6.2: Points Made in the Case Study

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 30984

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

This case shows how a new workstation, that is a part of a lean transformation, can be studied and its operation validated before implementation by using a combination of analytic and simulation models.

The results of the analytic models are compared to the results of the simulation models to provide validation evidence for the simulation models.

The use of models to quantify performance using both average and maximum values is shown.

The average time between arrivals to a workstation should be equal to the takt time in order to produce the quantity of product demanded by a customer. Variation could result in the time between arrivals being greater than the takt time for any particular part. This could have a short term negative impact on the ability to meet customer demands.

The average processing time at a workstation must be less than the takt time in order to produce the quantity of product demanded by a customer. Variation could result in the processing time being greater than the takt time for some items. This could have a short term negative impact on the ability to meet customer demands.

The iterative nature of the simulation process is shown. A review of the initial study of the workstation leads to a request to include the three detractors in the simulation study, both individually and in combination. These detractors are batching with setup, breakdowns, and rejection and rework of a completed part.

Statistical analysis is used to determine if the detractors have a significant effect on the lead time at the workstation when the detractors are present.