| Article Index |
|---|
| You Have a Machine Oriented Process - What is Your X Factor |
| During Good Times |
| Setups |
| Bottom-Line Management |
| All Pages |
Manufacturing Cycle Efficiency (MCE) is a great way to determine how much of your product Cycle Time (CT) is actually Non-Value Add time. If you take action that increases your MCE and reduces your CT, you have helped your department and your company because you have most certainly removed waste from your process. However, in a department that is populated by machines, MCE may not be the only measurement that you might want to use.
The theory about how to best “utilize” your machines involves engineering logic that has certainly changed over the years. Back in the 70’s, 80’s and even the 90’s, there were those that subscribed to the theory that, in order to justify the purchase of expensive machines, it was absolutely necessary that those machines run product as close to 100% of the time as possible. If a department manager didn’t keep the machines running, the accountants would issue a bad report card.
Of course, in order for the machines to remain utilized, it was necessary to release sufficient product to the line to keep the machines “fed”. Engineers would do exhaustive studies to determine just how much product was needed in front of the machines to ensure that the machines were never starved for product to run. It was better to be safe and have more than enough than to starve the machine for work.
While this scenario gave comfort to the accountants, it usually created a disaster for production. Those of us that subscribed to Just in Time values preached the concept of “Effective Utilization” as opposed to standard utilization to our management. Standard utilization is measured by determining the percentage of production time that the machine was putting out product. But what if there was no requirement for product? How can you keep a machine running if there is no product to run? Well, that manager’s report card would be adversely affected under those conditions.
On the other hand, if you had enough product to keep your machines utilized 50% of the time and you actually ran your machines 50% of the time, your effective utilization would be 100%. Getting the accountants (in those days) to believe that production was actually getting 100 percent utilization from their machines was a tough sell.
Determining how many machines was needed to meet not only the present demand, but a projected demand, was one thing. Presenting a case to management for the purchase of those machines was quite another. In some of the companies that I have worked with, it was a common belief to be safe rather than sorry. Being safe meant purchasing the bigger, faster machines which also meant more expensive.
