Re: An observation...anyone agree?
- From: "vinny" <friggenbozo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:14:10 -0500
"Anthony" <tonytn36sp@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns99F398C21FBA1acziparle3sp835@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"vinny" <friggenbozo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in\
news:4749b869$1$16445$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Ok, I'm game.....
can the parts be molded out of plastic and ran in a 96 cavity stack
mold with a 9 second cycle run? Thats 1000 parts a minute.
Nope, gravity cast aluminum, or forged steel, no other materials will
meet the design critera, at a resonable material or machining cost.
Im not saying what you are doing isnt tweaked, but across the board
on
common machine tools I see the increase everywhere i look. "except
lathe".
Don't look at this like an attack on your personal world, but an
attack on
the American machine trades in general.
None taken.
Do you inspect the parts, do you design the parts, do you bill the
customer for the parts...all part of the process.
All part of that 30% increase. Even maintanance of the machine and
the
cost of the tooling is included.
I have a role in process design, inspection, design, manufacture, the
machine tool design to manufacture, the automation/robotics, fituring
design and the perishable tooling design. I do not have a role in
billing/accounting or sales, other than managing my part of the CE
Budget.
As a sidebar:
Have you ever heard of OEE? (Overall Equipment Effectiveness).
OEE is the composite measure of three things, 1) equipment availablility,
2) productivity and 3) scrap. This is a very effective measurement of
how you are doing in a manufacturing environment.
Some additional info:
What the terms mean and the base numbers:
1) Equipment Availability: The total available minutes of the equipment.
The only allowable reduction in available minutes from the scheduled work
week are minutes where you do not have orders for product from the
machine. So in a 5 day work week, based on 3 shifts/day, your EA is 7200
minutes, provided you had orders to enable the machine to run 5 days, 3
shifts.
2) Productivity: The number of parts that would be theoretically possible
to run in those 7200 minutes, based on your equipment cycle time. In a
process flow, this would be based on the bottleneck operation cycle time.
3) Scrap: The ideal scrap rate 0.0%
Usage of the OEE (This is a very simplified example, there is much more
info that is obtained with the full calculations):
1) EA: Your actual number of available minutes for the time period. You
subtract out your tool change time, PM time, inspection wait time,
unscheduled machine down time, change over time, etc from the 7200. This
is how many minutes the machine was actually available to run parts. Then
you divide to obtain the percentage of available minutes. So if you had,
after subtracting everything out, 5800 minutes of actual run time, your
EA is 5800/7200 = 80.5% for your EA component.
2) Productivity: Say your cycle time is 2m30s/part. 7200/2.5 = 2880.
That's what you could theoretically run in 7200 minutes. You actually
produced 2120 parts for the week (including scrap). 2120/2880 = 73.6% for
your productivity component.
3. Scrap: You produced 32 scrap parts for the week. Your scrap is 32/2120
= 1.5%. Your goal is 0.0%, so you were 98.5% effective.
OEE = EAxPxS
So: 0.805x.736x.985 = 58.3% = OEE for the week. (80% OEE is considered to
be world class manufacturing).
--
Anthony
Damn, gonna have to read that twice. Looks like someone has learned how to
effectivly benchmark production.?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An observation...anyone agree?
- From: Anthony
- Re: An observation...anyone agree?
- References:
- An observation...anyone agree?
- From: vinny
- Re: An observation...anyone agree?
- From: Anthony
- Re: An observation...anyone agree?
- From: vinny
- Re: An observation...anyone agree?
- From: Anthony
- Re: An observation...anyone agree?
- From: vinny
- Re: An observation...anyone agree?
- From: Anthony
- An observation...anyone agree?
- Prev by Date: Re: An observation...anyone agree?
- Next by Date: Re: An observation...anyone agree?
- Previous by thread: Re: An observation...anyone agree?
- Next by thread: Re: An observation...anyone agree?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading