The Use of Simulation Modelling Software in the Design
and Analysis of Manufacturing Systems Author: Joshua Jones Module: Manufacturing E2 Tutor: Dr.F Zahedi Last updated/submitted: March 21, 2014 Joshua Jones 1 Table Of Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Aims and Objectives 4 3 Introduction to modeling and Simulation 6 4 Model Details 8 4.1 The Exponential Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.2 The Normal Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3 The Triangular Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5 Experiment 1 13 6 Experiment: 2 17 7 Experiment: 3 19 7.1 warm up initilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 8 Experiment: 4 20 8.1 replications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9 Experiment: 5 22 10 Experiment: 6 23 10.1 Iteration Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 11 Performance and Six Sigma analysis 27 11.1 What is Six Sigma 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 11.2 Other Manufacturing Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 11.2.1 The Toyota Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 11.2.2 Ishikawa diagrams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 12 Comparison to real world methods 32 13 Comparison to alternate computational methods 33 13.1 Why use Simulation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 13.2 Promodel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 13.2.1 Promodel in Project Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 13.3 Simul8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 14 Benets and limitations of simulation 36 Joshua Jones 2 15 Project review and conclusions 37 15.1 Cumulative statistics for all experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 16 References 39 Joshua Jones 3 Abstract and Executive Summary The aim of this report is to explore the performance and capabil- ity of the descrete event modeling software Promodel and simulation software in general. This was carried out by simlulating a manufacturing process and per- forming iterative changes to produce a highly optimized theoretical revision of the process. The aim of the project was to learn the software, and gain experi- ence in simulating industrial processes, in this way the student can appreciate the benits and limits of the simulation, and elect to use simulation in a proessional setting if deemed suitable, furthermore learning the software enhances the skill set, and problem solving ap- proach. Understanding the descrete event approach allows for step by step problem solving to be fostered. In carrying out this project the student was encouraged to experi- ment with changing situations and scenarios by conducting a range of 6 experiments, the varying nature of the experiments are designed to give the student an understanding of each aspect of the manufacturing process at the highest level: planning and optimization. Where possible, the system has been modeled completely, and ac- curately, the scenarios have been implemented and thouroughly tested often for extended periods to asses underlying trends. Eorts to produce a more complete description of the system by assuming the type of product to be made and then researching the potential costing of the system has been carried out, in this way the student can assess the prot and cost, including initial setup and an approximate overhead. Statistical process control has been highlighted as important and a range of methodologies have been discussed, with the Six Sigma defect rate being calculated for each experiment. This project has explored the nature of descrete event simulation and looked at the options available in terms of software packages, for a comparison of suitability. Joshua Jones 4 1 Introduction In the elds of mechanical and industrial engineering, an appreciation of in- dustrial processes is key to producing a viable product, both correctly and eciently in both nancial and environmental arenas. In todays economy op- erating a manufacturing process must be focused on using the latest Process control tools to ensure the product is produced as cheaply and quickly as possible, with the fewest number of defects. Many companies have developed systems to use when manufacturing, such as The Toyota way obviously by Toyota, Six Sigma by Motorola, Lean manufacturing, Lean Six Sigma, and many others. These methods form the ethos and methods of reducing waste, defects and costs, and in- creasing protability of a system, thus providing value to stakeholders and customers. The overarching eld is known as statistical process control. This report is aimed at exploring an industrial process via the use of descrete event simulation, using the package solidworks. The reccommended reading book for this course was given as Descrete-event-Simulation by J.Banks, and J.S.Carson, et al.[5] and will be used to form the basis of theoretical ideas and points. The goal of the carrying out the simulation and the optimized, iterative simulation with a number of constraints, is aimed at producing the maxi- mum improvement in production rate, while simultaneously using the least amount of resources, and least amount of resources added to the base model. Using promodel the project has explored the viability of the simulation by testing integrity and repeatability of the simulation, that is the simula- tion should be predictable to an extent. The project has also explored the benets and limitations of a purely simulated analysis of the manufacturing system. 2 Aims and Objectives The aim of the coursework is to build a model of a manufacturing process using the promodel simulation package, using this model to carry out tests and experiments to understand how the system behaves is a further aim, In terms of the Six Sigma development Cycle see gure 1 this would be car- Joshua Jones 5 ried out during the measure and analyze stage, also in Design for six sigma DFSS, see gure 2, this experimentation will occur in the new product (in this case manufacturing process) development stage. However in practise the simulation could be used at all stages to validate and explore how making an interative change may eect the system in an unforseen way, especially for systems with a high level of process dependancy, that is many processes need to succeed for a certain process to be possible. These dependancies should be carefully designed in the system to reduce the number of root causes for problems (see root cause analysis ) Figure 1: DMAIC Six Sigma Process Joshua Jones 6 Figure 2: Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) 3 Introduction to modeling and Simulation A simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real world process or system over time.[5] Simulation involves the generation of an articial history of a system, the the observation of that system to draw inferences concerning the operating characteristics of the real system.[5]. In the scope of promodel, observing and interpreting the statistics produced by the output viewer can allow certain trends to be picked out, and gather an undersanding of the system and how changes eect it. When simulation is suitable: Simulation is suiable when the pervieved potential saving outweighs the cost of conducting the simulation, in practise this is usually the case as the simulation is a one time purchase, however continued saving only increases with time. Simulation enables the study of, and experimentation with, the internal interactions of a complex system[5], and highlights the dependancies and consequences of changing any small aspect of the system, and the eect this has on the whole. Simulation is suitable when changing the inputs and interpreting the out- Joshua Jones 7 puts is possible, in this way the simulation can show how sensitive the output is to a particular input, and this may allow running at a minimum for one input thus eliminating waste without any performance decrease, if issues al- ready exist, simulation can highlight the root causes of problems, and show which variables and inputs are the most important (most critical). Simulation can be used to verify analysical solutions, determine require- ments for a certain machine to operate at peak eciency, and experiment with new designs[5] Manufacturing represents one of the most important applications of Sim- ulation. This technique represents a valuable tool used by engineers when evaluating the eect of capital investment in equipments and physical facili- ties like factory plants, warehouses, and distribution centers. Simulation can be used to predict the performance of an existing or planned system and to compare alternative solutions for a particular design problem.[4] Simulation should not be used when the problem can be solved using common sense (Banks and gibson, 1997). Simulation should not be used when the problem can be solved analyti- cally, in practise for complex systems this may be possible however easier to just simulate. Simulation should not be used when the problem can be tested with di- rect experiments, this is not possible for the scenario in this project however. Simulation should not be used when the cost to do so exceeds the savings[5] Disadvantages have been oset in some simulation packages by improving the functionality and reusabillity of models, for example some softwares are implementing system sections, and templates, to reduce the time it takes to model a system [5]. Some simulation packages are osetting their costs by including very detailed, thorough analysis. As technology improves so does the capability of the software and simulations. Simulation packages can han- dle very complex systems, which closed form models can not.[5] Joshua Jones 8 Applications: 1. Manufacturing 2. Semiconductor manufacturing 3. Construction engineering 4. Military applications 5. Logistics, transport, and distribution 6. Business operations and processes 7. Human systems, Air trac control, Parking, population movement 4 Model Details The simulation specication was the real world model of an assembly line that produced two dierent products, using a range of engineering opera- tions, at multiple stations, both parts share a common raw material, given the nature of the description it will be assumed that the parts produced are some kind of container, and the variation exists in that one type (Type II) also requires the addition of a cover or lid. It is envisioned that the product is perhaps some kind of barrel with the variation being, open/closed top, at in- put the initial loading bay for incoming parts can hold 5 units of raw material. Initial thoughts on this system are that given the fact the products use a common raw material, sourcing this raw material is a critical node in the process life cycle, indeed it is the rst one. Furthermore, the fact both parts share an common rst node is cause for potential bottleneck, and supply issues, ideally separation of the systems would be preerable is favouring the most simplistic approach, however costing of producing two systems is prohibitive, when similar production rates may be possible with one system. The initial specication specied, that all machines were single capacity, which is standard for real world machines such as CNC and turning/lathes, which can only accomodate one work piece at a time. The specication calls for a initial split between Type I and Type II products, of 50/50, given that only 5 raw units can be supplied at once this may give some dierence in the split between products. Joshua Jones 9 Type I Type II Turning Milling Milling Drilling Drilling Assembly (Cover From Storage) Inspection (Scrap(if Defective)) Inspection Packing Scrap if Defective Packing Table 1: Type I and Type II Process Between each process there will be conveyor belts used to transport WIP (Work in progess), and a number of personnel: Job Title Role Skilled Worker Responsible for Turning, Milling, and Drilling Operations Semi-Skilled Responsible for Assembly, Inspection, and Packing Transporter Responsible for transporting WIP to stations and conveyors Table 2: Employees All conveyors are designed to be 10m long, holding 3 parts, and a speed of 50meters per minute, however this is something that could realistically be changed. The system is intended to give no priority to any WIP and process on a rst come rst process method. Fail rates for both type I and type II products are 0.05, or 5% defect rate at inspection, note that this occurs after the aluminum cover is added to type II product, and therefore a registered defect also contributes as a wasted aluminium cover. The transport activities are Transfer for next process, and transfer to scrap from inspection (having failed inspection). The method of processing parts varies and uses dierring distribution methods: Joshua Jones 10 Operation Distribution Value(Minutes) Arrivals Exponential Mean =20 Turning Triangular (6,8,10) Milling Triangular (9,12,14) Drilling Normal Mean=5 Standard Deviation = 1 Assembly Normal Mean=7 Standard Deviation = 1 Inspection Normal Mean=5 Standard Deviation = 2 Packing Normal Mean=3 Standard Deviation = 0.5 Table 3: Distribution types Joshua Jones 11 4.1 The Exponential Distribution How much time will elapse before an earthquake occurs in a given region? How long do we need to wait before a customer enters our shop? How long will it take before a call center receives the next phone call? How long will a piece of machinery work without breaking down? Questions such as these are often answered in probabilistic terms using the exponential distribution. All these questions concern the time we need to wait before a given event occurs. If this waiting time is unknown, it is often appropriate to think of it as a random variable having an exponential distribution. Roughly speaking, the time X we need to wait before an event occurs has an exponential distribution if the probability that the event occurs during a certain time interval is proportional to the length of that time interval.[1] Figure 3: Exponential Distribution Joshua Jones 12 4.2 The Normal Distribution The normal distribution is the most commonly used statistical distribution used to model a range of events, its use in this projecthas been extensive, for example the Six Sigma statistical process control methadology employs the concepts of standard deviation to measure performance of a process. By plotting the mean and then the sample values around it either side () we can see how much the system varies, and also if the system is performing within certain limits, the USL and LSL upper and lower specied limits, respectively. The Normal Distribution has: mean = median = mode symmetry about the centre 50% of values less than the mean and 50% greater than the mean Figure 4: Normal Distribution Joshua Jones 13 4.3 The Triangular Distribution The Triangular distribution is used when there are a small number samples and only the upper, lower, and modal expected limits are known, in this way the algorithm for the distribution can set iterative and recursive limits on the systems performance, also known as the lack of knowledge distribution, A triangular distribution is a continuous probability distribution with a probability density function shaped like a triangle. It is dened by three values: the minimum value a, the maximum value b, and the peak value c. Figure 5: Triangular Distribution 5 Experiment 1 The rst experiment was to simply implement the model in Promodel as accurately as possible, and assess the performance. From gure 19 we can see that the turning spends a long time blocked, and the drilling and assembly stations are lightly blocked, this may be due to convey availability in terms of speed and capacity, and also an inccorectly selected turning machine that Joshua Jones 14 is unable to perform the operations quick enough. The system was simulated for 40hrs, this was interpreted as a one week period, assuming continual operation for 5, 8 hours shifts, with one shift occuring per day. This system ran with 100% uptime. Figure 6: Experiment 1 Outcomes Joshua Jones 15 Experiment 1 Type 1 41 Type 2 57 Total 98 Reject 1 1 Reject 2 2 Reject Total 3 % defective 2.97% % Sucessful 97.03% Process Sigma 3.39 Aluminium covers 62 Aluminum Covers Wasted 5 % Aluminum waste 8.06% Aluminum Process sigma 2.90 DPMO 29703 Throughput Per second 0.00068 Per minute 0.040833333 Per hour 2.45 Table 4: Experiment 1 Results (DPMO = Defective parts per million Oper- ations) Figure 7: Experiment 1 initial layout Joshua Jones 16 Figure 8: Experiment 1 nished layout Figure 9: Experiment 1 output Joshua Jones 17 6 Experiment: 2 Experiment 2 was aimed at optimizing experiment 1, throughput increased by 0.3 parts per hour, leading to a volume increase of 13 parts, however while overall volume has increased, so has the number of defects, and the number of aluminum covers both used and wasted. The sigma performance indicator has dropped from 3.39 in experiment 1 to 3.22 in experiment 2, this drop in quality is unfortunate, however in terms of overall productivity this experiment has been a positive impact, accruing 13 more parts for only 2 more defects. One vital statistic is the Defective parts per million operations, initially only 29703 defects would occur on average, however this is nearly doubled in experiment 2 to 43478, however the time take to produce a million parts is reduced from 139.78 years, to 123.4 years assuming an 8 hour shift constitutes a day and a year is 365 days of continuous operation. In experiment 2 only the number of sta changes, with one more skilled worker being recruited, and the lengths, both of the conveyor and the rout- ing for the sta being optimized and balanced. As can be seen from the two graphs gure 10 and gure 9 the bottle neck in the turning operation has been eliminated, this was done by balancing the conveyor speeds either side of the station. Joshua Jones 18 Experiment 2 Type 1 52 Type 2 59 Total 111 Reject 1 1 Reject 2 4 Reject Total 5 % defective 4.21% % Sucessful 95.69% Process Sigma 3.22 Aluminium covers 66 Aluminum Covers Wasted 7 % Aluminum waste 10.61% Aluminum Process sigma 2.75 DPMO 43478.00 Throughput Per second 0.00077 Per minute 0.04625 Per hour 2.775 Table 5: Experiment 2 Results (DPMO = Defective parts per million Oper- ations) Figure 10: Experiment 2 output Joshua Jones 19 7 Experiment: 3 Experiment 3 is concerned with the time taken to achieve steady state output, or the utilization of a warm-up period, at each time interval (hours), the productivity rate is erratic and diering, however for simulation with only user specied inputs there should be a linearity to the results, by discounting the erratic stage, these results can be found, by taking an iterative approach to solving this problem the system warm up time was found to be 96 hours. Experiment 3 Type 1 52 Type 2 58 Total 110 Reject 1 1 Reject 2 1 Reject Total 2 % defective 1.79% % Sucessful 98.21% Process Sigma 3.6 Aluminium covers 59 Aluminum Covers Wasted 1 % Aluminum waste 1.69% Aluminum Process sigma 3.62 DPMO 16949 Throughput Per second 0.00076 Per minute 0.045833333 Per hour 2.75 Table 6: Experiment 3 Results (DPMO = Defective parts per million Oper- ations) Joshua Jones 20 Figure 11: Experiment 3 output 7.1 warm up initilization 8 Experiment: 4 The number of replications to provide a steady state value of output forthe simulation was determined iteratively to be around 20 replications. Figure 12: Experiment 4 output replications Joshua Jones 21 Experiment 4 Type 1 60 Type 2 56 Total 116 Reject 1 3 Reject 2 3 Reject Total 6 % defective 4.92% % Sucessful 95.08% Process Sigma 3.15 Aluminium covers 59 Aluminum Covers Wasted 3 % Aluminum waste 5.08% Aluminum Process sigma 3.14 DPMO 50847 Throughput Per second 0.00081 Per minute 0.048333333 Per hour 2.9 Table 7: Experiment 4 Results (DPMO = Defective parts per million Oper- ations) Figure 13: Experiment 4 output Joshua Jones 22 8.1 replications 9 Experiment: 5 Experiment 5 was concerned with the possibility of changing the mix between TypeI and Type II, turning was utilized more than previously, and the general split was consistent with a 25% : 75% mix as seen in gure 14, due to the low utilizaton of aluminum this may represent some cost saving, and the system was quite ecient, running at 3.21 sigma, and 3.32 sigma for the aluminum operation. The throughput increased to 2.775 parts per hour. Figure 14: Experiment 5 output for mix Experiment 5 Type 1 83 Type 2 28 Total 111 Reject 1 4 Reject 2 1 Reject Total 5 % defective 4.31% % Sucessful 95.69% Process Sigma 3.21 Aluminium covers 29 Aluminum Covers Wasted 1 % Aluminum waste 3.45% Aluminum Process sigma 3.32 DPMO 46729 Throughput Per second 0.00077 Per minute 0.04625 Per hour 2.775 Table 8: Experiment 5 Results (DPMO = Defective parts per million Oper- ations) Joshua Jones 23 Figure 15: Experiment 5 output 10 Experiment: 6 In experiment 6 the aim was to double the speed and optimize the system, the previous values were from experiment 4 and the aim was to double the performance. Initially total throughput was 116 parts at a rate of 2.9 parts per hour, running at 3.15 sigma, Small incremental changes to map the be- haviour of the simulation meant that by the 16th iteration the system was producing 204 parts at a rate of 5.1 parts per hour, running at 3.18 sigma, in real terms this means 88 more products and 4118 fewer defective parts per million. In model 6 another assembly station was added, along with having 2 of each worker. The conveyor was further optimized and balanced by regulating the speeds and having some sections move faster than others to allow for the variation in completion time at each station. Joshua Jones 24 Experiment 6 Type 1 98 Type 2 106 Total 204 Reject 1 4 Reject 2 6 Reject Total 10 % defective 4.67% % Sucessful 95.33% Process Sigma 3.18 Aluminium covers 108 Aluminum Covers Wasted 2 % Aluminum waste 1.85% Aluminum Process sigma 3.59 DPMO 46729 Throughput Per second 0.00142 Per minute 0.085 Per hour 5.1 Table 9: Experiment 6 Results (DPMO = Defective parts per million Oper- ations) Figure 16: Experiment 6 output Joshua Jones 25 Figure 17: Experiment 6 output Figure 18: Experiment 6 output Joshua Jones 26 10.1 Iteration Testing Figure 19: Experiment 6 iteration results Joshua Jones 27 11 Performance and Six Sigma analysis Figure 20: Six Sigma overview Sigma 1.5 shift DPMO Defective Yield Short-term Cpk Long-term Cpk 1 -0.5 691,462 69% 31% 0.33 0.17 2 0.5 308,538 31% 69% 0.67 0.17 3 1.5 66,807 6.7% 93.3% 1.00 0.5 4 2.5 6,210 0.62% 99.38% 1.33 0.83 5 3.5 233 0.023% 99.977% 1.67 1.17 6 4.5 3.4 0.00034% 99.99966% 2.00 1.5 7 5.5 0.019 0.0000019% 99.9999981% 2.33 1.83 Table 10: Sigma levels used to quantify process performance, Other manu- facturing tools Joshua Jones 28 The 1.5 shift is indicative of defects over extended periods, and is beyond the scope of this simulation for all but the extreme time scale cases. 11.1 What is Six Sigma 6 Six Sigma at many organizations simply means a measure of quality that strives for near perfection. Six Sigma is a disciplined, data-driven approach and methodology for eliminating defects (driving toward six standard devia- tions between the mean and the nearest specication limit) in any process from manufacturing to transactional and from product to service.[2] The sta- tistical representation of Six Sigma describes quantitatively how a process is performing. To achieve Six Sigma, a process must not produce more than 3.4 defects per million opportunities. A Six Sigma defect is dened as anything outside of customer specications. A Six Sigma opportunity is then the total quantity of chances for a defect. [2] The fundamental objective of the Six Sigma methodology is the implementation of a measurement-based strat- egy that focuses on process improvement and variation reduction through the application of Six Sigma improvement projects. This is accomplished through the use of two Six Sigma sub-methodologies: DMAIC and DMADV. The Six Sigma DMAIC process (dene, measure, analyze, improve, control) is an improvement system for existing processes falling below specication and looking for incremental improvement. The Six Sigma DMADV process (dene, measure, analyze, design, verify) is an improvement system used to develop new processes or products at Six Sigma quality levels. It can also be employed if a current process requires more than just incremental improve- ment. Both Six Sigma processes are executed by Six Sigma Green Belts and Six Sigma Black Belts, and are overseen by Six Sigma Master Black Belts.[2] Joshua Jones 29 Figure 21: Six Sigma overview Joshua Jones 30 Figure 22: Six Sigma overview perspective According to the Six Sigma Academy, Black Belts save companies ap- proximately $230,000 per project and can complete four to 6 projects per year. (Given that the average Black Belt salary is $80,000 in the United States, that is a fantastic return on investment.) General Electric, one of the most successful companies implementing Six Sigma, has estimated benets on the order of $10 billion during the rst ve years of implementation. GE rst began Six Sigma in 1995 after Motorola and Allied Signal blazed the Six Sigma trail. Since then, thousands of companies around the world have discovered the far reaching benets of Six Sigma. Many frameworks exist for implementing the Six Sigma methodology. Six Sigma Consultants all over the world have developed proprietary methodolo- gies for implementing Six Sigma quality, based on the similar change man- agement philosophies and applications of tools.[2] Six Sigma mostly nds application in large organizations. An important factor in the spread of Six Sigma was GEs 1998 announcement of $350 million in savings thanks to Six Sigma, a gure that later grew to more than $1 billion. According to industry consultants like Thomas Pyzdek and John Kullmann, companies with fewer than 500 employees are less suited to Joshua Jones 31 Six Sigma implementation, or need to adapt the standard approach to make it work for them.[3] Six Sigma however contains a large number of tools and techniques that work well in small to mid-size organizations. The fact that an organization is not big enough to be able to aord Black Belts does not diminish its abilities to make improvements using this set of tools and techniques. The infrastructure described as necessary to support Six Sigma is a result of the size of the organization rather than a requirement of Six Sigma itself.[3] 11.2 Other Manufacturing Tools 11.2.1 The Toyota Way The 6 Ms (used in manufacturing industry) 1.Machine (technology) 2.Method (process) 3.Material (Includes Raw Material, Consumables and Information.) 4.Man Power (physical work)/Mind Power (brain work): Kaizens, Sugges- tions 5.Measurement (Inspection) 6.Milieu/Mother Nature (Environment) The original 6Ms used by the Toyota Production System have been expanded by some to include the following and are referred to as the 8Ms. However, this is not globally recognized. It has been suggested to return to the roots of the tools and to keep the teaching simple while recognizing the original intent; most programs do not address the 8Ms. 7.Management/Money Power 8.Maintenance 11.2.2 Ishikawa diagrams Ishikawa diagrams see gure 23 (also called shbone diagrams, herringbone diagrams, cause-and-eect diagrams, or Fishikawa) are causal diagrams cre- ated by Kaoru Ishikawa (1968) that show the causes of a specic event.[1][2] Common uses of the Ishikawa diagram are product design and quality de- fect prevention, to identify potential factors causing an overall eect. Each cause or reason for imperfection is a source of variation. Causes are usually grouped into major categories to identify these sources of variation. The categories typically include: People: Anyone involved with the process Joshua Jones 32 Methods: How the process is performed and the specic requirements for doing it, such as policies, procedures, rules, regulations and laws Machines: Any equipment, computers, tools, etc. required to accomplish the job Materials: Raw materials, parts, pens, paper, etc. used to produce the nal product Measurements: Data generated from the process that are used to evaluate its quality Environment: The conditions, such as location, time, temperature, and cul- ture in which the process operates Figure 23: Cause eect diagram - Ishikawa diagrams 12 Comparison to real world methods Simulation can never completely emulate a real world system with 100% accuracy because the world is not in descrete values, precision is only limited by the level of precision possible by measurement, there will always be more information, and more decimal places in a Joshua Jones 33 13 Comparison to alternate computational meth- ods 13.1 Why use Simulation? Accurate Depiction of Reality Anyone can perform a simple analysis manually. However, as the complexity of the analysis increases, so does the need to employ computer-based tools. While spreadsheets can perform many calculations to help determine the op- erational status of simple systems, they use averages to represent schedules, activity times, and resource availability.[6] This does not allow them to accurately reect the randomness and inter- dependence present in reality with resources and other system elements. Sim- ulation, however, does take into account the randomness and interdependence which characterize the behavior of your real-life business environment.[6] Using simulation, you can include randomness through properly identi- ed probability distributions taken directly from study data. For example, while the time needed to perform an assembly may average 10 minutes, spe- cial orders may take as many as 45 minutes to complete. A spreadsheet will force you to use the average time, and will not be able to accurately capture the variability that exists in reality.[6] Simulation also allows interdependence through arrival and service events, and tracks them individually. For example, while order arrivals may place items in two locations, a worker can handle only one item at a time. Simula- tion accounts for that reality, while a spreadsheet must assume the operator to be available simultaneously at both locations. 13.2 Promodel Simulation is the Cornerstone for Decision Support With more than 4,000 companies using this technology including 42 of the Fortune 100, ProModel is recognized as the industry leader tool for rapid and accurate simulation- based decision support. The bottom line savings are realized in the following areas:[6] Hard-dollar savings Lower capital expenditure. Increased existing facility utilization reduces net cost. Joshua Jones 34 Proper labor assignments prevent unnecessary new hires. Accurate and insightful facility planning eliminates unnecessary rework costs.[6] Soft-dollar savings Facility rearrangement or reassignment of duties in- creases productivity. Reduced wait time improves customer satisfaction. Accurate system depiction ensures valid decision-making information.[6] Labor savings Rapid development establishes time and cost data quickly and accurately.[6] Intangible benets Increased understanding of the actual process im- proves employee education.[6] Coordinated simulation projects improve teamwork and communication and focus resources in areas which will provide biggest benet.[6] The ProModel Optimization Suite is a powerful yet easy to use simulation tool for modeling all types of manufacturing systems ranging from small job shops and machining cells to large mass production, exible manufacturing systems, and supply chain systems. ProModel is a Windows based system with an intuitive graphical interface and object-oriented modeling constructs that eliminate the need for program- ming. It combines the exibility of a general purpose simulation language with the convenience of a data-driven simulator. In addition, ProModel utilizes an optimization tool called SimRunner that performs sophisticated what-if analysis by running automatic factorial de- sign of experiments on the model, providing the best answer possible.[6] 13.2.1 Promodel in Project Management The major challenge in project management is being able to ensure that projects are delivered within dened constraints such as scope, time, and cost. Some of the most common problems faced by project managers are: Outsourcing decisions Joshua Jones 35 Inability to accurately predict resource requirements and cost Communicating a solution across an Vrganization Varying task times Mitigating unperceived risks Missed deadlines Bottlenecks Insucient and shared resources Inability to align resources Multiple conicting goals i.e. - fastest Completion time at lowest cost Accelerated schedules Pzer, ITT, Laureate Pharma, Merck, Hot Topic and others are using Pro- Models PPM (Project and Portfolio Management) solutions to address these, and even more issues, in order to improve their project management and port- folio planning results. ProModel Simulation Solutions for Project Managers and Portfolio Planners ProModels Project Management solutions allow you to Visualize, Analyze, and Optimize the execution of a project or portfolio of projects by taking into account variability, resource contention, and complex interdependencies. Unlike typical static analysis programs such as spread- sheets and project or portfolio management software, ProModels technology expresses information in ranges of answers, with condence levels and depen- dencies, which more accurately reect how a project will actually perform.[7] 13.3 Simul8 SIMUL8 is a computer package for Discrete Event Simulation. It allows the user to create a visual model of the system being investigated by drawing objects directly on the screen. Typical objects may be queues or service points. The characteristics of the objects can be dened in terms of, for example, capacity or speed. When the system has been modelled then a Joshua Jones 36 simulation can be undertaken. The ow of work items around the system is shown by animation on the screen so that the appropriateness of the model can be assessed. When the structure of the model has been conrmed, then a number of trials can be run and the performance of the system described statistically. Statistics of interest may be average waiting times, utilisation of work centres or resources, etc.[8] 14 Benets and limitations of simulation Advantages Disadvantages Does not disrupt real process Requires special training New processes can be tested for free/little cost Dicult to interpret Reasons for process performance can be tested for feasibility Time consuming Time sensitive tests can be sped up Expensive Insight to variable interaction can be found Analytical models may be cheaper and better Bottleneck analysis Understand system more completely Aids Design and answers what-if questions and iterative approaches Table 11: Pros and cons of simulation Joshua Jones 37 15 Project review and conclusions 15.1 Cumulative statistics for all experiments Figure 24: All Results Figure 25: All Results Joshua Jones 38 Figure 26: All Results Sigma analysis Figure 27: Long time period testing Figure 28: Time to produce a million parts In conclusion the system has been optimized to a high level, and considera- tions of the system have been fully mapped out, moving on from this project, Joshua Jones 39 a large veriety of other projects may be tackled in a similar way, however Promodel did lack features in the outputing of data, and using excel was just as powerful, in order to incorporate the output viewer as part of our results, more powerful interpretation must be included. Overall promodel was easy to use, however the outputs often gave little indication as to the performance of the system, and an iterative approach was taken to ensure incremental improvement. In a real world project Promodel would be useful however the system quickly becomes unwieldly when dealing with larger sections, it is reccomended to break the system down into sub systems to gain an intricate look at the relationship between variables and to establish variable input.output sense- tivity before continuing on to producing a nished system. 16 References [1] Unknown, (2014), Exponential distribution, Available: http://www.statlect.com/ucdexp1.htm, Last accessed 21.03.14. [2] http://www.isixsigma.com/new-to-six-sigma/getting-started/what-six- sigma/ , [3] Dusharme, Dirk. Six Sigma Survey: Breaking Through the Six Sigma Hype. Quality Digest. [4] Benedettini, O., Tjahjono, B. (2008). Towards an improved tool to facil- itate simulation modeling of complex manufacturing systems. Interna- tional Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 43 (1/2): 1919. doi:10.1007/s00170-008-1686-z. [5] Discrete event system simulation 3rd ed. , banks, carson, et al, prentice hall international series in systems and industrial engineering [6] SIMULATION MODELING AND OPTIMIZATION USING PRO- MODEL, Deborah Benson , PROMODEL Corporation, Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Simulation Conference, ed. S. Andradottir, K. J. Healy, D. H. Withers, and B. L. Nelson [7] ProModel Simulation Improves Project and Portfolio Management, pro- model.com Joshua Jones 40 [8] Jim Shalliker & Chris Ricketts, (2002), Intro to SImulate, Available: http://www.wirtschaft.fh-dortmund.de/eurompm/bilbao/S8intro.pdf, Last accessed 21.3.14. Joshua Jones 41
Jiri Klemes, Ferenc Friedler, Igor Bulatov, Petar Varbanov-Sustainability in the Process Industry_ Integration and Optimization (Green Manufacturing & Systems Engineering)-McGraw-Hill Professional (20