Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Definition and Objectives Engineering Design Process Important Factors to Evaluate Facility Plans Evaluation of Alternative Facility Plans
- Pairwise Comparison Technique - Prioritization Matrix - Factor Analysis Technique
Material Handling Checklist Principles of Material Handling Objectives of Facility Layout Traditional Facility Layout Procedures
- Naddlers Ideal System Approach - Apples Plant Layout Procedure - Muthers Systematic Layout Planning - Immers Basic Steps - Reeds Plant Layout Procedure
Information Gathering
- Information about Product - Information about Schedule - Information about Process
2. It is estimated that 20 to 50 % of operating costs within manufacturing are attributed to material handling. It is generally agreed that effective facilities planning can reduce material handling costs by 10 to 30 %.
1. Support the organization's mission through improved material handling, materials control, and good housekeeping.
Considerable amount of planning must precede the construction of a facility or the layout of an area.
9. Maintain and adapt the facility plan: The facility plan must be modified as new requirements are placed, e.g., new energy saving measures, changes in product design may require different flow pattern or handling equipment, etc. 10. Redefine the objective of the facility: Similar to step 1. Changes in product design and/or quantities may require changes into the layout plan.
d) Storage strategies
- space and people requirements - impact on material handling equipment - human factors risks
If there are not inconsistencies and, for example, four candidate plans (A, B, C, and D), the pairwise comparison may produce the following results: A<B B<C C>D
A<C
A>D
B>D
Next, a factor analysis technique can be used to determine the facility plan, i.e., assign a weight to each factor, and compute the total weight for each candidate plan.
Step 2.
Step 3.
Assign an appropriate weight (typically between 0 and 1) to each factor based on the relative importance of each.
Assign a score (typically between 0 and 100) to each facility plan with respect to each factor identified in Step 1.
Step 4.
Step 5.
Compute the weighted score for each factor for each facility plan by multiplying its weight by the corresponding score.
Compute the sum of the weighted scores for each facility plan and choose a facility plan based on these scores.
Example 1
A payroll processing company has recently won several major contracts in the Midwest region of the United States and Central Canada and wants to open a new, large facility to serve these areas. Because customer service is so important, the company wants to be as near its customers as possible. A preliminary investigation has shown that Minneapolis, Winnipeg, and Springfield, Illinois are the three most desirable locations,
facility.
Example 1 (cont.)
Factors and weights for three locations
Score Weight 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.07 Factor Proximity to customer Land and construction prices Wage rates Property taxes Business taxes Commercial travel Insurance costs Office services Minneapolis 95 60 70 70 80 80 70 90 Winnipeg 90 60 45 90 90 65 95 90 Springfield 65 90 60 70 85 75 60 80
Example 1 Solution
Weighted scores for three locations
Weighted Score Factor Minneapolis Winnipeg Springfield
Proximity to customer
Land and construction prices Wage rates Property taxes
23.75
9.00 10.50 7.00
22.50
9.00 6.75 9.00
16.25
13.50 9.00 7.00
Business taxes
Commercial travel Insurance costs Office services
8.00
8.00 5.60 6.30
9.00
6.50 7.60 6.30
8.50
7.50 4.80 5.60
78.15
76.65
72.15
Prioritization Matrix
The prioritization matrix can be used to judge the relative importance of each criterion as compared to each other. Table 1 represents the prioritization of the criteria for the facilities design example. The criteria are labeled to help in building a table with weights: A. Total distance traveled B. Manufacturing floor visibility C. Overall aesthetics of the layout D. Ease of adding future business E. Use of material handling equipment G. Space requirements H. People requirements I. Impact on WIP levels J. Human factor risks K. Estimated cost of alternative
F. Investment in new material handling equipment The weights typically used to compare the importance of each pair of criteria are: 1 = equally important 5 = significantly more important 10 = extremely more important 1/5 = significantly less important 1/10 = extremely less important
is presented in the last column in parenthesis. The most important criterion for facilities
design selection is the impact on WIP levels (weight = 18.3), followed by the estimated cost of the solution (weight = 13.5). This same methodology can be employed to compare all facilities design alternatives in each weighted criterion. For example, suppose five layout alternatives are generated; namely, P, Q,. R, S, and T. Table 2 represents the ranking of the layout alternatives based on the impact of WIP levels criterion. If we construct a similar table for the remaining ten criteria, we will be able to evaluate each layout alternative in the eleven criteria to identify the best layout. The format of this final
table is presented in Table 3. The last column is computed as in Tables 1 and 2. The row
totals (represented by ) are added to obtain the grand total, after which the percentages (%P, , %T) are determined. These percentages tell us the relative goodness of each layout alternative. These results should be presented to plant management to facilitate final decisions regarding the layout.
B
C D E F G H I J
1/5 1 1/5 5 1 5
1/10 1/5 1
1/10 1/10 1/10 1/5 1/5 1/10 1/10 1/10 2.3 (0.7) 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/10 1/5 1/10 17.4 (5.4) 1 1 5 5 1/5 1 1/5 34.4 (10.7)
1
1 1 1 1 7.7
10
5 5 10 5
10
5 5 10 10 10
5
5 5 10 5 10
5
5 1 10 5 5
1
1/5 1 1 1/5
41.0 (12.7)
23.0 (7.1) 22.9 (7.1) 59.0 (18.3) 39.2 (12.2) 43.4 (13.5) 322.2
1/5 1/5 1 1 5 5
1/5 5
K
Column Total
1/10 1/5
1/5 1 1 10 5 5 10 10
S
T Column Total
1/10 1 1/5 5
16.2 6.5
P
Q R S
(%P)
(%Q) (%R) (%S) (%T) Grand Total
T
Column
4. Should fixed path, variable paths, or some combination be used for material handling to/from/within manufacturing?
5. Should centralized or distributed storage of work-in-process be used? How should it be stored, moved, protected, and controlled?
Facility Layout
A Layout problem may be to
determine the location for a new machine,
develop a new layout for an existing production plant, develop a layout for a new production plant, etc.
Product Design
Process Design
Facility Layout
Production Planning
Product Design
Schedule Design
Recommended system
Present system
5. Consider the general material handling plan. 15. Consider building type
Systematic Layout
Planning Procedure
(Muther 1961)
Information Gathering
Information about product, process and schedule is required.
The major effect of product design decisions is felt by the process designer, i.e., the material used to make a part will influence processing decisions.
Design for automation programs have been developed that consider the impact of the design of the product on the assembly process. Their primary thrusts are (1) dimensional reduction, (2) parts elimination, and (3) parts standardization.For (1), the cost of assembly is reduced if it occurs in a single dimension. The complexity of programming a robot increases geometrically with the number of assembly dimensions.For (2), if more complex parts can be produced, the number of parts can be reduced.
Schedule design decisions tell us how much to produce and when to produce. From the market forecast, the production demand is determined and decisions about the production rate are made.
Information Gathering
Information about product :
- Photographs about the product - Exploded drawings - Engineering drawings of individual parts - Parts list
Gate Valve
parts of a product. In
addition to make or buy decisions, a parts list includes part number, part
referred to as a structured
parts list since it includes all of the information typically included in the parts list, as well as information concerning the structure of the product.
Assembly Chart I
It is an analog model of the assembly process. Circles with a single link denote basic components, circles with several links denote assembly operations/subassemblies, and squares represent inspection operations.
Assembly Chart II
Information Gathering
Information about process :
- Route sheet (equipment and operation times) - Precedence Diagram (prerequisite assembly steps before new assembly step) - Operation process chart (processing operations, assembly operations, and inspections)
Information Gathering
Information about schedule :
- Production rate - Product mix - Market forecast (it is better to work with tomorrows data than todays data) - Gantt charts
Schedule Design
Schedule design decisions tell us how much to produce and when to
produce.
Market Forecast Production Demand Production Rate Number of Machines