Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

Associação de Politécnicos do Norte (APNOR)

Master Degree on Management

Quality management Raport

“VIRTUAL FACTORY” Assignment

Number and Name of student (university, city, country)

m 301892 Aleksandra Podbielska,


m 301981 Julia Deyneka,
a 39584 Olena Shcherbik,
m 301903 Bartłomiej Piekutowski

Teacher: Prof. Antonio Duarte

Scholar year 2019-2020

ESTiG, March, 2019

VIRTUAL FACTORY №4

1
Introduction

We got the task to analyze the virtual factory number 4. Therefore, an important
direction in the implementation of the task to identify the current problems of the virtual
factory №4 will be:
- will get familiarized with the purpose of the virtual factory simulation №4.
- will need to verify that the process output is not the ideal and there is a big
proportion of final products that are outside the specifications.
- will reflect on the possible causes of the problem and the methodologies to use to
try to identify them and to gain a better understanding on the process, so that corrective
actions can be planned.

Description of data collection

There are in the virtual factory №4, that are producing one product from parts
delivered by supplier developed by one of three existing machines. In the process exist
some sort of issue and we want to find out what and where it happens. We took research to
check where it happens. It is necessary to check the all reasons.
So we got the all details from the supplier. For description of data collection we used
manipulating to check 200 of cycles.
Was the major problem identified. After the manipulations (to check 200 of cycles)
it was identified that the process output is not the ideal and there is a large proportion (over
35% of the production cycles was out of specifications) of the final products that are out of
specifications.

Objective of the study and Research Hypotheses

The main objective of the study is - to verify that the process output is not the ideal
and identify the possible causes of the problem and the methodologies to use and try to
identify them and to gain a better understanding of the process.
With the data provided above we identify three main problems. In accordance with the
problems we will consider the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1.
Supplier - We do not have enough supplies to make our product.
Hypothesis 2.
Rougher #1 - This machine is manufacturing below expectation. The machine can be
broken, the crew can be new and inexperienced, someone can steal the material just before
putting it into the machine. There may be many reasons for a bad outcome and we have not
enough data to exact solution.
Hypothesis 3.
Rougher # 3 - Third machine sometimes gives insufficient outcome and it is not connected to
low delivery of supplies. It can be minor malfunction or influence of workers working on
certain shift.

Results analysis

2
First of all we should look on shipments delivered by supplier. We can see, that
average amount of delivered parts is specified on 11 with variation +/- 3. After checking data
we can see that supplier brings average 10,04 of parts, with is under expectation. He always
brings a bit over minimum (9,49 in lowest case) but the highest amount he got us was under
expectation as well (10,88).
Sizes of shipments delivered by supplier is shown in the table 1.

Table 1. Comparing sizes of shipments delivered by supplier with specifications

Size of details delivered by Size of details delivered by


supplier, fact supplier, spec.

Min Avg Max Min Avg Max

9,493215 10,04142 10,87962 8 11 14

Details made by roughters are also below specifications. This situation can be
caused by small sizes of delivered shipments by supplier.

Table 2. Comparing sizes of details made by roughters with specifications

Size of details made by roughters, Size of details made by


fact roughters, spec.

Min Avg Max Min Avg Max

6,7360 8,3285 9,945348 7,5 9,5 11,5

As a result on a finish we have a details which are much lower than


specifications in average.

Table 3. Comparing sizes of details made on a finish stage with specifications

Size of details made on finish, Size of details made made on


fact finish, spec.

Min Avg Max Min Avg Max

4,4534 5,7918 7,2260 5,5 6,5 7,5

3
After the manipulations (to check 200 of cycles) it was identified that the process output is
not the ideal and there is a large proportion (over 35% of the production cycles was out of
specifications) of the final products that are out of specifications (pic.1).

Picture 1. Interconnection between delivered parts and production on a finish stage

According to these graph we can see that the majority of the details are within the
scope of the specification, but their average value is below the average of the specification.

Supplier

First of all we should look on shipments delivered by supplier. We can see, that
average amount of delivered parts is specified on 11 with variation +/- 3. After checking data
we can see that supplier brings average 10,04 of parts, with is under expectation. He always
brings a bit over minimum (9,49 in lowest case) but the highest amount he got us was under
expectation as well (10,88).
There are no details out of 200 delivered parts but after frequency analysis (pic 2)
we can see that more than 80% have sizes between 9,5-10,88.

4
Picture 2. Frequency analysis of supplier part

Roughters

Overall data - specification for production was average 9,5 finished product after this
cycle with variation on level +/- 2. We got average 8,32 with minimum 6,74 and maximum
9,95. As we can see, every specification is under expectation.

Roughter #1

Picture 3. Frequency analysis of parts made by roughter #1

The real problem in data we received was rougher #1. That machine provides 100%
defective details on a finish stage.

5
We can see that average for this rougher is 7,34, with is way below we want to
achieve, not saying about minimum, or even maximum being under expected average (9,5).
The machine can be old, malfunctioning, crew can be new and not trained.

Roughter #2

Picture 4. Frequency analysis of parts made by roughter #2

Frequency analysis of this router showed us that he produce a bit below expectation.
Most of difference is minimum, but visible. It is connected with low amount of supplies, not
with the machine per se.
To make it clear, let's check delivered to roughter #2 details.

6
Picture 5. Frequency analysis of parts delivered to roughter #2

Frequency analysis of this parts shows that this machine got the bigger details from
supplier. Probably we should check settings of that machine and find out how it was
happened.

Roughter #3

Picture 6. Frequency analysis of parts made by roughter #3


This rougher products 3% of defective products. This indicator is within the normal
range.

7
Table 5. Average sizes of details made through roughter #3.

Supplier Rougher Finisher

10,08369 8,570708 5,989547

Interconnection supplier-roughter

Picture 7. Connections between delivered details from supplier to roughters

On chart above we can see that supplied details are spreaded randomly on a chart
but roughters have a linear models of their behavior. There is always strong relation between
this two values. Only difference is on rougher #1, with is the bottom line on this chart. We
can see that in comparison to other rougher is not as efficient and is using a bit more
supplies to get product done.

Correlation supplier-roughter-finisher

Table 6. Correlation of quantity between each step of production.

Supplier Rougher Finisher

Supplier 1

8
Rougher 0,306419137 1

Finisher 0,300078946 0,978808507 1

We can see that correlation between supplies we get and outcome of rougher are
lower than connection between roughters and finish. The reason for that is we took all
roughers. Correlation between single rouher and supplier is way higher (around 0,6), with is
relevant. We should definitely try to influence on supplier to deliver more parts or, if it is not
possible, change him.
Very important information is that is very high correlation between finisher and
rougher. Bad outcomes on finishers are justified because of bad outcomes on roughers.

Solutions and recommendations

Therefore, after getting familiarized with the virtual factory №4 simulation was
identified that the process output is not the ideal and there is a large proportion (over 35% of
the production cycles was out of specifications) of the final products that are out of
specifications. With the above data provided, was identified three main problems. In
accordance with the problems we considered the following hypotheses that could be the
reasons for this.
According to the data provided above we can conclude:

1. Supplier - we get not enough supplies to facture our product. Most problems can be
solved by getting more material for production.
2. Rougher #1 - this machine manufacture way below expectation. Machine can be
broken, crew can be new and inexperienced, someone can steal material just before
putting it into machine. There may be many reasons for bad outcome and we have
not enough data to precise solution. We can try to fix machine, train the crew, cath
the stealing guy.
3. Rougher #2 - the problem can be fixed by delivering more parts for this rougher. We
can try to adjust the machine to new standards, try to fix if something is broken and
inspect work of workers assigned to this machine.

In accordance with the objective of the study and in order to solve the existing problems, we
can propose corrective actions. The propositions of corrective actions is presented in the
table 5.
Table 7. The propositions of corrective actions

Solution #1 Solution #2 Solution #3 Solution #4

Supplier ask supplier for changing supplier do nothing do nothing


delivering more

Rougher #1 fixing machine training crew turn off inspecting the


problem

Rougher #2 learn how this learn how this turn off inspecting the

9
machine selected machine selected problem
the biggest the biggest
details details

Rougher #3 fixing machine training crew leave it working learn how this
(only 3% below produced the
spec-s) biggest details

10

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen