Fisica de Planta

Basic Factory Dynamics
Physics should be explained as simply as possible,

but no simpler.
Albert Einstein
Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000
http://factory-physics.com
HAL Case
Large Panel Line: produces unpopulated printed circuit boards
Line runs 24 hr/day
Recent Performance:
throughput = 1,100 panels per day (45.8 panels/hr)

WIP = 37,000 panels
CT = 34 days (816 hr)
customer service = 75% on-time delivery
How is HAL doing?

What data do we need to decide?
HAL - Large Panel Line Processes

Lamination: press copper and prepreg into core blanks
Machining: trim cores to size
Circuitize: etch circuitry into copper
Optical Test and Repair: scan panels optically for defects
Drilling: holes to provide connections between layers
Copper Plate: deposits copper in holes to establish connections
Procoat: apply plastic coating to protect boards
Sizing: cut panels into boards
End of Line Test: final electrical test
HAL Case - Science?

External Benchmarking
but other plants may not be comparable
Internal Benchmarking
capacity data: what is utilization?
but this ignores WIP effects
Need relationships between WIP, TH, CT, service!
Definitions
Workstations: a collection of one or more identical machines.
Parts: a component, sub-assembly, or an assembly that moves through the
workstations.
End Items: parts sold directly to customers; relationship to constituent parts

defined in bill of material.
Consumables: bits, chemicals, gasses, etc., used in process but do not

become part of the product that is sold.
Routing: sequence of workstations needed to make a part.

Order: request from customer.
Job: transfer quantity on the line.
Definitions (cont.)
Throughput (TH): for a line, throughput is the average quantity of good
(non-defective) parts produced per unit time.
Work in Process (WIP): inventory between the start and endpoints of

a product routing.
Raw Material Inventory (RMI): material stocked at beginning of

routing.
Crib and Finished Goods Inventory (FGI): crib inventory

is material held in a stockpoint at the end of a routing; FGI is material held in
inventory prior to shipping to the customer.
Cycle Time (CT): time between release of the job at the beginning of the
routing until it reaches an inventory point at the end of the routing.
Factory Physics
Definition: A manufacturing system is a network of processes
through which parts flow and whose purpose is to generate profit
now and in the future.
Structure: Plant is made up of routings (lines), which in turn are made

up of processes.
Focus: Factory Physics is concerned with the network and flows at the
routing (line) level.
Parameters
Descriptors of a Line:
1) Bottleneck Rate (rb): Rate (parts/unit time or jobs/unit time) of the
process center having the highest long-term utilization.
2) Raw Process Time (T0): Sum of the long-term average process

times of each station in the line.
3) Congestion Coefficient ( ): A unitless measure of congestion.

Zero variability case,
= 0.
Practical worst case,
= 1.
Worst possible case,
= W0.
Note: we wont use quantitatively,

but point it out to recognize that lines
with same rb and T0 can behave very
differently.
Parameters (cont.)
Relationship:
Critical WIP (W0): WIP level in which a line having no congestion
would achieve maximum throughput (i.e., rb) with minimum cycle time
(i.e., T0).
W0 = rb T0
The Penny Fab

Characteristics:
Four identical tools in series.

Each takes 2 hours per piece (penny).
No variability.
CONWIP job releases.
Parameters:
rb
0.5 pennies/hour
T0
W0
8 hours
0.5 8 = 4 pennies
0 (no variability, best case conditions)
10
The Penny Fab
WIP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TH
CT
TH x CT
11
TH vs. WIP: Best Case
Throughput (Jobs/hr)
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
0
10
12
14
WIP (Jobs)
12
CT vs. WIP: Best Case
Cycle time (Hours)
20
16
12
8
4
0
0
10
12
14
WIP (Jobs)
13
Best Case Performance

Best Case Law: The minimum cycle time (CTbest) for a given WIP
level, w, is given by
if w W0
T0 ,
CTbest =
w / rb , otherwise.
The maximum throughput (THbest) for a given WIP level, w is

given by,
w / T0 , if w W0
TH best =
otherwise.
rb ,
14
Best Case Performance (cont.)

Example: For Penny Fab, rb = 0.5 and T0 = 8, so W0 = 0.5 8 = 4,
if w 4
8,
CTbest =
2w, otherwise.
w / 8 , if w 4
TH best =
0.5, otherwise.
which are exactly the curves we plotted.
15
A Manufacturing Law
Little's Law: The fundamental relation between WIP, CT, and
TH over the long-term is:
WIP = TH CT
units =
units
hrs
hr
Examples:
Checking WIP levels in cash flow analysis.
Measure of cycle time (e.g., what is cycle time for an automobile?)
FGI and planned inventory.
16
Penny Fab Two
2 hr
5 hr
3 hr
10 hr
17
Penny Fab Two

Station
Number
1
Number of
Machines
1
Process
Time
2 hr
5 hr
j/hr
10 hr
j/hr
3 hr
j/hr
rb =
T0 =
Station
Rate
j/hr
W0 =
18
Worst Case
Observation: The Best Case yields the minimum cycle time and
maximum throughput for each WIP level.
Question: What conditions would cause the maximum cycle time and
minimum throughput?
Experiment:
set average process times same as Best Case (so rb and T0 unchanged)
follow a marked job through system
imagine marked job experiences maximum queueing
19
Worst Case Penny Fab
Time = 0 hours
20
10
Time = 8 hours
21
Time = 16 hours
22
11
Time = 24 hours
23
Time = 32 hours
Note:
CT = 32 hours
= 4 8 = wT0
TH = 4/32 = 1/8 = 1/T0
24
12
TH vs. WIP: Worst Case
0.6
rb
Best Case
0.5
TH
0.4
0.3
Worst Case
0.2
1/T0
0.1
0
0
W0
9 10 11 12
WIP
25
CT vs. WIP: Worst Case

Worst Case
CT
32
28
24
20
16
12
T0 8
4
0
Best Case
4 5
9 10 11 12
W0 WIP
26
13
Worst Case Performance

Worst Case Law: The worst case cycle time for a given WIP level,
w, is given by,
CTworst = w T0
The worst case throughput for a given WIP level, w, is given by,
THworst = 1 / T0
Randomness? None - perfectly predictable, but bad!
27
Practical Worst Case

Observation: There is a BIG GAP between the Best Case and Worst
Case performance.
Question: Can we find an intermediate case that:

divides good and bad lines, and
is computable?
Experiment: consider a line with a given rb and T0 and:

single machine stations
balanced lines
variability such that all WIP configurations (states) are equally likely
28
14
PWC Example 3 jobs, 4 stations

clumped
up states
State
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Vector
(3,0,0,0)
(0,3,0,0)
(0,0,3,0)
(0,0,0,3)
(2,1,0,0)
(2,0,1,0)
(2,0,0,1)
(1,2,0,0)
(0,2,1,0)
(0,2,0,1)
State
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Vector
(1,0,2,0)
(0,1,2,0)
(0,0,2,1)
(1,0,0,2)
(0,1,0,2)
(0,0,1,2)
(1,1,1,0)
(1,1,0,1)
(1,0,1,1)
(0,1,1,1)
Note: average WIP at any station is 15/20 = 0.75,

so jobs are spread evenly between stations.
spread
out states
29

Let w = jobs in system, N = no. stations in line, and t = process
time at all stations:
CT(single)
= (1 + (w-1)/N) t
CT(line)
= N [1 + (w-1)/N] t
= Nt + (w-1)t
= T0 + (w-1)/rb
TH
= WIP/CT
= [w/(w+W0-1)]rb
From Littles Law
30
15
Practical Worst Case Performance

Practical Worst Case Definition: The practical worst case (PWC)
cycle time for a given WIP level, w, is given by,
CTPWC = T0 +
w 1
rb
The PWC throughput for a given WIP level, w, is given by,
TH PWC =
w
rb ,
W0 + w 1
where W0 is the critical WIP.

31
TH vs. WIP: Practical Worst Case
0.6
rb
Best Case
0.5
TH
0.4
0.3
Worst Case
Bad
0.2
1/T0
PWC
Good
0.1
0
0
W0
9 10 11 12
WIP
32
16
CT vs. WIP: Practical Worst Case
Worst Case
32
28
24
20
16
12
T0 8
4
0
PWC
CT
Bad
Best Case
Good
8 9 10 11 12
W0 WIP
33
Penny Fab Two Performance

0.5
Note: process
times in PF2
have var equal
to PWC.
Best Case
rb 0.4
Penny
Fab 2
0.3
TH
l Worst
Practica
0.2
But unlike
PWC, it has
unbalanced
line and multi
machine
stations.
Case
0.1
1/T0
Worst Case
0
0
10
W0
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
WIP
34
17
Penny Fab Two Performance (cont.)

80
70
Worst Case
60
ase
tC
50
CT
al
ctic
Pra
rs
Wo
ny
Pen
40
Fab
1/rb
30
T0 20
Best Case
10
0
0
8 10
W0
12
14 16
18 20
22 24
26
WIP
35
Back to the HAL Case - Capacity Data

Large Panel Line:
Process
Lamination
Machining
Circuitize
Optical Test/Repair
Drilling
Copper Plate
Procoat
Sizing
EOL Test
rb, T0
Rate (p/hr)
191.5
186.2
150.5
157.8
185.9
136.4
146.2
126.5
169.5
126.5
Time (hr)
1.2
5.9
6.9
5.6
10.0
1.5
2.2
2.4
1.8
33.1
36
18
HAL Case - Situation

Critical WIP: rbT0 = 126.5 33.1 = 4187
Actual Values:
CT = 34 days = 816 hours
WIP = 37400 panels
TH = 45.8 panels/hour
Conclusions:
Throughput is 36% of capacity
WIP is 8.9 times critical WIP
CT is 24.6 times raw process time
37
HAL Case - Analysis

WIP Required for PWC to Achieve TH = 0.36rb:
TH =
w=
w
rb = 0.36rb
w + W0 1
0.36
0.36
(4,187 1) = 2,355
(W0 1) =
0.64
0.64
Much lower than

actual WIP!
TH Resulting from PWC with WIP = 37,400:

TH =
w
37,400
rb =
126.5 = 113.8 Much higher
than actual TH!
w + W0 1
37,400 + 4,187 1
Conclusion: actual system is much worse than PWC!

38
19
HAL Internal Benchmarking Outcome

140
Best Case
TH (panels/hr)
120
"Good" Region
100
80
60
"Bad" Region
40
Actual Performance
20
0
Worst Case
-20
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
WIP (panels)
50000
39
Labor Constrained Systems

Motivation: performance of some systems are limited by labor or a
combination of labor and equipment.
Full Flexibility with Workers Tied to Jobs:
WIP limited by number of workers (n)

capacity of line is n/T0
Best case achieves capacity and has workers in zones
ample capacity case also achieves full capacity with pick and run policy
40
20
Labor Constrained Systems (cont.)

Full Flexibility with Workers Not Tied to Jobs:
TH depends on WIP levels
THCW(n) TH(w) THCW(w)
need policy to direct workers to jobs (focus on downstream is effective)
Agile Workforce Systems
bucket brigades
kanban with shared tasks
overlapping zones
many others
41
Factory Dynamics Takeaways

Performance Measures:
throughput
WIP
cycle time
service
Range of Cases:
best case
practical worst case
worst case
Diagnostics:
simple assessment based on rb, T0, actual WIP,actual TH
evaluate relative to practical worst case
42
21

Fisica de Planta

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fisica de Planta

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basic Factory Dynamics

Physics should be explained as simply as possible,

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

throughput = 1,100 panels per day (45.8 panels/hr)

How is HAL doing?

HAL - Large Panel Line Processes

HAL Case - Science?

Need relationships between WIP, TH, CT, service!

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

End Items: parts sold directly to customers; relationship to constituent parts

Consumables: bits, chemicals, gasses, etc., used in process but do not

Routing: sequence of workstations needed to make a part.

Work in Process (WIP): inventory between the start and endpoints of

Raw Material Inventory (RMI): material stocked at beginning of

Crib and Finished Goods Inventory (FGI): crib inventory

Structure: Plant is made up of routings (lines), which in turn are made

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

2) Raw Process Time (T0): Sum of the long-term average process

3) Congestion Coefficient ( ): A unitless measure of congestion.

Practical worst case,

Worst possible case,

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Note: we wont use quantitatively,

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

The Penny Fab

Four identical tools in series.

0 (no variability, best case conditions)

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

The Penny Fab

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

TH vs. WIP: Best Case

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

CT vs. WIP: Best Case

Cycle time (Hours)

Best Case Performance

The maximum throughput (THbest) for a given WIP level, w is

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Best Case Performance (cont.)

which are exactly the curves we plotted.

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Penny Fab Two

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Penny Fab Two

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Worst Case Penny Fab

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Worst Case Penny Fab

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Worst Case Penny Fab

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Worst Case Penny Fab

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Worst Case Penny Fab

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

TH vs. WIP: Worst Case

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

CT vs. WIP: Worst Case

Worst Case Performance

Wallace J. Hopp, Mark L. Spearman, 1996, 2000

Practical Worst Case

Question: Can we find an intermediate case that: