Hal Report

1
HAL, Inc. is a major manufacturer of computers and computer components. In one of their
plants they made printed circuit boards (PCBs), which were used by other plants in the
company in a variety of computer products.

The basic process runs 3 shifts per day and it can be briefly depicted by following flow
diagram

The targeted output for the plant is 3000 boards per day, five days a week, with plant running
three shifts per day. But the plant has been failed to reach and maintain the targeted
throughput at a steady rate due to manufacturing complexities associated with the product
mix. It was also found that, the output of the pro-coat process is very slow (1200 boards/day)
compared to the expected throughput and therefore Hal has to engage a vendor on the pro-
coat process to fulfil the demand. This engagement of vendor has caused increase in cost per
board and two days delay because of shipping up and back.
So the Hal is striving to increase the throughput of the pro-coat process and the purpose of
this case study is to provide some guidance to them in their effort by giving some
recommendations to improve the existing system.
Treater
procMe
ss
Lamination core
Machining
Internal circuitize Optical Test-internal
Lamination composite
External circuitize

Optical Test- external

Drilling Copper plate
Pro-Coat
Sizing End of line test
2

L
o
a
d
e
r

L
o
a
d
e
r

U
n
l
o
a
d
e
r

U
n
l
o
a
d
e
r

B
a
k
e

D
e
v
e
l
o
p

T
o
u
c
h

D

&

I

i
n
s
p
e
c
t

E
x
p
o
s
e

C
l
e
a
n

R
o
o
m

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

I
n
s
p
e
c
t

L
o
a
d
e
r

C
l
e
a
n

C
o
a
t

1

C
o
a
t

2

F
l
o
o
r

a
r
r
a
n
g
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

t
h
e

w
o
r
k

f
l
o
w

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
-
c
o
a
t

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

3

Daily demand = 3000 boards
Working hours = 24- (Breaks + Lunch + shift change + Meeting)
= 24-(20X2X3+40X3+10X3+90/5)
= 19.2 hrs
Demand = 3000/(19.2X60)
= 2.604 boards/min

Assumption;
1. Demand = Arrival rate (
)
2. Arrival pattern exponentially distributed (
)
Machine
Name
Mean
process
(load) time
(min)
Std. Dev.
Process
Time (min)
Trip Time
(conveyor)
(min)
MTBF
(hr)
MTTR
(hr)
Setup
time
(min)
Availability
Number
of
machines
Rate
per
day
Clean
0.33 0 15 80 4 0 0.95238 1 3325
Coat 1
0.33 0 15 80 4 0 0.95238 1 3325
Coat 2
0.33 0 15 80 4 0 0.95238 1 3325
Expose
103 67 0 300 10 15 0.96774 5 2834
Develop
0.33 0 2.67 300 3 0 0.99010 1 3456
Inspect
0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 1.00000 2 4608
Bake
0.33 0 100 300 3 0 0.99010 1 3456
MI
161 64 0 0 0 0 1.00000 8 3435
Touchup
9 0 0 0 0 0 1.00000 1 7680

Once analysed the Hal pro coat process, the expose work station (highlighted in above table) has
been found as bottle neck operation under the 19.2 working hour situation. But the company
goal is to achieve 3000 boards per day. If the company operate under the optimum condition,
2,834 boards could be produces, which is still below the company goal.
According to the given data in the case was deeply analysed as follow.
Assumption:
Inspection and MI are manual operations. So number of work benchers has been considered as
8 in MI operation and 2 in inspection work station. It could be possible to eliminate the
bottleneck situation by adding resource (No of operators).

4

1. Cleaning
Effective processing time (
) =

= 0.33/0.95238
= 0.3465 min
Utilization (u) =

= 2.604 X 0.3465
= 0.902
)( )
( )( )

= 32.98
Departure rate;
)
= 27.019

2. Coat 1
Similarly,
) = 0.3465 min
Utilization = 0.902
)( )

5

3. Coat 2
Similarly,
) = 0.3465 min
Utilization = 0.902
)( )

4. Coating and expose
Since the coating 2 processing rate greater than the arrival rate of the pro- coat system. Arrival
rate of the expose machine govern by the arrival rate of pro-coat system
Expose machine calculations based on jobs (60 boards = 1 job)
Arrival rate =2.604/60
=0.0434 jobs/min
Buffer size = 05
Blocking size = (buffer size + maximum jobs in expose machines)
= 5 + 5
= 10

b = 10
Coating 2 Expose

6

Preemptive outages; Effective processing time (
) =

= 103/0.9677
= 106.43 min
Assumption; Number of boards between setups = 120
Total effective processing time (Preemptive and Non-preemptive outages);
(
) = (
)
= (
)
= 114.14 min
Assumption - Standard deviation for repair = 0 min (constant distribution)
Preemptive outage variance =
)()
)()

= 6856.43
Preemptive outage SCV
)( )
( )( )

=0.6052

Assumption- No variation in setups (constant distribution)
Total variance (preemptive + non-preemptive outage) =

=
()

=6858.29
SCV for expose(preemptive + non-preemptive outage) =
=

= 0.526
7

Utilization for expose =

=0.99

Arrival SCV for batch = Arrival SCV for individual part/batch size
=

= 0.546
U<1
According to blocking calculations,

()
)
= 53.52
Even though the maximum possible WIP should be 10 in the operation of expose, throughput rate
has been calculated bellow as per the 53.52 WIP situations.

)(
)( )
( )

8

5. Expose and develop

) =

Effective processing time for a batch = (.33/0.99)*60
= 20 min

)( )

= ( )( )

=0.09

As: No variation in repair (constant distribution)

Utilization for develop =

=0.848
U<1

()

b = 10
Expose Develop
9

= 2.914

jobs/min

= 2.472 boards/min
SCV dispatch from develop (batch)
)
= 0.285
Individual SCV = 60 X 0.285
=17.1

6. Develop and inspect

b = 43

Develop Inspect
10

) =

= (0.5/1)
= 0.5 min

= 1
)( )

=
= 1
Assume two D & I inspectors for inspection operation

=0.618
)(
)( )
( )

U<1

()
)
11

= 9.66

= 2.435 boards/min

7. Bake
Because of nine boards rework, effective processing time of bake will increase.
Assumption- once the defects (rework) boards are going through the bake oven all boars are
passed at first time.

(
) =
) =
= 0.333
Effective processing time with rework =
( )
= 0.333(1+0.15) [failure rate in 15%)
= 0.383

=0.932
Preemptive variance
)( )

12

)( )

Natural variance change due to rework =
( )

= 0.6(1+.15)
= 0.69
Variance due to rework =
( )
=
( )
=0.0138
Total variance = 0.69+.0138
= 0.7038

)
= 5.606

Bake
P
13

8. Bake and MI
SCV arrival for MI (individual parts) = 5.606
SCV arrival for MI (Jobs) = 5.606/60 = 0.0934
Arrival rate = 2.435/60 = 0.0405 jobs/min

) =

= (161/1)
= 161 min
Effective processing time with rework =
( )
= 161(1+0.15) [failure rate in 15%)
= 185.15

)( )

=
=0.158

b = 24

Bake MI
14

Preemptive variance
)( )

Natural variance change due to rework =
( )

= 4096 x (1+.15)
= 4710.4
Variance due to rework =
( )
=
( )
=3304.9
Total variance = 4710.4+3304.9
= 8015.3

Utilization for MI=

=0.937
Bake
P
15

)(
)( )
( )

U<1

()
)
= 3.22

jobs/min

9. MI and Touch-up
Note: - According to data mean processing time for touch-up = 9 min
But, repair time for one board = 1 min
So, number of boards for repair = 9
So rejection rate = 9 boards per job
16

Assumption: - for calculation purposes assume all jobs should go through touch-up workstation. But
total time should be match. So assume mean processing time for one job is equal to 0.15 min
SCV arrival for touchup (Jobs) = 0.386
Arrival rate = 0.0405 jobs/min

) =

= 9/1
= 9 min

)( )

= 0


=0.3645

b = 19
MI Touchup
17

)(
)( )
( )

U<1

()
)
= 0.3943

jobs/min

18

All the above calculation are summarised in below table.
Availability(A) te(min) U Ce2 Ca2 m b Ra(batch) TR WIPnb
Clean 0.9524 0.3465 0.902 32.98 1 1 0 0.0434
Coat1 0.9524 0.3465 0.902 32.98 27.019 1 0 0.0434
Coat2 0.9524 0.3465 0.902 32.98 31.87 1 0 0.0434
Expose(batch) 0.9677 114.14 0.99 0.526 0.546 5 10 0.0434 0.0414 53.52
Develop 0.99 20 0.848 0.09 0.7832 1 0.0414 0.0412 2.914
Inspect 1 0.5 0.618 1 17.1 2 43 0.0412 0.0405 9.66
Bake 0.99 0.383 0.932 4.798 0.0934 1 0 0.0405 0.0405
MI 1 185.15 0.937 0.234 0.0934 8 24 0.0405 0.0405
Touchup 1 9 0.3645 0 0.2852 1 19 0.0405 0.0405 0.3943

Recommendations
When take the 0.0405 as throughput rate the actual output will be, (0.0405x60x60x19.2),
2,799 boards per day. But to get this output of 2,799, WIP must be need to have 53.52 WIP.
It is compulsory to expand the room space to keep those WIP level. But it could be costly
exercise. Hence below suggestions can be considered.
1. Increase the working hours from 19.2 by reducing
a. Sift change time 30 to 0 by continuing the worker until next worker start.
b. Lunch and break times by moving workers from one operation to cover the
bottleneck during breaks and lunch.
Working Hours WIP in Expose Through put
19.2 53.52 2,799
21 5.5 2,883

It is clear that the throughput is increased to 2,883 and the WIP is reduced to 5.5 if
the working hours increase as per the above suggestions.
2. Add operators to expose and to Manual operations
There are 5 machines at expose station, but only six operators available which are
enough to run only 3 machines. Hence fully staffing the expose machine will be
affective increasing the through put.
Same time number of operators must be increased in inspection and MI to continue
this situation.
Situation Workers in Shifts
In expose
Max through put Incremental cost/
day $
Existing 6,6,4 1,509 -
Improved 10,10,10 2,834 6,720

19

Situation Workers in Shifts Incremental cost/
day $
Inspection MI
Existing 1 4 -
Improved 2 8 2,400

There will be additional cost of $6,720 for increasing the number of workers in
expose and for inspection and MI is $ 2,400. But adding this will effect to reduce cost
of out sourcing boards by $ 19,875 (1,325x15) 1,325 numbers of boards. Therefore
total saving for the company will be $ 10,755 per day.
3. Reduce Setup time
By reducing setup times through put can be increased. If reduce the setup time from
15 min to 5min the throughput will increase to 2,829 from 2,799. It can be done by
doing, improve operator training, standardise setup procedures and improving
scheduling.

4. Improve operators motivation.
As suggested by the consultant team, employees motivation and moral. The
motivation programmes must be able to enthusiasm towards the job and company.

Annex 1 Workings

Hal Report

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Hal Report

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1

Anda mungkin juga menyukai