BDX-613-1478 GROUP TECHNOLOGY Conference Paper C. P. …

BDX-613-1478

GROUP TECHNOLOGY

Conference Paper

C. P. Rome, Project LeaderTeam:

M. G. Ackmann L. C. Dooley P, I.. Freeman B. L. Peck R. J. Rerape

Published January 1976

Q:.c

P r e p a r e d for the U n i t e d S ta t e s E n e r g y R e s e a r c h and . D e v e l o p m e n t Administration U n d e r C o n t r a c t N u m b e r A T ( 2 9 - 1 )-613 U S E R D A

K a n s A s C ^ t y

C'X ^ N T l s mfWTEb

BLANK PAGE

N O T I C E

This report was prepp.red as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government.. Neither the United States nor the United States Energy Research and Development Administration, nor any of. their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or* implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness 0 1 usefulness of any information, apparatus product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

Printed In the United States of' America

Available From the National Technical Information Service, U. S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Roya.1 Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Price: Microfiche $2.25Paper Copy $5.45

BD X-613-1478D i s t r i b u t i o n C a t e g o r y UC-38

GROUP TECHNOLOGY

Published January 1976

Project Leader:C. P. Rome Department 822Project Team:M. G. Ackmann L. C. DooleyF. L. FreemanB. L. Peck R. J. Rempe

Conference Paper Presented at CAM-I Coding and Classification Workshop, January 20 and 21, St. Louis, Missouri.

nti ifpoit *ti pftpaitd ii an iocnm of *otk *T«ifc»rtd by ike Untied Slain Gokimnm. Nctihtt tfce Unfttd Suim mn | hr Uftttcd $ut« E*wt» Rrtraicn sntf Dndopmni MmiMHniioii, not any of iMt Mpbym, net any of ihrtt cofttracfoit, Mbconincion. m iM» tnplotm, Mtn any (iptnt oi inylird. o< a»imrt an *9* habftfr of inpoMftfti) rot »b< Kcwao.cowylrtnw* ot mrfMiwm of any tof«wliM, apparatw, product or proem dbcfcmd. or itymnHi Hiai Mi mt muM got tafnufr pmairty roiwd righit

•NOTICC

Technical CommunicationsK a n s a s C i t y D i v i s i o n

GROUP TECHNOLOGY

BDX-613-1478, Published January 1976 Prepared by C. P. Rome, D/822

Group Technology has been conceptually applied, to the manufacture of batch-lots of 554 machined electromechanical parts which now require 79 different types of metal-removal tools. The products have been grouped into 7 distinct families which require from8 to 22 machines in each machine-cell. Throughput time can be significantly reduced and savings can be realized from tooling, direct-labor, and indirect-labor costs.

WPC-mlb

This report was prepared as an account ol work sponsored by the United States Government Neither the United States nor the United States Energy Research and Development Administration, nor any o! their employees, nor any ol then contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal lia bility or resitonsibihty for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.

THE BENDIX CORPORATION K A N S A S CITY DIVISION P.O.BOX 1159K A N S A S CITY. MISSOURI 64141

A prime contractor for tho United Slates Energy Research and Development Administration Contract Number ATI29-11-613 U S E R D A

2

CONTENTS

DISCUSSION...................................................................... 6SCOPE AND PURPOSE.......................................................... 6PRIOR WORK................................................................... 6ACTIVITY ...................................................................... 7

Training ................................................................... 8Finalizing of Family Configurations.......................... 14Comparison of Traditional and Group-Technology

Approaches............................................................. 15ACCOMPLISHMENTS............................................................. 32FUTURE WORK................................................................... 33

REFERENCES...................................................................... 35APPENDICES

A. TIME-BASE FLOW PLAN FOR GROUP TECHNOLOGY PROJECTWITH MICLASS SYSTEM................................................ 36

B. PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP TECHNOLOGYPROJECT WITH MICLASS SYSTEM................................... 38

C. COST AND MANPOWER SUMMARY FOR INCORPORATIONOF MICLASS SYSTEM................................................... 42

D. GROUP-CONFIGURATION STATUS REPORTS ........................ 44E. PLAN FOR QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON BETWEEN

GROUP TECHNOLOGY AND PRESENT TECHNIQUES................ 57F. MACHINE-CELL FLOW LINES.......................................... 59G. TYPICAL PARTS, BY GROUP, WITH DATA-BASE

INFORMATION............................................................. 65DISTRIBUTION ................................................................... 69

S e c t i o n P a g e

SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 5

3

IL L U S T R A T IO N S

1 MICLASS System of Programs and Their Use. . . 102 Diagram Showing Classification-Number

Information................................................ 123 Routings of First Group of Parts Before

and After Application of Group Technology Concepts...................................................... 16

4 Dispersal of Capital Equipment WithExisting Layout .......................................... 24

5 Cellular Layout of Capital Equipment............. 25

TABLESNumber Page1 Data-Base Information .................................... 112 Department 93 Machine-Versus-Group Matrix . . 173 Department 95 Machine-Versus-Group Matrix . . 204 Estimated Cost, by Group, for FacilityRearrangement ............................................. 265 Estimated Cost, by Group, for Additional

Tooling...................................................... 286 Present Average Work-In-Process Flow Time

Compared, by Group, to Group TechnologyAverage Throughput Time ............................. 30

B-l Personnel Requirements for First Alternativein Implementing Group Technology................ 40

B-2 Personnel Requirements for SecondAlternative in Implementing GroupTechnology................................................... 41

C-l Costs and Time Required for Incorporation ofMICLASS System............................................. 43

F ig u r e P a g e

4

SUMMARY

Group Technology is a manufacturing philosophy which is directed toward increasing batch-lot production efficiency. Bendix Kansas City was introduced to Group Technology through the IMOG Steering Committee. Subsequently, this project was initiated to develop a recommendation for the application of Group Technology at Bendix for the manufacture of electromechanical machined products.A total of 554 parts which now require 79 different types of metal-removal tools were grouped into 7 distinct families with regard to similarities in configuration and manufacturing processes. Machine cells containing from 8 to 22 machines were defined for each group of parts and flow lines were developed. Cost estimates then were made for implementation of the Group Technology concept and a production-cost comparison between the utilization of the concept and traditional techniques was developed.In addition to providing a significant reduction in throughput time, the study indicates that implementation of the Group Technology concept for a total estimated cost of $144,365 will result in annual savings in tooling and direct-labor costs from $98,000 to $262,000. Additional savings in indirect-labor costs will be significant.As a result of this study, the recommendation is made that the Group Technology concept be implemented at the Bendix Kansas City Division for the manufacture of electromechanical machined products.

5

D IS C U S S IO N

Group Technology is a philosophy directed toward a more efficient approach to the manufacturing of batch lots of products consisting of from 1 to 5000 units. Instead of the traditional approach by which each product is considered unique, products are studied to determine similarities in design and required manufacturing processes. From this study, families of parts requiring similar manufacturing operations are grouped together for a more efficient utilization of all manufacturing resources.This project was initiated to develop a recommendation concerning the application of Group Technology concepts to the manufacture of electromechanical machined products at the Bendix Kansas City Division. After the extent to which electromechanical machined products could be grouped into similar families had been determined, the cost of manufacturing parts at Bendix under the present methods used was compared to the cost of manufacturing parts under the Group Technology concept. From this comparison, recommendations were developed concerning implementation of the concept.

SCO PE AND PU R PO SE

PRIOR WORKConcepts of Group Technology have been developing and have been practiced for the past 50 years, with the greatest portion of the work having been done in Europe. Industry within the United States has implemented these concepts for at least the past 25 years, but on a more fragmented basis. Until recently, the Group Technology concept has not been considered as a systematic approach to efficient batch production.The Group Technology concept was introduced to AEG contractor personnel in February, 1974. Representatives of LLL and Union Carbide (Y-12) met with TNO* representatives who described a computerized system for classifying parts into families of parts

♦TNO Metal Research Institute, Technical Center for Metalworking, Laan Van Westenenk 501 Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. This nonprofit organization for applied scientific research and development was established in the Netherlands in 1930, and it now has a staff of approximately 4700. The largest division, Industrial Research, developed the MICLASS System. American headquarters are in Waltham, Massachusetts.

6

having similar physical characteristics and requiring similar processes for their production.The possibilities of Group Technology and the sophistication of the TNO classification system (called MICLASS* by TNO), described during the TNO/LLL/Union Carbide meeting, led to a recommendation that the IMOG Steering Committee sponsor a more thorough investigation of Group Technology for AEC application. In June, 1974,TNO representatives conducted a one-week seminar on MICLASS which was attended by two representatives from Bendix in addition to employees from Union Carbide and LLL.Since AEC contractor personnel were introduced to the Group Technology concept, LLL has procured the MICLASS system from TNO and is now implementing the concept in its engineering drawing system and in its shops. Union Carbide (Y-12) has given the concept initial consideration, and is planning further consideration at a later date.

ACTIVITYAn operational team of Bendix personnel to consider implementation of the Group Technology concept was first formed in September, 1974. A limited amount of literature1 was available at that time, plus recommendations from coding and classification vendors as to methods for approaching a feasibility study of the concept.The initial approach was considered to be either a two- or three-phase project. In either case, the first phase was to determine the existence of families within the electromechanical machined products. For the two-phase project, the second phase was to accomplish a specific objective by which the advantages of Group Technology would be exemplified. If, after completing the first phase of the project, there were some doubt concerning the applicability of the concept to the electromechanical product, additional machined parts were to be considered.Most of the vendors of coding and classification systems desired a minimum of 5000 parts for classification before forming product families. The total number of available electromechanical machined products was 554; if all machined parts had been considered, the total may have reached 2000 parts. Only the MICLASS

*A specific, unique Group Technology classification system which is particularly suitable for use with machined parts. MICLASS organizes a large number of diverse components into families by classifying workpieces according to such characteristics as shape, size, tolerance, material, and process requirements.

7

system was being used for data-base sizes as small as that required for Bendix consideration. The following capabilities rationalized the reasons why the MICLASS system might be successful in forming families of Bendix parts while the other systems might not.e The MICLASS system provided more detail in classification

through the use of a 12-digit classification number. (Other systems used fewer digits.)

• The MICLASS system permitted including both the part configuration and the manufacturing processes in the data base for each part. (Other systems formed families based on either part configuration or manufacturing processes, but not both.)

The time-base flow plan which was adopted for the Group Technology project with the MICLASS system is shown in Appendix A. Based on this approach and schedule, the manpower and funding requirements also were evident (Appendices B and C).A search of available literature was initiated to obtain additional information on Group Technology, and a formal request for approval to conduct the feasibility study was drafted. By February, 1975, approvals were secured from Bendix Kansas City management, F.RDA, and ALO, and the training program was scheduled to begin in March. In the meantime, drawing lists, material and material- specification lists, equipment and equipment-specification lists, and prints of each of the drawings and travelers had been prepared.Information that could be put into the data base ahead of the training program was sent to TNO. A lease-versus-buy comparison was made for the MICLASS system for the duration of the feasibility study; the break-even point was 24 months. The period of the feasibility study was fixed at 9 to 14 months of system use, and the system was leased through the General Electric Mark III time-share system.TrainingThe next step was to classify the electromechanical machined products into families. This included reviewing a total of 554 parts, all of which had active or planned schedule requirements. Two representatives from TNO spent three weeks training a team of five Bendix people in the MICLASS system for classifying products, assisting in the classifying of the parts, and forming the initial families of parts. The first week was concerned with the MICLASS system, the manual classifying of parts, and using the time-share system.

8

The MICLASS system consists of a package of programs that permit inputting to a data base the classification number, drawing number, nomenclature, machine-tool code (sequence of machines used), setup time, piece time (cycle time), process code (sequence of processes used), and additional company-dependent information for each part. Operating with this data permits the realization of all Group Technology benefits. The MICLASS system of programs and their use are illustrated in Figure 1. A detailed listing of the information to be entered in the data base is shown in Table 1.As shown in Figure 2, the classification number is a 30-digit number that distinguishes each part with regard to its main shape, shape elements, position of elements, one dimension, ratio of dimensions, working length, dimensional tolerance and surface roughness, form tolerance, material, lot size, piece time, an operation code, and other specific product information.The second week of training was spent in developing the data base for the 554 parts. Two programs were used: MICLASS 1 was usedto determine the first 10 digits of the classification number, and MICLASS 2 was used to input to the data base these digits plus the additional information required for the other 20 digits of the classification number. The additional information included the drawing number, nomenclature, machine-tool code, setup time,piece time, process code, lot size, and release schedule.During the third week of training, the use of the other 11 programs was studied and the initial families of parts were formed. Oncethe data base was complete, the similarities in the parts wereevident. The initial review was of parts that had the same or similar classification numbers. The results of this review illustrated the similarities that may be found in "double-classification-number" parts (parts having the same first10 classification-number digits). Also evident was the fact that parts having the same classification number could be manufactured by the same process.In the initial search of the 554 parts, the following groups were found to include double-classification-number parts:• 45 groups having 2 parts each;• 14 groups having 3 parts each;• 6 groups having 4 parts each; and• 1 group having 5 parts.

9

CHECKING PRODUCTION NIX *

FINDING CHARACTERISTIC ROUTE

CHANGING MACHINE + PROCESS CODES

♦

SORTING ON PROCESSES OR MACHINE TOOLS

SORTING ON MATRICESA

STANDARDIZATION OF DRAWINGSL

AUTOMATION ROUTE SHEETS + INSTRUCTION SHEETSL

STANDARDIZATION RAW MATERIAL *

DETERMINE MANUFACTURING COSTSL

Figure 1. MICLASS System of Programs and Their Use

T a b le 1 . D a t a - B a s e In f o r m a t io n

Number ofDigits Digit Positions Description

30 1 through 3010 31 through 4015 41 through 5520 56 through 75

20 76 through 95

20 96 through 115

20 116 through 135

32 136 through 167

Classification NumberDrawing NumberName (Nomenclature)Process Code (10-Process Maximum, 2 Digits Each)

Machine Code (10-Machine Maximum, 2 Digits Each)

Setup Time (10-Time Maximum,2 Digits Each)

Piece Time (10-Time Maximum,2 Digits Each)

Company-Dependent Information

The total number of parts having different classification numbers was 459, or 82.9 percent. The total number of parts having classification-number duplications was 95, or 17.1 percent. Of the 95 parts having duplicate classification numbers, 72 were rotational parts; 9 were symmetrical, rectangular-shaped parts;9 were nonsymmetrical cast or forged parts; and 5 were flat, thin parts.The systematic, though not routine, procedure used for forming families of parts can be summarized in the following six steps.1. Make frequency plots of certain digits and combinations of

digits in the classification numbers to determine the product mix. Form initial groups based on this information.

2. Make a cluster analysis of the machines to determine which ones are used frequently in sequence. (Exclude machines that are likely to be used in all groups.)

3. Make frequency plots of the machines to determine which ones are used infrequently. Include these machines in a group where they are used most frequently.

4. For each group of machines formed, sort parts, by group, in the order of machine combinations used most frequently.

11

DIGIT POSITION

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12

POSITIONOF RATIO OF FORM

ELEMENTS DIMENSIONS TOLERANCE

13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 2C 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

SIZE OF BATCH,PIECE TIME,RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OPERATIONS, AND OTHER FACTORY-DEPENDENT INFORMATION

n n

MAINSHAPE

ONESHAPE DIMENSION

ELEMENTS

VMATERIAL

DIMENSIONAL TOLERANCE AND ROUGHNESS

AUXILIARYDIMENSION

Figure 2. Diagram Showing Classification-Number Information

5. Configure matrices for the classification numbers for each family of parts formed using a group of machines.

6. Determine distinctiveness between matrices, and logically reconfigure them.

In addition to the approach described, attempts were made to form families from the simplest parts first, then separating them out of the data base and considering the balance of the parts to form the next group. At the completion of this review, the data base of 554 parts had been separated into 15 families.The first three families of parts consisted of rotational parts involving eccentric operations as much as one direction and one sense.* These parts were separated into three size ranges:0 to 7 mm, 7 to 20 mm, and 20 mm and larger. The fourth family consisted of gear-shaped parts, and the fifth consisted of rotational parts with deviation (less than a full diameter of rotation). The sixth, seventh, and eighth groups were rotational parts having eccentric operations on the inner form and divided into the same size ranges as the first three groups. The ninth, tenth, and eleventh groups were rotational parts having eccentric operations on either the outer or both the inner and outer form, and they were divided into the same size ranges as the other rotational parts. The twelfth group consisted of rectangular-shaped parts, the thirteenth included castings and forgings, and the fourteenth was made up of flat, thin parts. The last group constituted a "rest-file" that contained the balance of the parts that did not fit into the initial families. The rest-file included 25 parts.By the time the initial families had been formed, several conclusions were apparent. Although the products under consideration could be grouped into distinct families, the machine cells required to manufacture these groups contained, in every case, far too many machines. Before groupings that provided significant advantages could be made, the cells would have to be reduced to include from approximately 8 to 20 machines. Also, if reduced

♦Eccentric operations produce such features as holes, slots, or flats that are eccentric to the axis-of-rotation of a part, or they produce these same features on parts having no axis-of- rotation. The direction is generally the axial centerline of the cutting tool used to produce the feature, such as the centerline of a hole, or the line normal to a flat surface. The sense is generally toward the feature being machined.

13

setup times and tooling costs were to be realized, flow lines had to be established within each cell, and the variety of flow lines had to be minimized.Finalizing of Family ConfigurationsInitially, the machine cells for each group were reviewed to consider combining those groups that used the same machines. Also, the parts in Group 15, the rest-file, were studied to determine how they could be included in the first 14 groups by redefining the groups. Periodically published status reports illustrate the progress made in configuring families of parts from the first part of April through July, 1975 (Appendix D).During April, attention was directed to the initial five groups which later were configured into three groups. These groups were selected to determine whether machine-cell sizes could be reduced so that a minimum number of flow lines could be established. Because these parts were the least complicated in both configuration and process, their selection was considered to offer the greatest possibility for success. The procedure for minimizing machine-cell size consisted of the following five steps.1. Identify and select alternate equipment for machines that

are used infrequently.2. Identify and select alternate equipment for critical machines,

machines that are very expensive, and machines that are one-of-a-kind.3. Consider the types of equipment within each cell (such as

turning equipment, milling equipment, etc.) and identifyand select the minimum number of machines of each type that can be used to accomplish the work required of the cell.

4. Consider the process flow line, the sequence of machines used, and select the flow line most frequently used. Study other flow lines and change to those that are used most frequently.

5. Verify that parts having similar classification numbers use the same sequence of machines.

This procedure required a significant amount of effort. Each time an alternate machine or process was considered, each operation had to be reviewed for each part to verify that the part could be produced as planned. In March, 20 man-weeks of team effort,6 man-weeks of TNO assistance, and $2800 in time-share services were directed to developing the data base, to the initial group configurations for the 554 parts, and to the training program.

14

t

In April, 20 man-weeks of team effort and $2250 in time-share services were directed to the initial groups which included 330 parts.By the end of April, the group configuations consisted of nine distinct families which included all parts, and group configurations had been finalized for at least 60 percent of the parts. The initial groups consisting of 330 parts had been formed into three families, and machine-cell sizes had been reduced enough to define flow lines within each cell. Standardization of flow lines for the first two groups had reduced variations in routings by 38 percent.Figure 3 illustrates the routing simplification that could be achieved if the Group Technology concept were applied to the first group of parts. Also, 95 percent of the work required for the first two groups of parts could be accomplished in the sequence in which the machines were laid out for the process flow. These results indicate that not only do these groups provide the opportunity for reducing setup time and tooling cost, but they also could significantly reduce throughput time.Early in May, plans were developed for finalizing the group configurations for the balance of the nine groups, and for making a quantitative comparison between the application of Group Technology and present techniques (Appendix E). The approach to these groups was identical to that used for first three except that the use of existing equipment was considered to a much greater degree. Machine-versus-group matrices were developed (Tables 2 and 3) and, using the schedule inputs for the first six months of CY76, machines were allocated to groups on the basis of the group using the machine most frequently. Alternates then were chosen from available machines. Progress through May and June is illustrated by the status reports (Appendix D), the project plan (Appendices A and E), and the machine-versus-group matrix (Tables 2 and 3). By the end of June, group configurations had been finalized and machine-cell sizes minimized (Appendix D), flow lines had been established (Appendix F), and shared and excluded equipment had been determined (Tables 2 and 3). Typical parts, with data-base information, are shown in Appendix G.Comparison of Traditional and Group-Technology ApproachesDuring July, efforts were directed toward quantitizing the cost differences between manufacturing the parts by traditional methods and manufacturing them through the application of Group Technology. These differences were developed in terms of facility costs, capital-equipment costs, tooling costs, direct-labor costs, and throughput time.

Text continued on page 23.15

A

r 3

LATHEA6I0

i

I

DRILL MILLC5I3 B2I2t,1 LATHE | DRILL

I A I M Cl 16

GRINDER LATHE LATHE LATHE GRINDERD3II A6I2 A6I1 A6I6 D73I

iQRINDERr D333

LATHE ^ LATHE p ------ MILLA i m J AISI BI22

LATHE DRILLA677 C99I

GRINDER MINDER0112 D720

GRINDER D9II

GRINDER DRILLD322 CIOI

EXISTING PRODUCT FLOW

GROUP TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT FLOW

Figure 3. Routings of First Group of Parts Before and After Application of Group Technology Concepts

16

T a b le 2 . D e p a r tm e n t 93 M a c h in e - V e r s u s - G ro u p M a t r i x

GTand

No.NumberAvail

Group Number£l4 U X p oCode Machine Title 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

01 Alll Instrument Lathe 202 A141 HLV Bench Lathe 2 X* X03 A151 Chucker Lathe 7 X X X X X X04 A152 Chucker Lathe w Tracer 1 X05 A677 Auto Chucker Lathe 2 X X06 B122 Universal Bench Mill 2 X07 B212 Vertical Mill 3 X X X08 B213 Vertical Mill w Torque

Spindle Control 1 X09 B232 Horizontal Knee Mill 1 X10 B312 Rise and Fall Horizontal Mill 5 X X X X X11 B821 NC Vertical 3-Axis

C-Frame Mill 1 X12 B829 NC Vertical 3-Axis

C-Frame Mill*** 1 X X13 B925 V Broach 1 X14 B941 Hob 2 X X15 B943 No. 3 Shaper 116 B947 No. 7 Shaper 1 X17 C101 Ultra-Sensitive Drill,

1 - S p in d le 1

T a b le 2 c o n t in u e d . D e p a r tm e n t 93 M a c h in e - V e r s u s - G ro u p M a t r ix

GT No. and Equipt Code

NumberAvail

Group NumberMachine Title 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18 C116 Extra-Sensitive Drill, 6-Spindle 3 X X X

19 C131 Extra-Sensitive Tap w Torque Control 2 X X

20 C216 Sensitive Drill, 6-Spindle 2 X X

21 C513 Ultra-Sensitive Tap 2 X X22 C834 NC 3-Axis Machining Center 1 X23 C881 NC Jig Bore 2 X X24 C991 Jig Bore 2 X X25 D112 Surface Grinder 4 xt xtt X26 D122 Surface Grinder w

Visual Attachment 2 X X27 D222 ID Grinder 128 D322 OD Grinder 2 X X29 D333 OD Grinder,

Universal*** 1 z** x30 D422 Thread Grinder 1 X31 D711 ID Hone 1 X32 D720 Center Lap*** 1 X X


GT No. and Equipt Code Machine Title NumberAvail

Group Number1 2 3 4 5 6

33 D721 Flat Lap 2 X X34 D731 Pivot Polisher*** 1 X X X35 D911 Center Grinder 136 D921 ECG 147 A217 5 AH 1 X85 G311 EDM*** 1 X X89 Z908 Multi-Spindle Boring

Machine 187 B820 NC 2-Axis Vertical Mill 1 X56 A616 RR20 1 X

*X = Machines required for mechanism products.**Z = Additional machines required for electromechanical products other than

mechanisms.♦♦♦Shared equipment.

tWith Dedtru attachment. ttWith pantograph attachment.

T a b le 3 . D e p a r tm e n t 95 M a c h in e - V e r s u s - G ro u p M a t r ix

GT No. and Equipt Code

NumberAvailGroup Number

Machine Title 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

44 A131 Bench Lathe, Hand Turret 2

45 A213 Horizontal Turret Lathe, 1-1/2 Inch 3

46 A215 Horizontal Turret Lathe, 2-1/2 Inch*** 5 z * * Z

48 A222 Horizontal Turret Lathe 149 A225 Horizontal Turret Lathe 150 A415 Engine Lathe51 A425 Engine Tracer Lathe 1 Z

52 A511 Borematic, 1-Spindle 153 A516 Borematic, 4-Spindle54 A612 Automatic Screw

Machine, 7 mm 1 X*

55 A614 Automatic Screw Machine, 10 mm 1

56 A616 Automatic Screw Machine, 20 mm 1 X

57 A622 Automatic Screw Machine, 1/2-Inch 1

58 A624 Automatic Screw Machine, 5/8-Inch 1


GT No.and Group NumberEquipt Number -----------------------------------------Code Machine Title Avail 1 2 3 4 5 6 759 A626 Automatic Screw

Machine, 1-Inch 260 A676 Automatic Chucker Lathe61 £822 NC Engine Lathe62 A912 Thread Lathe63 B222 Vertical Knee Mill64 B226 Vertical Knee Mill65 B242 Die Mill66 B322 Simplex Mill67 B332 Duplex Mill68 B334 Duplex Mill69 B336 Duplex Mill70 B412 Tracer Mill, Hand71 B812 NC Horizontal 3-Axis

Mill 172 B814 NC Horizontal 4-Axis

Mill 273 B822 NC Vertical 3-Axis

Bridge Mill 174 B826 NC Vertical 3-Axis

Mill, 3-Spindle 1


GT No.and Group NumberEquipt Number -----------------------------------------Code Machine Title Avail 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

75 B911 Thread Mill 176 cm Sensitive Drill,

1-Spindle 177 C214 Sensitive Drill,

4-Spindle 578 C812 NC Turret Drill,

6-Spindle 179 C911 Gun Drill 180 D311 Centerless Grinder̂ ** 181 D315 Centerless Crush-Form

Grinder 182 D412 Crush-Form Grinder 185 G311 EDM 291 A610 Automatic Screw Machine 1

*X = Machines required for mechanism products.♦♦Z = Additional machines required for electromechanical products other than

mechanisms.♦♦♦Shared equipment.

The difference in cost between implementing Group Technology and maintaining the present approach amounts to the additional cost involved in the rearrangement of the facility and its equipment to accommodate Group Technology. The following three courses of action were considered.• Maintain the present facility and arrangement of equipment.

Mark each machine to identify to which cell it belongs.The dispersal of the equipment complying with this course is illustrated in Figure 4. No additional facility costis involved.

• Rearrange the equipment within each cell while maintaining existing walls, doorways, aisles, and utilities to as large an extent as possible (Figure 5). Rearrangement is estimated to cost from $3 to $5 per square foot. For the entire area of 13,400 square feet, the estimated cost is approximately $50,000. Estimates are shown, by group, in Table 4.

• Reconstruct the facility according to the new configuration of the machine cells. In this case, the estimated cost is approximately $10 per square foot, or $140,000.

If Group Technology is adopted, facility requirements, in general, will be greater than present requirements. Because more pieces of equipment would be used and would be arranged in the sequence of use, the required floor space would be larger than that used for the present, traditional layout.The machine cells have been configured in such a manner that existing equipment can be utilized. Because of this, and because of anticipated low schedule requirements through FY77, no additional capital equipment will be required to support the application of Group Technology.Certain pieces of capital equipment now used in Department 95 are shown in the cell groups and are noted in the machine-group matrix. Utilization of each of these machines exceeds 80 percent, thus insuring that Department 95 will h&ve capacity for the nonelectromechanical production work that is now being performed on these machines.Certain other machines within the work cells are being shared between work cells because of available machine time. These are also noted in the machine-group matrix and the physical layout.The existing layout does not show a requirement for some machines now in Department 93; these are noted in the machine-gi'; vp matrix.

C o s t C o m p a r iso n

23

T j u n

o A n•Ml LJ

oo

□

]F□

□J lCM# ■

■n— r r

□ □ □ □

BIZ21122 I I □

□ □ c□ ] [ = □ [ = □ n a a a

t

H j □ □ I 1 W i_i p’-** Cl01

8212 B2I2 0212 re 312 WB3I2S> # <!# 0*̂ 312 W?SI2 Wb3I2 !"|□ □ □ □ □ □ □ ULJ

C99I C99I | |j fcaaHH CI3I CiSI CSI3S3C2I6 C2I6 Cl 16 CII6 Cl 16

□ □ □ o □ □ □ □

□ — 1 □ □ n □ □

*151 AI5Ib AlHf' Aim □C

AISI~ AISPh L ' czi n n

AI5I>̂ Aisrnm mu □

□

1 ]

] D □

0

□

IZZ] CZ3 0 * > £ > “ ,0322 0222 □

□

D322>□ d U

H T ~ T□ AL*□ □

□ □

OIOUP IIII OKOilP IVI GIQUf VflMWVI

□ DD □

[] 3 □

D#

B y (̂FJI22L 0122 ▼ 0122

Figure 4. Dispersal of Capital Equipment With Existing Layout

(S3

s ' ^*ISI B2I3 B3i2 0122

♦ w *#>C99i r̂c2<t

0311 0731B E G IN N IN G S U P P O R T A R FA (STOCK R A C K ; C U T -O FF SAvV- S TO R AG E; ET C . I

00721 II22mcot &DI 12

E*= 3C5I3

GROUP 1ft GROUP IIGROUP illgjjGROUP IV■■GRfelP V■ftMut ViTOGHOUP VII

C O M B IN ED PATTERNED M A C H IN ES A R E "S H A R ED " M A C H IN ES .

IN FR EQ U EN T LY U SED M A C H IN ES LOCATED IN D/9S R EQ U IR ED FO R N O N -M E C H A N IS M P A R T S .

F IN I S H S U P P O R T A R EA (D EB U RR; S C R U T IN IZ E ; IN S P EC T ; ETC . I

$ M*1*1 JtlSI >212

J L 0122

+Figure 5. Cellular Layout of Capital Equipment

COOI

Table 4. Estimated Cost, by Group, for Facility Rearrangement

GroupEstimatedCost($)

1 6,0002 7,0003 6,0004 11,5005 7,5006 8,0007 4,000Total 50,000

The sharing of equipment between some of the cells is an exception to the Group Technology concept, and a penalty will be paid by so doing. Because certain machines have low utilization in any one cell, and because they are required in more cells than there are copies of the machines available, a sharing of these machines is being proposed. The trade-offs between sharing equipment between cells and having cells with fully dedicated machines have not been fully developed, and plans for sharing equipment need to be given additional consideration prior to implementing those specific groups.As previously stated, the total units of capital equipment in use will be more numerous, although future capital-equipment costs should prove to be less. Because future capital-equipment needs, whether they be for productivity improvement or for meeting additional capacity and capability requirements, will be more specific than the general needs of the present, the equipment should be less expensive than the general-use equipment now being sought.In quantitizing the difference in tooling costs, concern was shown for the additional tooling that would be required to initially incorporate Group Technology. In selecting alternate

26

machines to minimize the machine-cell size, the alternate machines occasionally were found to require different tooling than that which is now in use; this was the type of tooling cost that needed to be quantitized. Within each group, the machines that were likely to require tooling, and the aniount of planned usage in excess of present usage were noted for the given parts. The resulting estimate of the additional tooling required to incorporate the Group Technology concept is shown, by group, in Table 5.In selecting alternate machines for the sake of minimizing machine-cell size, the direct-labor content also changes. In order to quantitize this change, two appoaches were taken.First, a typical alternate-machine choice was identified and the differences in direct labor were quantitized. Because turning accounts for approximately 23 percent of the total direct labor, it was used as a basis for determining the direct-labor change.For a typical alternate-turning-operation selection, the cycle time increased 11 percent and the setup time decreased 19 percent. Of the total number of operations for all parts, 27 percent of them are alternates. Applying these changes to the total direct labor produced the following results.pprcpnt Chanffp = GT Direct Labor - Present Direct Labor.® Present Direct L a b o r ’ ' 'Present Direct Labor « 8729 hr/mo piece time + 3394 hr/mo setup

time, orPresent Direct Labor = 12,123 hr/mo;GT Direct Labor = [1 + (0.27 x 0.11)] 8729

+ [1 - (0.27 x 0.19)] 3394, orGT Direct Labor = 12,208 hr/mo;Percent Change = +0.7, or less than 1.0 percent increase.The second approach was to determine the average direct labor required for each operation by machine and by group. The sum of these averages then was compared to the present direct-labor content.Present Direct Labor = 12,123 hr/mo;GT Direct Labor = 8786 hr/mo piece time + 3011 hr/mo setup time, or

27

T a b le 5 . E s t im a t e d C o s t , b y G ro u p , f o r A d d i t i o n a l T o o l in g

Group Machine FreqAverageCost

SubtotalCost

TotalCost

1 A612A610

2219

$ 200 200

$ 4,400 3,800 $ 8,200

2 C881A626

28 500

1001,000

8001,800

3 C116A616

126 1,000

2001,0005,200 6,200

4 B312 8 1,000 8,0008,000

5 B213C834

18

1,500200

1,5001,600

3,1006 C881 5 500 2,500

C881C216B829A151D122

24223

1,0002.500

5001.500

200

2,00010,0001,0003,000

60019,100

7 B829 2 500 1,000 1,000$47,400

GT Direct Labor = 11,797 hr/mo;Percent Change = -2.69, ora reduction of 2.69 percent in direct hours.These two approaches indicate that although the direct labor will change, the amount of change will likely be very small—between a 3-percent reduction and a 1-percent increase.Quantitizing these four items indicates the additional cost required to implement the Group Technology concept for the manufacture of electromechanical machined products.

28

Facilities Capital Equipment Tooling Direct Labor

$50,0000

47,4000

Total $97,400These costs are in addition to the estimated cost of $22,058 for procuring and implementing a software package such as the MICLASS system. Also, the investigation has cost $24,906.27 plus the indirect labor involved. The total cost of implementation is projected at $144,385 plus indirect labor.

The one advantage in the use of Group Technology that consistently has occurred in industry is the reduction in throughput time or production flow-time. In order to quantitize this difference for the electromechanical machined parts, the present status had to be determined. For every part in the data base, the throughput time used for scheduling present work was determined and averaged for each group. (This is referred to as work-in-process flow time—WIPFLT.) Experience in industry has been that a reasonable estimate, applying Group Technology, is one week throughput time required for every 20 hours of direct labor, based on a two-shift, five-day week. This is comparable to the work being either in setup or in production 25 percent of the time. (In addition,11 days have been added to allow for receipt of material, for operations not accomplished in the machine cells, and for inspection.) Using this basis, the comparison in throughput time, by group, was determined (Table 6).Many of the differences between the application of Group Technology and the present traditional approach remain qualitative, and they have not been explored to the extent that they have been quantitized. These qualitative differences are discussed in the following paragraphs.The annual tool budget for electromechanical machined parts is approximately $300,000—60 percent of which is for mechanism parts. If the composite-part tooling concept2 could be applied to this work so that an average of five parts could be produced with each package of composite-part tooling, a 64-percent saving in tool costs would result.Setup time now constitutes approximately 22 percent of the total direct-labor content. Based on the schedule inputs for Calendar Year 1976 and a direct cost of $8.29 per hour, setup time will cost approximately $246,000. Industry has reported a savings of 40 to 60 percent in setup time through the application of Group Technology concepts.

Savings

29

Table 6. Present Average Work-In-Process Flow Time Compared, by Group, to Group Technology Average Throughput Time

GroupPresent AverageWIPFLT(Days)

GT Average Machining Throughput Time + 11 Days (Days)

1 22.8 17.872 22.6 17.083 28.4 19.564 31.7 26.345 44.6 27.916 38.8 24.487 32.3 23.06Total 28.5 21.38

The greatest qualitative difference between Group Technology and the present approach is reflected in the simplification of the manner in which the work is represented. Figure 3 shows the routings of the parts in the first group at the present time, and the routing the same parts could take through the application of Group Technology. With Group Technology, families of parts can be readily identified, and these parts can be grouped in such a manner that a minimum amount of variety is experienced in their manufacture. Minimizing the variety of machines required to produce a group of parts permits the forming of a machine cell with a minimum number of machines. Through the resultant high machine utilization, the machines in the cell can be dedicated to the production of a single group of parts.Once a machine cell is considered a resource dedicated to the production of a specific group of parts, the cell, rather than each machine, can be considered as a single load center. The use of the machine cells as load centers directly reduces the amount of indirect support required to produce the product. A total of 2068 operations are required at individual machine load centers for one month's release of the 554 electromechanical machined products. Each of these operations requires a multitude of such indirect-support functions as are detailed in the following list:• Preparation of unique work instructions;• Preparation of unique tooling;

30

• Preparation of plans, by operation, to assure that schedule requirements will be met;

• Input, handling, and distribution of the plans through the various management reporting systems;

• Release of product;• Scheduling of product;• Verification of priority;• Assignment of work;• Reporting the initiation of work;• Input, handling, and distribution of status reports of work

in progress at initiation;• Preparation of unique setup;• Monitoring the work in progress;• Reporting the completion of work; and• Input, handling, and distribution of status reports of work

in progress at completion.For the 554 parts, by considering each machine cell as a load center, each of these 14 activities can be directed to the 554 parts going through the machine cells instead of directed to the 2068 operations.By dedicating groups of machines to the production of groups of parts, the throughput time for each part can be significantly reduced because the queue-time in the machine cell is minimized.The present average flow-times of four to nine weeks can therebybe reduced to three to six weeks.The reduction in queue-time also benefits the production areas that the parts support. Not only is work scheduled, by operation, to meet a required completion date, but the indirect-support personnel at the subsequent levels of assembly plan their work by anticipating the progress of the parts being supplied to them. Extended flow-times of four to nine weeks make this anticipation difficult, and the progress frequently must be charted on a weekly basis. The following penalties in efficiency are only a few of many which result from the extended flow-times required for piece parts.

31

• Priorities must be continually verified and therefore require significant indirect support.

• Lot sizes of parts in work are frequently reduced to support next-assembly "emergency" needs.

• An additional machine setup and additional start-up and shutdown time are required each time a lot of parts is split and its production is interrupted because of high-priority work or because inadequate time is available to complete the entire lot.

By grouping products according to similar parts, the bulk material procured for the parts can be standarized. This standardization should provide flexibility in using available material rather than having to wait for the delivery of special orders. Savings in material costs should result through the purchase of larger lots.The following savings can be realized through the application of Group Technology concepts, and can be compared to the cost of implementing the system:• Tooling costs up to $115,200 per year (up to 64 percent);• Direct labor from $98,000 to $147,000 per year (from 40 to

60 percent of setup time); and• Indirect labor up to 75 percent for certain efforts.The following costs are involved in applying Group Technology concepts to the manufacture of electromechanical machined products• Investigation, $24,906.27;• Implementation of Group Technology concepts, $97,400; and• Implementation of a coding and classification system,$22,058.Thus for a total expenditure of $144,365, a total annual savings of from $98,000 to $262,000, plus indirect-labor savings, should result.

ACCOMPLISHMENTSWork on this project has proved that Bendix products can be grouped into families and that the benefits to be realized from the adoption of the Group Technology concept apply to the families

of products that have been formed. Specific savings that justify the incorporation of the concept have been projected. A plan for implementing Group Technology has been developed through the work done in the feasibility study.As well as having similarities in configuration, parts that are grouped according to families can be produced by similar processes, and a small number of machines can be dedicated to the production of these parts. Standard machine routings have been identified for the parts, and the variety of routings have been significantly reduced. Predominant flow lines have been established for each of the machine cells, and from 75 to .95 percent of the work required to produce the parts can be accomplished by following the flow lines. Because of these advantages, the realization of savings in tooling costs, direct labor, and indirect labor appear certain.Direct and indirect labor constitute the most significant savings that can be projected. Direct-labor savings, from 40 to 60 percent of setup time, represent an annual savings from $98,000 to $147,000 for electromechanical products. The savings in indirect labor are related to a reduction in the number of load centers that must be supported—from 79 metal-removal machines now used for electromechanical parts to 7 machine-cells; a reduction in throughput time—an average of 25 percent; the simplification of routings—from 415 to 283; and the reduction .in status-verification points—from 2068 separate operations to 554 parts.

FUTURE WORKThis project has provided the initial planning required to incorporate the Group Technology concept. The following items constitute the work remaining to implement the plan at the Bendix Kansas City facility.• Procure a coding and classification system and incorporate

it into the Bendix system.• Complete the work required to implement the Group Technology

concept for an initial group, and use this group as a prototype to prove-in the concept and to verify all projections. Continue implementation of the Group Technology concept as confidence develops.

• Apply the Group Technology concept to all production- and engineering-shop-machined products, and determine the extent to which Group Technology should be applied on a plant-wide basis.

33

Of these steps, the initial item must be accomplished first; subsequent items can be accomplished concurrently.

R E F ER E N C E S

*C. C. Gallagher and W. A. Knight, Group Technology. London: Butterworth and Co. Ltd., 1973.2Inyong Ham, "Introduction to Group Technology," Paper presented at Coding and Classification Workshop, CAM-I, Arlington,Texas: June, 1975, pp 20-21.

