How to Implement OEE in One Day

Manuficient - Excellence Compass

OEE (or Overall Equipment Effectiveness) is the ultimate tool for measuring and eliminating process waste. Wikipedia defines it as “a hierarchy of metrics developed by Seiichi Nakajima[1] in the 1960s to evaluate how effectively a manufacturing operation is utilized.” OEE combined with rigorous process improvement efforts can drive significant cost savings, reduce stress of daily operations, and increase manufacturing capacity. Simply put, you’re not doing Continuous Improvement or Lean if you’re not using OEE. The metric itself is taken by multiplying Availability (%) x Rate Attainment (%) x Yield Attainment (%).

To implement OEE effectively, you need to track each of these indicators on a continuous basis and perform the OEE calculation for a line, shift, factory, or entire manufacturing network on the interval that you see fit. Here are a few steps to implement OEE:

  1. Capture the % Availability. This is the efficiency lost while the line is not in operation (but the labor force is on the clock). Create a spreadsheet that allows line operators to input the time it takes to start up the line (from clock-in to steady state). Also capture other planned downtimes such as changeovers and shutdown times. Finally, capture each unplanned downtime loss as well.
  2. Capture the % Yield Attainment. This is a measure of the efficiency lost due to producing sub-par quality product. This calculation is done simply by taking the total good units produced divided by the total units produced.
  3. Capture % Rate Attainment. This is essentially the efficiency lost while running less than the maximum possible run rate. To capture this this, develop maximum theoretical run rates for each product on each production line. This should be done by an Industrial Engineer or trained professional. If you don’t have one on staff, you can contract someone to do it or use what I call the maximum empirically demonstrated rate, which is the fastest rate the line has demonstrated in it’s history for the given product. From there, track your total throughput and divide by your theoretical max rate to get your % total losses. Then subtract out % Availability and % Yield Losses. The remaining losses are rate losses.

Then multiply the three indicators across and the result is your OEE, which is a measure of perfection. 100% OEE represents zero efficiency losses. Once you have began tracking these metrics on an ongoing basis, you can aggregate this data to calculate your OEE anytime you want. The more frequently you can report this information, the more actionable the metric is for you. You certainly don’t want to wait weeks or months to find out there is a serious problem; but daily reporting is usually sufficient. Reporting by shift is even better.

With all of that said, the best way I’ve seen to implement OEE is a tool called Impruver at www.impruver.com. It’s the best free tool out there and it calculates and reports OEE for you by product, line, shift, and even team or individual team members. You could simply have your operators enter each production run into the system and the tool does the rest. It takes less than a minute to enter a production run. It even sets your theoretical max rates for you based on your best demonstrated rate. Then it updates the standard automatically when a run is entered that exceeds the previously established rate. In other words, you don’t have to set or update production standards – the tool does it all for you. It’s great!

 

OEE is the benchmark for measuring factory performance and can be used across all industries to highlight areas that can be made more efficient. It’s a metric that can be used to drive substantial cost savings along with targeted process improvements.

Copyright © Calvin L Williams blog at calvinlwilliams.com [2015]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Calvin L Williams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Advertisements

20 Reasons You’re Paying Too Much for Raw Materials – And How to Reduce Costs

Manuficient Consulting - Wasting Money

Raw material is often the single greatest expense for any manufacturing operation. It could range anywhere from 35 – 75% of total cost of goods sold depending on industry and the nature of the supply chain. Unfortunately, many manufacturing companies simply accept this as a “cost of doing business” and are reluctant to explore some of the many opportunities to reduce raw material costs. Some of these opportunities could be captured relatively easily and some require the execution of a longer-term Continuous Improvement strategy.

There are fundamentally three segments of your supply chain where there are opportunities to reduce raw material costs. Those segments are in sourcing, manufacturing, and post-manufacturing. The following are 20 reasons you’re paying too much for raw material:

Sourcing

  • Accepting higher prices instead of taking advantage or supplier market competition. Why not conduct a periodic sourcing analysis to determine the pricing and reliability of competing suppliers? This would give you the information you need to either negotiate prices or source new suppliers.
  • Paying higher prices by ordering smaller quantities from too many suppliers forgoing bulk discounts. The alternative would be to use a smaller number of suppliers to provide more of your materials, resulting in greater purchase volumes and lower prices.
  • Accepting higher prices due to not leveraging payment terms that would be favored by suppliers. Instead, offer to pay suppliers sooner in exchange for lower prices.
  • Accepting higher prices instead of utilizing points of leverage in supplier contracts to negotiate lower prices. The idea would be to assess your relationship with the supplier (including their past performance) to see if there is room for re-negotiating prices.
  • Accepting higher prices due to unwillingness to collaborate with your competitors to get bulk discounts.
  • Utilizing materials that are more expensive than what is needed for the product’s function.
  • Accepting higher prices due to unwillingness to commit to long-term purchasing contracts.
  • Purchasing materials at full rate instead of leveraging bargains. Conversely, monitor your supplier’s business cycles to identify when they would have excess inventory that they would be interested in selling at bargain prices. However, you will, in turn, need to maintain raw inventories and incur any shrinkage, obsolescence, and handling costs. This method is not typically recommended by could be effective in some cases.
  • Purchasing based on your manufacturing schedule instead of supplier’s production schedule. Suppliers are willing to offer discounts if you purchase on their schedule so they don’t need to maintain finished goods inventories. Again, you will, in turn, need to maintain raw inventories and incur any shrinkage, obsolescence, and handling costs. This method is not typically recommended by could be effective in some cases.

Manufacturing

  • High variation in filling or packing processes resulting in high fill targets and over-fill / over-pack. Instead, apply Six Sigma approaches of reducing variation so that overall target weights and over-fill can be reduced.
  • Scheduling using a “push” production model resulting in excess and obsolete inventories. The alternative would be to establish a “pull” production model using kanbans and safety stocks, resulting in controlled inventory levels and less excessive / obsolete materials
  • Scrap and material yield loss created by “leaks” in the system. The approach would be to identify and quantify the impact of leaks. Then implement process changes to close leaks and convert more wasted material into sale-able finished goods.
  • Too many low-consumption raw materials caused by high SKU complexity. Conversely, SKU’s could be rationalized so that smaller orders of raw materials could be reduced.
  • Over-application of material that customers do not find valuable due to over-designing products. Instead, work with customers to better understand the product’s function and remove materials or functions that are not useful to the customer.
  • Over-application of material that customers do not find valuable due to inefficient design. Again, work with customers to better understand the product’s function and explore design options that sufficiently address the need using less material.

Post-Manufacturing

  • Material lost in the supply chain process being scrapped or sent to the landfill instead of being recycled or reclaimed
  • High production costs for suppliers, which can be reduced by providing process improvement or project management services. An approach would be to provide Continuous Improvement services to help reduce the supplier’s operating costs in exchanged for reduced prices. This could be lucrative for suppliers since it helps them increase profit margins with other customers.
  • High supply chain costs for suppliers, which can be reduced by providing warehousing and distribution services. This allows your suppliers easier access to your local markets by utilizing your warehouse and distribution services. Then, you can negotiate lower prices and services fees per activity.
  • Accepting higher prices due to not leveraging buyers to take advantage of bulk discounts. Instead, work with your buyers to have them procure your raw materials. They can often get bulk discounts from your suppliers that you may not have access to. You can also offer your buyers lower prices since this will often result in significantly lower raw material costs on your end.
  • Too much shrinkage, or goods being lost, damaged, or stolen in the supply chain process.

The key to driving substantial improvement in raw materials is to use big data to quantify the opportunity for improvement in each of these areas and develop your plan of attack. The areas that have a combination of high impact, quick results, and low cost of implementation would receive higher priority. The items that do not provide a high short-term impact but contribute to an overall more efficient supply chain would require a more strategic approach to implementation. Most of these items have a place in your Continuous Improvement Strategy and if executed effectively, would set your supply chain up for significant cost reductions in raw material.

Copyright © Calvin L Williams blog at calvinlwilliams.com [2015]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Calvin L Williams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Hiring, Promoting, and Firing for Transformation in Manufacturing

Manuficient - Hiring

What is the mix of attitudes toward change within your organization? Is your factory’s mix of attitudes optimized for transformation?

One of the most critical factors of a successful Continuous Improvement implementation is having the right people on the bus. When undergoing this type of change, the organization is going from a steady state to a transformative state of operation. To optimize the speed and strength of an implementation, it helps to have the right mix of personalities, talents, competencies, and attitudes in place. For instance, the greater manufacturing competency (such as experience with Lean, Six Sigma, or other), the easier the implementation. In regard to personalities, it helps to have a diverse team that can bring a variety of perspectives to the table. Also, talent brings magnitude to the direction that is set for the change. However, the predominant factor in the organization’s Agility is people’s attitudes toward change at the onset of the initiative. Organizational Agility is the speed at which it can effectively change and return to steady state. Granted, people can change and judgement needs to be applied as to how much a person can change and by when, the amount of time required for people to change adds time to the implementation. As you may have gathered at this point, a CI implementation needs to happen in the attitudes and behaviors of people, just as much as it happens with other manufacturing assets on the production floor. Depending on the specific current and future needs of your business, your approach to getting the right people on the bus will vary.

One of the most profound publications on people’s attitudes toward change is “Who Moved My Cheese” by Spencer Johnson, MD. According to Spencer, there are four types of attitudes towards change which I’ll summarize below:

Sniff (or the Change Agent) identified change early. He kept things simple and adopted the change. He would represent those in the organization who advocate change for the others.

Scurry (The Supporting Agent) was eager and quick. He was flexible, aware and accepted the change that was taking place.

Haw (the Adapter) dealt with change in a different way. He was able to relinquish old behaviors and learn from past mistakes.

Hem (the Stabilizer) preferred to stay in his comfort zone and ignore the reality of the situation. He felt entitled and just trusted his needs would be met if he took the easiest path.

One of the keys to optimizing a CI implementation is finding or cultivating the right mix of attitudes. Based on personal experience, the typical organization at steady state might contain the following mix:

Change Agents (2%) | Supporting Agents (15%) | Adapters (50%) | Stabilizers (33%)

For a more effective Continuous Improvement implementation, a more appropriate model might look as follows (depending on the organization’s goals):

Change Agents (10%) | Supporting Agents (35%) | Adapters (40%) | Stabilizers (15%)

The point is to show a significant shift from people on the Stabilizer end of the spectrum toward the Change Agent end. This is especially true within the Leadership group of the organization. This may also require either helping people to change their attitudes or hiring/promoting/firing people to optimize the mix required to strengthen a transformation. Notice that even in a state of transformation, some population of Stabilizers is still required to support implementation. This is because Stabilizers are best suited for driving adherence to standards, which is critical for continuous improvement.

To effectively apply this model, an inventory of attitudes toward change should be taken to get a snapshot of the organization’s current state. An expert can help you determine the attitude mix required to achieve the desired future state. After the implementation has reached maturity, there should be a shift in attitudes away from Change Agents and toward Stabilizers in efforts to sustain desired changes. At any state of operation, there is an optimal mix which should be evaluated and decided upon based on the current and future needs of the business.

Copyright © Calvin L Williams blog at calvinlwilliams.com [2015]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Calvin L Williams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Detrimental Impact of Cutting Costs at All Costs: A Case of the Goose and the Golden Eggs

Manuficient - Golden Eggs

A factory and all its glory is a business asset. Within a factory, you have many things at play: people, processes, technology, culture, waste, organizations and sub-organizations, hierarchy, opportunities, dreams, breakthroughs, failures, successes, entitlements, disenfranchisement, rewards, consequences – this list can go on forever. Its possible (and no doubt has happened) for a person to live a majority of their life inside the four walls of a factory. The job of a factory is to make stuff at the highest possible quality and lowest possible cost. From a purely economic viewpoint, you pump money into a factory and it pumps valuable product out. The intent is to pump out more value that you are pumping in because this is what generates wealth. This creates a dynamic where wealth can be maximized in two ways: one is to maximize the value being pumped out; the other is to minimize the money being pumped in. Let’s look at the merits of each approach separately:

Maximum Value Creation: Most manufacturing businesses are built on this principle. This is what gets sold and what customers come to know and love about the company. When you see the product on the shelf at Walmart, it says “look at all these fantastic features” and “new and improved”. Entire companies are built on the value that they bring to their customers’ lives. The factory is an asset that creates value for both the company and it’s customers. When a manufacturing company creates a valuable product, it can grow until the market becomes saturated. Up until that point, the company is presumably profitable, products are selling faster than you can make them – let the good times roll. Many people don’t realize that Lean Manufacturing was created as an approach to maximize value creation and strengthen the company’s viability. At some point, the market does become saturated and the company’s growth becomes flat – or even worse, starts trending the other way as many companies saw between 2008 and 2011. People come to miss those good ol’ times when the financial statements always had great news to share. With increasing pressures from all angles to turn those numbers from red back to black, many companies start looking at alternative ways to grow wealth.

Minimum Cost Operations: Cutting costs is another way for a company to grow wealth. A company should not carry costs that are not needed. In fact every company has an obligation to its stakeholders, especially its shareholders and customers to remove unnecessary costs from its business processes. The challenge is removing costs without compromising the value that it has brought to its customers’ lives. Cost cutting should be a careful, continuous, and deliberate process as to continue nurturing and protecting the asset that is the factory. Factories thrive on happy employees, innovation, and streamlined processes. When cost cutting impedes on any one of these critical factors, the factory as an asset becomes malnourished and productivity suffers. When the manufacturing base becomes malnourished, the company overall may soon find itself in trouble. Many companies have gone as far as divesting completely in their in-house manufacturing base and instead opted for outsourcing to China and other countries to take advantage of lower labor costs. This is done at many expenses, including destroying the innovation pipeline, losing core capabilities, shipping jobs abroad, and funneling American dollars to other countries. Unfortunately, its difficult to capture these costs in a financial statement. This approach essentially delegates the company’s most important job, to maximize value creation – in other words, compromising their core capability to create value for their customers.

Growth for a manufacturing business is achieved by maximizing the amount of value being created in its processes. As such, value creation should never be de-prioritized to cutting costs. However, every company has the obligation to continuously reduce operating costs while maximizing value. This is the true and original intent of Lean, Six Sigma, Agile Manufacturing and other continuous improvement initiatives. As the definition of value changes for customers, so should the manufacturing processes. This requires agility and continuous innovation, which every healthy factory needs.

Copyright © Calvin L Williams blog at calvinlwilliams.com [2015]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Calvin L Williams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Is Your Company Inadvertantly Putting the Breaks on its Own Continuous Improvement?

Manuficient - Brake Light

Getting better at something can take a lot of work. As any change agent can tell you, change is difficult, especially when there are people involved. Change requires shifts in the power structure, disrupting old habits, and pushing people out of their comfort zone. The reason that’s a problem is because you simply cannot get better if you cannot change. The two are inseparable. In many cases, there are just as many forces at play to prevent change than there are to create change. Sometimes those forces are created by the way the company works, or its business system. The business system is the array of its policies, people, processes, suppliers, customers, culture, and technology. Sometimes, the business system is designed in a way that inadvertently discourages continuous improvement. But don’t fret. In this post, I will uncover a few of the culprits that are putting the brakes continuous improvement in your company.

At any point in time, a manufacturer can capture its current state situation. Although the current state is just a snapshot in time, it can reveal some very interesting information. This information could include throughput levels, process efficiencies, conversion costs and so on. It could also reveal recent trends that provide some indication of what can be expected for the future. Those trends provide some insight to how “primed” your organization is for a continuous improvement initiative such as Lean, Six Sigma, Agile manufacturing or anything else you’re trying to do. A positive trend over time indicates that the organization is more likely to embrace change or continuous improvement. A flat trend over a long time indicates that the organization may be stagnated with some degree of resistance to change or improvement. These are the most difficult ones because there may be gatekeepers who won’t see a need to change. Making the case for continuous improvement will take quite a bit more effort in this instance. If the trend is negative over a long time period…well there’s bad news and good news. The bad news is that if you don’t improve, you won’t stay in business. The good news is that if you don’t improve you won’t stay in business. Making the case for continuous improvement in this case is a piece of cake.

With that said, there are some arrangements where business systems have embraced their inefficiency. These systems have decided to implement practices that allow some inside the business to profit from their inefficiency instead of eliminating it. I’ll give you a few examples: the contractor who is paid by the hour has an incentive to consume more hours to complete a job. Another is the airline that allows passengers to pay for priority boarding and seating. Their incentive is to keep the “normal” process so cumbersome that people will pay to cut in line and circumvent their terribly inefficient process. In this case, the airline has created a nice new revenue stream from their own inefficiency. You see where I’m going with this. These would be examples of policies killing the culture of continuous improvement. Over time, the people of an organization grow to accept inefficiencies as “the way it is” and they learn to capitalize on them as well. Inefficiency leaves room for corruption, which only breeds more inefficiency. This is what leads to a culture of poor performance and resistance to continuous improvement.

As part of your continuous improvement initiative, it will serve you well to take a close look at the policies, people, processes, suppliers, customers, culture, and technologies that might be hindering your growth. You will need to identify who in the organization is profiting from inefficiency and create conditions where the only way to profit is by ever increasing efficiency (with outstanding safety and quality of course).

© Calvin L Williams blog at calvinlwilliams.com [2015]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Calvin L Williams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Difference Between Lean and Agile Manufacturing

Have you ever wondered what is the difference between Lean and Agile Manufacturing? Well you’re not alone. I’ve been in rooms full of manufacturing consultants who don’t have a complete grasp of these two manufacturing principles, their applications, and their differences.

One simple way to explain the difference is by thinking of the two in terms of direction and magnitude. If its a question of direction, its in the Agile arena. If its a question of magnitude, its Lean. I’ll use a golf analogy to simplify this concept even further. I’m no golf expert but I do understand two things, you need to hit the ball in the right direction and the right distance. Business, especially manufacturing, is no different. The Lean question in golf would be: “What is the least amount of effort needed to hit the ball 300 yards?”. The Agile question in golf would be: 1) “What is the right direction to hit the ball?” and 2) “What is the least amount of effort required to adjust my direction?”

In the manufacturing environment, the two work hand and hand. You first decide what to make, then you decide how to make it better and more efficiently. In an environment where the “What to make?” question is asked more frequently, Agile is the predominant approach. Likewise, if the question is more frequently “How do we make it better/faster/less expensive?”, then you’re in the Lean wheelhouse. If you’ve decided what to make over breakfast and need to figure out how to cut operating cost by 50% by lunchtime, then you’ve ventured into the Leagile territory.

Simply put, the easier it is for your factory or supply chain to change directions, the more Agile it is. The less resources required to produce a unit at quality, the more Lean it is.

Examples of Lean questions include:

What’s the lowest possible cost to produce per unit?

How much labor is required to produce per unit?

How can we reduce operating costs by 15%?

How can we improve service levels by 10%?

Examples of Agile questions include:

Are our factories capable of producing Product XYZ?

What would it cost to re-tool and get to full rate on Product XYZ?

What would it cost to add Feature or Component B to existing Product 123? How long would it take to get this new SKU to full rate production?

How quickly can we get to market with Product XYZ?

What products can we introduce to increase annual revenues by 15%? What are the associated commercialization costs?

If you’re a manufacturer that is happy with sales volumes and just need to reduce operating costs or increase productivity, then there are steps you can take to become more Lean, which is the systematic reduction of waste.

On the other hand, if you’re a manufacturer that would like to increase or retain sales volumes by being more responsive and flexible, then there are steps you can take to become more Agile, which is the ability to quickly and easily change direction or speed.

© Calvin L Williams blog at calvinlwilliams.com [2015]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Calvin L Williams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.