Ford Motor Company Supplier Technical Assistance (STA) February 2010 Ford Motor Company Capacity Analysis Report (CAR) Error State 2
DS/JW 2010.02 CAR Release 4 Error States
INTRODUCTION Capacity Analysis Report (CAR), Release 4 , the CAR Toolset, and CAR Toolset Architecture This document discusses common error states found in the completion of the Capacity Analysis Report (CAR) Release 4 document, inclusive of the process for accurately assessing capacity during Phase 3 PPAP. It is intended to supplement existing documentation available, including the Global Terms & Conditions Capacity Planning Web-Guide, the Capacity Planning User Guide, Single-Point-Lessons for Volume Sources, and others.
As appropriate, additional error-states may be added.
1.0 PROCESS SEQUENCING / VALUE-ADD INCLUSION Section A: Establishing the Processes CAR Toolset Common error-states: Inputting processes that are in parallel to one another that is, not in value stream, sequential order (two processes that run concurrently and both supply a third process need to be assessed on separate analyses). Including processes that do not add value to the manufacturing process;
Processes must be input on the capacity form in value-stream order, due to considerations made in Section A5 for expected scrap loss. Unless parts flow from the Machining process into Plastic Injection Molding and so on, the form is not set-up properly Plastic Injection Molding must be assessed on a separate analysis. When a separate analysis is used for an upstream parallel process, enter the unique volume requirements in Section A2, taking into account downstream scrap losses. Do not simply enter the Ford volume requirements, as these do not take into account value stream scrap losses.
Further, often processes are included that do not have significance for assessment of capacity. In the above example, it is likely that Packaging does not belong. Other examples (not pictured) include material movement activities, warehousing, staging, and sometimes inspection. Ford Motor Company Capacity Analysis Report (CAR) Error State 3
DS/JW 2010.02 CAR Release 4 Error States
2.0 OPERATING PATTERN ERRORS Reference Global Terms & Conditions
Common error-states: Operating patterns in excess of 5-days for APW or 6-days for MPW; Illogical detail in Shifts / Day, Total Hours / Shift, or Contractual Planned Downtime.
APW Volumes must be contained within a 5-day operating pattern, unless acceptable deviation is required based on the process or cultural norms. If a value is entered that is greater than 5-days per week in the APW column, the cell will turn YELLOW. If a value is entered greater than 6-days per week in the MPW column, the cell will turn YELLOW. Operating patterns outside of the 5-day APW or 6-day MPW patterns signify the need for additional alignment between Ford & the supplier. Reference Global Terms & Conditions Capacity Planning Web-Guide
It must be understood that such expanded patterns that is, those exceeding the 5-day APW or 6-day MPW patterns must be considered a risk to Ford volumes. In an event of loss, through equipment breakdown, sub-tier supply interruption, or the like, the likelihood that a supplier would be able to recuperate such a loss is reduced.
Further, a logical test must be performed to assess the validity of the operating pattern. Logically, the summation of the "Shifts / Day" and the "Total Hours / Shift" cannot exceed 24 hours. If suppliers have multiple lines, they can document such later on the form it is not a consideration for operating pattern. Is it appropriate to have a planned operating pattern that includes 0-minutes per shift in "Contractual Planned Downtime?" Perhaps, such as if the process is an automated cell. However, a degree of logic must be employed to validate the supplier submissions.
3.0 ALLOCATION & SHARED LOADING PLANS Required for ALL Shared Processes
Common error-states: Missing Shared Loading Plan for any processes with Allocation Percent < 100%; Incorrectly performed Shared Loading Plan, including incorrect Demonstrated OEE, operating pattern, catalogue of parts, etc.
Ford Motor Company Capacity Analysis Report (CAR) Error State 4
DS/JW 2010.02 CAR Release 4 Error States
In the example, there are two processes that are shared Machining and Grinding. Each of these processes must have a unique Shared Loading Plan within the workbook for analysis, as the loading of Machining may indeed be different than that of Grinding.
The following information is required to complete a Shared Loading Plan: Required Good Parts per Week volume information, along with the Net Ideal Cycle Time (NICT) for all parts (Ford and Non-Ford) that are planned for production on the specific process; Average Demonstrated OEE from the most recent production performance data across all part numbers on that shared piece of equipment.
The intent of the Shared Loading Plan is two-fold. First, it validates the allocation percentage for the process, adjusted for the demonstrated OEE. Second, it validates that the process is not oversold considering all business planned for the process.
Operating Pattern. The operating pattern input on both the APW and MPW sides of the Shared Loading Plan must match the operating patterns planned for the specific operation for the overall capacity analysis. If the planned operation, departmentally, operates on 5-days per week, 3-shifts per day, and 8-hours per shift, the same operating pattern should be documented on the shared analysis.
Ford Motor Company Capacity Analysis Report (CAR) Error State 5
DS/JW 2010.02 CAR Release 4 Error States
Demonstrated OEE. The Demonstrated OEE must be taken from the most recent production performance data across all part numbers on that shared piece of equipment.
Demonstrated OEE. It is very unlikely that the Demonstrated OEE should be 85%, yet this is a common entry in the Shared Loading Tab. Many suppliers use 85% OEE as the expected or target efficiency. This is not the desired input.
Part Listing. All parts that are planned for the specific process must be listed. Non-Ford parts may be grouped together, but only if they share the same Net Ideal Cycle Time (NICT). Otherwise, "Non-Ford" may be repeated to facilitate multiple line-entries.
Net Ideal Cycle Time (NICT). The NICT for the subject Ford part number should be equal to the NICT (LINE N) from the Capacity Planning, Phase 0 PPAP, or Phase 3 PPAP tab of the workbook depending on the timing of the analysis. Other part number cycle times should be documented using the same methodology. Reference Section 5.0 of this document for more information about Ideal Cycle Times.
% Allocation, Minimum Required REQUIRED OUTPUT For the subject part in this example, the top line the Minimum Allocation Required is 37.1%. The Allocation Percent from LINE F from Section A4 must be greater or equal to the minimum allocation required. This line validates that, adjusted for the Demonstrated OEE, the supplier is planning adequate allocation for the subject Ford part.
Total % Allocation REQUIRED OUTPUT The value in this cell both for APW and MPW must be manually transcribed to LINE U from Section A7 for each shared process. This line validates that the equipment or process is not oversold considering all business planned.
Total % Allocation. In this example, the Total % Allocation is greater than 100%. The supplier has overloaded the equipment in the given operating pattern. Despite the possibility that the supplier can show adequate capacity for the subject Ford part number, this shows that the supplier will be unable to meet all contractual obligations. For information on resolving such issues, refer to the Capacity Planning User Guide.
4.0 IDEAL CYCLE TIMES Common Error State
Common error-states: Using incorrect cycle times or cycle times that include efficiency loss factors (e.g., 85%);
One of the most common error-states in the analysis is the documentation of accurate Ideal Cycle Times per Tool or Machine (seconds / cycle). As Ideal Cycle Times factor directly into not only the calculation for Required OEE, but also in the calculation of Demonstrated OEE, it is imperative that the Ideal Cycle Times be documented with accuracy. Refer to the following IS-IS NOT table: Ford Motor Company Capacity Analysis Report (CAR) Error State 6
DS/JW 2010.02 CAR Release 4 Error States
IS IS NOT The designed cycle time for the operation The best cycle time that is achieved and sustainable Ask the question, "if the process ran perfectly, what is the time from the start of one cycle to the start of the next cycle? An "engineering standard" cycle time Inclusive of efficiency loss factors (statements such as 'we adjust for 85% efficiency' are bad)
5.0 REQUIRED OEE OEE cannot Exceed 100%
Common error-states: Accepting Required OEE values > 100%;
Required OEE, as all values of OEE, cannot exceed 100%. If the Required OEE > 100%, there is a problem with the inputs used for calculated the Required OEE. Required OEE is calculated on the form by observing the relationship between required weekly volume unique to a specific process, and dividing by the maximum possible parts given the documented operating pattern and cycle time. If Required OEE > 100%, the following actions can reduce the Required OEE:
o Increasing the operating pattern. The operating pattern may be increased by increasing the Days / Week (LINE B), Shifts / Day (LINE C), Total Hours / Shift (LINE D), or Allocation Percent for shared processes (LINE F). The Contractual Planned Downtime (LINE E) may also be reduced. Refer to Section 3.0 of this document, however, to avoid Operating Pattern Error-States. o Reducing Scrap Loss for DOWNSTREAM processes. Scrap loss in downstream processes does have an impact to upstream process Required OEEs. If possible, explore reducing the scrap loss assumptions (LINE H) for downstream processes. o Reducing the Net Ideal Cycle Time (NICT). Assuming that the data is accurate, including the ideal cycle time used, it may be possible to reduce the NICT by cycle time reductions, load / unload optimization, or if possible the exploration of additional processes.
6.0 DEMONSTRATED OEE OEE cannot Exceed 100%
Demonstrated OEE must be broken into two unique subsets for analysis, due to the source of the data at different periods in the capacity analysis methodology. In Capacity Planning, surrogate processes are used which bring their own error-states. Phase 0 and Phase 3 PPAP use demonstrated OEE values from actual production events.
Capacity Planning (Surrogate OEE)
Common error-states: Individual OEE values > 100% (not possible); Use of ramp-up, or Phased PPAP data for Surrogate (or other non-steady-state production data); Net Available Time (NAT) that is the exact same for 25-weeks (potential error-state);
Ford Motor Company Capacity Analysis Report (CAR) Error State 7
DS/JW 2010.02 CAR Release 4 Error States
OEE cannot, for any data point on any process, be greater than 100%. Should a data point reflect such an error, there is likely confusion about the Net Ideal Cycle Time (NICT) for the process, or the Net Available Time (NAT) is understated. NAT typically has slight variability from week to week as releases for the surrogate parts vary, and certainly for regionally-recognized holidays. In the example above, the supplier appears to have worked the same amount of time during the Easter holiday as all other weeks, which is suspect.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Depending on the availability of production data, or the confidence that the supplied production data is accurate, it may be required to initiate the acquisition of data for calculation of OEE and subsequent analyses.
Phase 0 & Phase 3 PPAP Demonstrated OEE are fairly straightforward, based exclusively on the observed production event. If any of the component OEE values, or any overall Demonstrated OEE values are greater than 100%, there is incorrect data input either on available time, observed downtime, or cycle times.
No changes have been made to the required inputs for Phase 0 or Phase 3 PPAP runs in the revised Capacity Analysis process.