Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SERVICE LOGISTICS IN 3D:HOW 3D PRINTING OF SPARE PARTS COULD INFLUENCE YOUR FUTURE
AFTER-SALES SERVICE OPERATIONS
Nils Knofius
SINTAS PROJECTSUSTAINABILITY IMPACT OF NEW TECHNOLOGY ON AFTER SALES SERVICE SUPPLY CHAINS
Technological
options with 3D
printing
Failure behavior
& maintainability
Inventory control
policies
Supply chain
network design
10/6/16 [email protected]
10/6/[email protected] 3
3D PRINTING: HOW IS IT DEFINED?
“Process of joining materials to make objects
from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer”
3D PRINTING: WHAT IS IT?THERE IS NOT ONLY ONE 3D PRINTING PROCESS
10/6/16 [email protected]
LaserSource
Scanner System
Powder Delivery system
Build Chamber
Digital Light ProcessingPowder Bed Fusion
Roller
10/6/16 5
3D PRINTING: WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Organics
Ceramics
Polymers
Metals
Micro print
Nano print
Large scale print
Materials
Size
Normal size print
Composite materials
10/6/16 6
3D PRINTING: WHEN IS IT CONSIDERED USEFUL?
Co
sts
Production volume
3D printing
Conventional
production
Costs
Geometric complexity
3D printing
Conventional
production
POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS IN AFTER-SALES SERVICE LOGISTICS
10/6/16 9
REASONS FOR 3D PRINTING IN PRACTICE
Design improvements:
1) Weight reduction
2) Waste reduction
3) Improved heat distribution
4) Reduced flow resistance
5) Customization
90% disturbance
force reduction by
flow optimization
with 3D printing
10/6/16 10
REASONS FOR 3D PRINTING IN PRACTICE
Possible reasons for not observing more applications for after-sales
service supply chains:
1. Bottom-up approach for identifying business cases
2. Engineer-driven implementation of 3D printing
Prioritize spare part assortment from an after-sales
service supply chain perspective to support identification
10/6/16 11
REASONS FOR 3D PRINTING IN PRACTICE
Possible reasons for not observing more applications for after-sales
service supply chains:
1. Bottom-up approach for identifying business cases
2. Engineer-driven implementation of 3D printing
Prioritize spare part assortment from an after-sales
service supply chain perspective to support identification
10/6/16 12
IMPROVEMENT POTENTIALS OF 3D PRINTING FOR AFTER-SALES SERVICE SUPPLY CHAINS
1) Reduce manufacturing / order costs
2) Reduce direct part usage costs
3) Reduce safety stock costs
4) Improve supply chain responsiveness
5) Reduce effect of supply disruptions
6) Postponement
7) Temporary fix
10/6/16 13
IMPROVEMENT POTENTIALS OF 3D PRINTING FOR AFTER-SALES SERVICE SUPPLY CHAINS
1) Reduce manufacturing / order costs
2) Reduce direct part usage costs
3) Reduce safety stock costs
4) Improve supply chain responsiveness
5) Reduce effect of supply disruptions
6) Postponement
7) Temporary fix
REDUCE EFFECT OF SUPPLY DISRUPTIONS
10/6/16 14
Regained supply continuity:
Reduced
obsolescence risk
Reduced stock-out risk
3D PRINTING IN AFTER-SALES SERVICE SUPPLY CHAINSPRINT ON DEMAND
Manu-
facturingAssembly DistributionEngineering
ETO(engineer-to-order)
MTO(make-to-order)
ATO(Assemble-to-order)
MTS(Make-to-stock)
DFS(Deliver from local stock)
Push
Forecast driven
Pull
Order driven
CODP
10/6/16 15
Moving the Customer Order Decoupling Point (CODP) with 3D printing:
Less inventories
More Flexibility
Production strategies:
IDENTIFYING PROMISING SPARE PARTS FOR 3D PRINTING
10/6/[email protected] 18
RELATE SPARE PART ATTRIBUTES TO IMPROVEMENT POTENTIALS
Improvement potential
Reduce
manufacturing/
order costs
Reduce
direct part
usage costs
Reduce
safety
stock costs
Improve
supply chain
responsiveness
Postponement Temporary
fix
Reduce effect
of supply
disruptions
Sp
are
part
att
rib
ute
s
Demand rate Low Low Low
Resupply lead time Long Long Long Long
Agreed response time Short Short Short
Remaining usage period Long
Manufacturing/ order costs High
Safety stock costs High High
Number of supply options Few Few Few
Supply risk High High
10/6/16 19
INCORPORATE COMPANY GOALS
Company goals
Reduce
downtime
Secure
supply
Reduce
costs
Supply options
17%
Manufacturing/
order costsSupply option
26.5% 10.5%
Supply risk
39% 37% 24%
Remaining
usage periodSupply risk
22% 7.5% 16.5%
TWO STAGE ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLE)
Spare part attributes Weights
Supply options 17% + 26,5% = 43,5%
Supply risk 22% + 10,5% = 32,5%
Remaining usage period 7,5%
Manufacturing/order costs 16,5%
Step 1:
Pairwise-comparison
company goals
Stage 2:
Pairwise-comparison
attributes
Resulting weights:
10/6/16 20
INCORPORATE COMPANY GOALS
Company goals
Reduce
downtime
Secure
supply
Reduce
costs
Supply options
17%
Manufacturing/
order costsSupply option
26.5% 10.5%
Supply risk
39% 37% 24%
Remaining
usage periodSupply risk
22% 7.5% 16.5%
TWO STAGE ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLE)
Spare part attributes Weights
Supply options 17% + 26,5% = 43,5%
Supply risk 22% + 10,5% = 32,5%
Remaining usage period 7,5%
Manufacturing/order costs 16,5%
Step 1:
Pairwise-comparison
company goals
Step 2:
Assign attributes and
pairwise-comparison
attributes
Resulting weights:
10/6/16 21
INCORPORATE COMPANY GOALS
TWO STAGE ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLE)
Improvement potential
Reduce
manufacturing/
order costs
Reduce
direct part
usage costs
Reduce
safety
stock costs
Improve
supply chain
responsiveness
Postponement Temporary
fix
Reduce effect
of supply
disruptions
Sp
are
part
att
rib
ute
s
Demand rate Low Low Low
Resupply lead time Long Long Long Long
Agreed response time Short Short Short
Remaining usage period Long
Manufacturing/ order costs High
Safety stock costs High High
Number of supply options Few Few Few
Supply risk High High
= reduce costs = reduce downtime = Secure supply
10/6/16 22
INCORPORATE COMPANY GOALS
Company goals
Reduce
downtime
Secure
supply
Reduce
costs
Supply options
17%
Manufacturing/
order costsSupply option
26.5% 10.5%
Supply risk
39% 37% 24%
Remaining
usage periodSupply risk
22% 7.5% 16.5%
TWO STAGE ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLE)
Spare part attributes Weights
Supply options 43,5% (17% + 26,5%)
Supply risk 32,5% (22% + 10,5%)
Remaining usage period 7,5%
Manufacturing/order costs 16,5%
Step 1:
Pairwise-comparison
company goals
Step 2:
Assign attributes and
pairwise-comparison
attributes
Resulting weights:
10/6/16 23
BASIC TECHNOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS
Organics
Ceramics
Polymers
Metals
Micro print
Nano print
Large scale print
Materials
Size
Normal size print
Composite materials
10/6/16 24
BASIC TECHNOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS
Polymers
Metals
Micro print Materials
Size
Normal size print
10/6/16 25
CALCULATE RANKING OVER ALL SPARE PARTS
Procedure:
Assess technological constraints:
a) If any technological constraint not fulfilled: 𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 =
b) Otherwise: 𝐼𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 =
(Simplified) example:
0
Attributes Value Score Weight Weighted score
Type of part (Metals, Plastics, etc.) M - - Fulfilled
Part size (dm³) 0,5 - - Fulfilled
Supply options (#) 2 0,32 43,5% 0,1392
Supply risk (%) 15 0,105 32,5% 0,034125
Remaining usage period (month) 5 0,11 7,5% 0,0825
Manufacturing/order costs (10.000 x Euro) 48 0,175 16,5% 0,028875
Item score = 0,2847
Technological
constraints
Spare part
attributes
Weighted
average
35.933 spare parts considered
Result:
Already 1.141 technological feasible and
positive business cases identified
Example fitting-stud:
Resupply lead time reduced by about 40%
Manufacturing costs reduced by about 70%
10/6/16 26
APPLICATION AT FOKKER SERVICES
Safety-belt with fitting-Stud
1) Safety stock costs (18%) 4) Supply risk (13%) 7) Supply options (10%)
2) Manufacturing/order costs (17%) 5) Remaining usage period (13%) 8) Part size
3) Demand rate (16%) 6) Resupply lead time (13%) 9) Material type
11.944 spare parts considered
Preliminary result:
15% of 175 best scoring parts are assessed
as technological feasible and economical promising
Discussion point:
Focus on depot level maintenance or operational level
maintenance?
10/6/16 27
APPLICATION AT ARMY
1) Demand rate (35%) 4) Resupply lead time (11%) 7) Safety stock costs (2%)
2) Supply risk (35%) 5) Manufacturing/order costs (2%) 8) Material type
3) Remaining usage period (11%) 6) Design ownership (2%) 9) Part size
