299Capacity Analysis
may require the use of more than one document, and is consistent with PPAP
requirements. For end-item part numbers that have multiple value streams, the
capacity planning analysis must begin by looking at a single value stream. This
is due to considerations made to individual process scrap losses, which have
impact on the individual process required OEEs. In effect, the capacity analy-
sis is generally setup on a part-specic basis. However, depending on the part
and manufacturing process, it may be appropriate to group families of parts or
several manufacturing lines. If in doubt, check with the customer for approval.
Improving Required OEE
By adding operating time, reducing up-line scrap loss, or decreasing net
ideal cycle time, capacity gaps can be eliminated. The minimum level of
efciency required by a supplier to meet customer’s volume requirements
is based on the supplier’s planned operating pattern and manufacturing
assumptions. The required OEE for each process must be understood and
identied as early as possible by both customer and supplier. For each pro-
cess, the required OEE is the target—capacity gaps can only be identied
by comparing demonstrated OEE to this target. The basic question here is:
Are the required OEEs for each process feasible? Specic items to reduce
the required OEE with minimal investment that may be considered are to
expand operating pattern, add extra shifts of expanded hours, and consider
overtime. Another option is to reduce constraint cycle times by: (1) machine/
equipment design, (2) coordination with equipment suppliers to reduce cycle
time, (3) introduce faster processes when and if possible, and (4) track and
optimize cycle times at ramp-up.
Shared Loading Analysis
Shared loaded analysis is the evaluation of how much time is allotted for
production using a stream for the customer. Make sure that the allotted time
is rated correctly and fullls the requirements of the customer. Generally,
there is only one exception to this rule where total allocation is calculated.
The exception is for machining and outsourced e-coat. To complete a Shared
Loading Plan for a process, the following information is needed:
1. APW and MPW volume information adjusted for downstream scrap
losses, along with the NICT for all parts that are planned for produc-
tion on the specic process; average demonstrated OEE from most
300 Quality Assurance
recent production performance data. The Shared Loading Plan vali-
dates the accuracy of the planned allocation percentage for the pro-
cess, adjusted for the demonstrated OEE.
2. The equipment/process is not oversold considering the total book of
business of the process.
Total Allocation
For machining, if the total percentage of allocation is 54.2% for both APW
and MPW, this means that, adjusted for the supplier’s demonstrated OEE,
the operation can contain all business (customer and non-customer) without
exceeding the acceptable operating patterns. However, for outsourced e-coat,
if the total percentage allocation is greater than 100%, the process is oversold,
that is, capacity is at risk (must follow-up with action plan). The total percent-
age allocation can be addressed in the same ways that gaps are addressed
between required OEE and demonstrated OEE—by utilizing capacity gap
closure to improve demonstrated OEE, by reducing required OEE (and, thus,
the part-specic allocation percentage), or by off-loading some of the business.
Reaction and Plan Expectations
When all the data have been collected and the analysis has been completed,
it is time to evaluate the results. This evaluation is based on (1) reaction to the
data and (2) planning for the expectations. Both are dependent on
1. An assessment of current capacity and potential supply impact by
a. Understanding the maximum possible output
b. Examining alternate manufacturing options
c. Establishing output tracking of constraint operations
d. Reviewing the supply plan based on customer release require-
ments as far in the future as it is available
e. Establishing supply mitigation if there is a supply shortage
projected
f. Establishing contact with appropriate customer representative if
there is permanent degradation in output
2. Communicating with the customer immediately. This means contact
the appropriate customer representative immediately and convey
any issue, root cause, and supply status.
301Capacity Analysis
a. Presenting a supply protection plan
b. Executing the shipping and actions as agreed
3. Corrective action. Here the supplier is required to investigate pro-
cess and system escape contributors to root causes by utilizing for-
mal problem-solving techniques. Furthermore, the supplier must
a. Establish permanent and systemic corrective actions
b. Update preventive maintenance plans and/or process control
plans with permanent corrective actions as applicable
c. Capture systemic improvement actions in customer’s manufac-
turing site assessment system
d. Implement corrective actions per plan and validate results
Capacity Information Maintenance
As in any system, capacity has to be maintained on a regular basis. Typical
appropriate maintenance approaches are
1. At a minimum, suppliers are required to update their capacity infor-
mation in the customer’s capacity planning systems on a quarterly
basis or as required by the customer.
2. Suppliers must also update their capacity information in the cus-
tomer’s system (if available) as soon as there is a signicant change
in their operating output such that they are not able to support pre-
viously declared capacity in the customer’s system. For signicant
drop in capacity, please notify the customer for immediate supply
risk mitigation.
3. Besides maintaining capacity information in the customer’s system,
suppliers must monitor all customer’s releases for signicant amount
of time (in some cases, for 6-month releases) and communicate any
supply constraints to the appropriate customer representatives.
Some specic items of review for appropriate maintenance are in the
areas of
1. Study
a. Confusion and misinterpretation due to multiple studies
b. Supplier response errors
c. APW/MPW operational practices not consistent across supply
base
d. No subtier conrmation
302 Quality Assurance
2. Tool order
a. Missed tool funding due to supplier response errors
b. Supplier execution
i. Delayed tooling kickoff through supply chain
ii. Inadequate resources impacting timely execution
iii. Poor subtier planning and execution
iv. Does not believe increased releases are real
3. Capacity verication
a. Overcommitted and overstated capacities
b. Subtier not veried prior to capacity conrmation with customer
c. Changeover times not accounted in shared lines planning
4. Sustainable manufacturing
a. Domino effect from lack of quality of event upstream
b. Lack of ability to recover from nonrobust plans
c. Unplanned downtimes due to extended operating patterns (lack
of preventive maintenance)
Thought Starters to Improve Supplier Capacity Volume
OEE improvement actions maximize the following: (1) equipment availabil-
ity, (2) performance efciency, and (3) quality rate. Specic questions may be
1. Are there hours, days, and shifts available in which the supplier can
run extra parts during the week? Understand the operating patterns.
2. Is there any opportunity to improve the cycle of time constraint sta-
tions? Develop performance to Takt tools (Rational: performance
efciency improvement).
3. Does the supplier collect accurate data for downtime and scrap/
rework?
4. What are the major downtime issues? Deep diving into the top 5
downtime issues. Are there any available Pareto charts on down-
time for 4 weeks (Rational: equipment availability improvement)?
5. What are the major scrap/rework issues? Deep diving into the top 5
scrap/rework issues. Are there any available Pareto charts on down-
time for 4 weeks? Parts loss to rework/scrap (Rational: quality rate/
performance efciency improvement).
303Capacity Analysis
6. Can the changeover process timing be improved? Review the change-
over process at the supplier’s site. Apply single minute exchange of
dies (SMED) opportunity lean tools and principle. (Rational: quality
rate/performance efciency improvement.)
7. Are there any opportunities to improve the consumable changeover
(C/O) timing?
8. Is the supplier doing too many changeovers?
9. Are there any opportunities to implement PM scheduling, cleaning
during the changeover or breaks/lunches (parallel tasks)?
10. Are there any opportunities to run the rework/reject parts during
the breaks/lunches at the nal inspection cell?
11. Are there any machine start-up checklists available? Can the start-
up checklist be performed during lunches/breaks?
12. Does the supplier have a complete spare part available (electrical/
tooling, etc.)?
13. Does the supplier have adequate raw materials on-site for the
increased production volume (especially parts that are shipped from
Europe or Asia)?
14. Are there any opportunities to implement the tag relief during lunch
and breaks?
15. Are there any stations or machines on bypass mode, which impacts
the efciency throughput?
16. Does the shift change occur in a timely manner with minimum
impact to the equipment availability?
17. Is there any opportunity to optimize the start-up between each shift?
Minimize/optimize production meeting between the shifts, and so
on.
18. Do the production counts shift to shift have a large uctuation?
Deep dive into the root-cause analysis and standardize operation
procedures.
19. Is there any opportunity to add stations to the constraint station/
cell to sustain volume increase with minimum capital investment?
Is there any opportunity to make more parts in the ofine station? Is
there any opportunity to outsource the parts?
20. What are the next constraint stations or cell beside the current
cell?
21. Is there any opportunity to develop a short-term/long-term road
map to capture the improvement job per hour/average produc-
tion weekly (JPH/APW) Pareto to sustain the customer production
demand?
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.