Your products may have different work content on your production line, which may make your line less efficient. One possible solution is Mixed Model Sequencing, a way to adjust the sequencing of your products to make the average work content stable. In previous posts I looked at the basics, at how to avoid the problem in the first place and how to play with capacity. However, especially for large complex lines (i.e., automotive), sequencing is often a suitable approach to manage different work contents.
Production lines with a product mix may have different workloads at different stations for different products. This can cause waste. In this third post in the series I will look at options on how to adjust the available capacity to ease this problem. In my next post I will look at Mixed Model Sequencing to adjust workload differences.
Your production line may have different workloads for different product variants. This unevenness causes waste and overburden. In this series of posts I will look at ways to address this unevenness. The first post was an introduction to the topic. This second post will look at ways to simply eliminate the problem – although this may not be feasible for many cases. In the next posts I will look at adjusting the capacity and finally at adjusting the product sequence through Mixed Model Sequencing.
In a mixed model production line, different products may have different work content at different stations. Hence, some stations may need a longer or shorter time depending on the product. This requires careful planning of the assembly line. If this is not taken into account, it may cause significant idle time with all stations along the line. This is the first of a (very) long series of posts looking at Mixed Model Sequencing (i.e., the behavior of unbalanced workloads, and different ways to address these issues).
Sometimes you would like to put more material in a single FIFO lane than the space you have available. In this case you would have to use a combination of two or more parallel FIFO lanes. In my last post I described how to maintain a strict FIFO sequence in parallel lanes. This post looks at an easier but less accurate method.
This is my last post of a series of three posts on point-of-use providers (also known as mizusumashi, water strider, or water spider). In this post I will go into much more detail on the routing of the point-of-use provider. A less-busy point-of-use provider can handle multiple lines. Similarly, very busy lines may have multiple point-of-use providers. Here I will show you some more details on these possibilities.
In this second post of my series on point-of-use providers (also known as Mizusumashi, water strider, or water spider), I will discuss the calculation of the workload for the point-of-use provider … although calculation is a way-too-big word for what is, in practice, guesswork with limited data of low quality. However, I hope it helps you with planning your point-of-use providers.
The point-of-use provider, also known as Mizusumashi, water strider, or water spider, is a worker that supplies material to the point of use. Similar to a waiter bringing food and drinks (and beer 🙂 ) to the customer, the point-of-use provider brings material to the workers. The latter, however, merely refills materials rather than custom orders. This point-of-use provider fulfills an important role between the inventory and the final point of use. Let me give you the details: