks
• Workers follow each other
through the loop
• No line balancing required
• Capacity scalable
• Slowest worker blocks
[issue]
Bucket Brigade
• Suppose we have 4 operators at a U shaped cell
• Each worker, in turn starts product into the system
• The first worker proceeds through to finish a part
• At that point the first worker turns and begins
completion on the part from the worker immediately
preceding them; the preempted worker takes over the
work of the operator preceding them, etc.

• No balancing required; Self-balancing

• Avoids crossing paths [axiom]
• Easy capacity control for changing takt rates
Assignment of workers based on capability
• Classic Assignment Problem from OR
• Assign M workers to N Workstations [M=N in the classic formulation]
• Minimize the total time required to process all products at each
workstation

Solve as an LP or use the hand based heuristic

procedure called the “Hungarian method”
M1: Takeaways
• Resource allocation and assignment is critical to CT determination
• Cell operator assignment using loops [essentially creating sub-cells] is
a classic approach but requires balancing the work across the loops
• Rabbit chase is easy to implement if operators are truly
multifunctional and operate at roughly the same level of capability.
No balancing required
• Bucket Brigade may be the best strategy. Self-balancing. Instant
control on cell rate in light of changing takt rate. Allows operators to
“migrate” to their best contribution within the line.
M2:
Production cell design activity
Refer to HW6 assignment uploaded … (repeated on the following slides)
 HW6
Lean Cell Design
Layout and Balance
Purpose: the purpose of this exercise is to give you extra practice with
the essential elements of cell design: takt, cycle time, number of
operators, layout, impact (or lack) of machine time, operator balance
chart, ergonomic issues, line balancing, operations chart.
Assignment
• You are provided with the
a. Current production activity data
b. Existing layout

From analysis of the given production data and layout, Design a new cell-based layout
that reduces waste, reduced the number of operators required, and improves the flow.)

Document and submit the following:

1. Calculated takt
2. Use 90% of takt to calculate the current number of workers for the (current) ASIS
system – see lecture notes for help
3. Classify the activities, identify the waste, identify the reengineered activities.
4. Redesign the layout – make rational engineering assumptions and defend your
assumptions, identify kaizen events required to realize improvements
5. Draw the new operator balance chart (recall this from the VSM 8-design Qs)
Initial layout (rough order of magnitude scale)
Welder Outbound
Inbound material
material

Raw material storage

(situated 30m from
initial operation) FGI area

Bushing WIP
Deburr area area for Assembly
Assembly

Scale: 1m
Cell activities Activity
A
Description
Fetch inbound material from raw material storage (every 30 cycles)
Time (sec)
120
B Walk to inbound raw material container 5

The product is a welded part and a bushing, C Pick up raw material 2

D Walk to LHS of weld machine 3
weighing a total of approximately 2.5kg
E Place raw material on LHS of weld machine 2
F Walk to center of weld machine 2
Demand is for 800 assembled products per day G Remove welded part from jig on weld machine 5
H Place welded part in outbound area 2
8h day with 30min lunch; two 20min breaks and I Walk to LHS of weld machine 3
one 10min break J Pick up raw material from LHS of weld machine 3
K Move raw material to center of weld machine 2

Operator travel times should be estimated L Secure raw material into jig 6
M Start welder 2
N Welder cycle 18
Does the operator watch the machine while it O Wait for part to cool 15
cycles? If not, do not include machine times since P Pick up welded part and jig from weld machine 2
we are after the operator activities Q Perform visual inspection 6
R Carry part to bushing WIP area (75% of parts) 3
What is actually VA time here? (and most of that is S Carry part to deburring area (25% of parts) 4

likely machine time) T Deburr part (25% of parts as noted) 12

U Carry deburred part to bushing WIP area 2
V Fetch bushings container (every 200 cycles) 200
Use proportional times when dealing with batches:
W Pick up bushing 2
for example the CT per part for activity A is 120s/30 X Walk to assembly table 3
= 4s/part Y Assemble product 10
Z Place assembled product in FGI area 3
Next class…

• Complete the discussion on cell and task engineering

• Leveling, control, and the “physics of the factory”

• KD visit and status review – new format

• www.lean.org
• www.idef.com Assigned Sources leveraged
• Factory Physics [Hopp and Spearman] 3rd edition 2008
• Factory Physics for Managers [Pound, Bell, Spearman] 2014
• Lean Engineering [Black and Phillips] 2013
• Manufacturing Systems Modeling and Analysis [Curry and Feldman] 2nd edition 2011
• Lean Manufacturing [Lonnie Wilson] 2nd edition 2015
• Lean Thinking [Womack and Jones] 2003 edition
• Learning to See [Rother and Shook] v1.2 1999
• The Lean Toolbox [Bicheno and Holweg] 5th edition 2016
• Improving Production with Lean Thinking [Santos/Wysk/Torres] 2006
• Methods, Standards, and Work Design [Niebel] 12th edition 2007
• Applied Probability and Stochastic Processes [Feldman and Valdez-Flores] 2nd edition 2010
• Operations Research Models and Methods [Paul A. Jensen, Jonathan F. Bard] 2002 edition
• Principles of Operations Management [Heizer/Render] 7th edition
• Gemba Kaizen [Imai] 2nd Edition 2012