A p p e n d ix A

TIME-BASE FLOW PLAN FOR GROUP TECHNOLOGY PROJECT WITH MICLASS SYSTEM

ACTIVITY

1. PHASE IA. SECURE TNO SERVICES FOR PHASE I ACTIVITY, $12,500 8. SETERNINE DATA-BASE REQUIREMENTS FROM TNOC. SELECT 500 DRAWINGS AND DEVELOP DATA-BASE INFORMATIOND. SECURE CLEARANCE FOR TNO REPRESENTATIVESE. CLASSIFY INITIAL 500 DRAWINSS (TNO AT BENDIX 2 WEEKS)F. DEVELOP CONCLUSIONS OF INITIAL PHASE 8. REPORT CONCLUSIONSH. DECISION POINT

2. FIRST ALTERNATIVE PHASE IIA. IDENTIFY OBJECTIVESB. DECISION POINT PHASE IIIA. PROCURE SYSTEM, $50,000B. INCORPORATE SYSTEM (TNO AT BENDIX INITIAL 2 WEEKS AND LAST 2 WEEKS)C. SELECT BALANCE OF PARTS APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM AND VERIFY

DATA-BASE INFORMATIOND. CLASSIFY BALANCE OF APPLICABLE PARTS, $25,000E. COMMENCE ESTABLISHINO FACILITY, CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, TOOLING,

AND SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

3. SECOND ALTERNATIVE PHASE IIA. IDENTIFY OBJECTIVESB. SELECT BALANCE OF PARTS APPLICABLE TO SYSTEM AND VERIFY

DATA-BASE INFORMATIONC. SECURE TNO SERVICES, $25,000D. CLASSIFY PARTS AND OPERATE SYSTEM (TNO AT BENDIX INITIAL

2 WEEKS AND LAST 2 WEEKS)E. DEVELOP CONCLUSIONSF. DECISION POINTPHASE IIIA. PROCURE SYSTEM, $50,000B. INCORPORATE SYSTEM (TNO AT BENDIX INITIAL 2 WEEKS AND LAST 2 WEEKS)C. COMMENCE ESTABLISHING FACILITY, CAPITAL EQUIPMENT, TOOLING,

AND SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

CY7H CY75 CY76

A p p e n d ix B

PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP TECHNOLOGY PROJECT WITH MICLASS SYSTEM

PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUP TECHNOLOGY PROJECT WITH M ICLASS SYSTEM

A p p e n d i x B

T a b le B - l s h o w s t h e B e n d ix p e r s o n n e l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e F i r s t A l t e r n a t i v e f o r im p le m e n t in g t h e G roup T e c h n o lo g y p r o j e c t w i t h MICLASS s y s t e m . P e r s o n n e l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e S e c o n d A l t e r n a t i v e a r e shown i n T a b l e B - 2 . T h e O p e r a t i o n a l Team i s c o m p r is e d o f p e r s o n n e l t h a t w i l l b e o p e r a t i n g t h e s y s t e m t h r o u g h o u t im p le m e n t a t io n . T h e d u t i e s o f t h e O p e r a t i o n a l Team m em b ers an d o t h e r a s s i s t i n g d e p a r t m e n t s a r e d e f i n e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g l i s t .

OPERATIONAL TEAM

• P r o j e c t L e a d e r : D e v e lo p a n d im p le m e n t p l a n s f o r d e t e r m i n i n gt h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f t h e s y s t e m and f o r i t s i n c o r p o r a t i o n .

• P r o c e s s E n g i n e e r s : L e a r n t o c l a s s i f y p a r t s a n d b e c a p a b l eo f e x e r c i s i n g t h e s y s t e m ; m ake i n p u t s a s t o p r o c e s s c a p a b i l i t y i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e d a t a b a s e ; m ake i n p u t s a s t o t h e d e g r e e t h a t P r o c e s s E n g in e e r in g s h o u ld c l a s s i f y p a r t s ; an d b e k n o w le d g e a b le o f s t a n d a r d i z e d p r o c e s s e s a n d o f t h e m e th o d s b y w h ic h t h e s y s t e m g e n e r a t e s f a m i l i e s .

• D r a f t i n g P e r s o n n e l : L e a r n t o c l a s s i f y p a r t s a n d b e c a p a b l eo f e x e r c i s i n g t h e s y s t e m ; a n d make i n p u t s a s t o t h e d e g r e e t h a t D r a f t i n g s h o u ld c l a s s i f y p a r t s .

• C o m p u te r P r o g r a m m e r s : D e v e lo p a w o r k in g u n d e r s t a n d i n g o ft h e s y s t e m ; b e a b l e t o i d e n t i f y s t r e n g t h s an d w e a k n e s s e s o f t h e s y s t e m ; d e v e lo p im p r o v e m e n ts t o t h e s y s t e m f o r B e n d ix a p p l i c a t i o n ; an d d i r e c t t h e i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f t h e MICLASS s y s te m i n t o o t h e r B e n d ix s y s t e m s .

ADDITIONAL D IR E C T SUPPORT

• A c c o u n t i n g : P r o v id e c o s t d a t a f o r u s e i n e s t a b l i s h i n gd a t a - b a s e r e q u i r e m e n t s .

• M e th o d s E n g i n e e r i n g : P r o v i d e s e t u p t i m e , s t a n d a r d e le m e n t ,and m a c h i n e - c a p a c i t y d a t a f o r u s e i n e s t a b l i s h i n g d a t a - b a s e r e q u i r e m e n t s .

39

T a b l e B-1. P e r s o n n e l R e q u i r e m e n t s for F i rst A l t e r n a t i v e in I m p l e m e n t i n gG r o u p T e c h n o l o g y

P h a s e a n d A c t i v i t y

C a le n d a r Y e a r an d M on th

O p e r a t i o n a l Team an d A s s i s t i n g D e p a r t m e n t s *

PL PE ED CP A ME

P h a s e 1

S e c u r e TNO S e r v i c e s N -C Y 7 4 X

D e t e r m in e D a t a -B a s e R e q u ir e m e n t s D X X

S e l e c t I n i t i a l D r a w in g s J -C Y 7 5 X X X X X X

D e v e lo p D a t a B a s e F X X X X X X

C l a s s i f y I n i t i a l D r a w in g s M X X X X X X

D e v e lo p C o n c l u s i o n s A X X X X X X

R e p o r t C o n c l u s i o n s M X X X XJ X X X XJ X X X X

P h a s e 2

I d e n t i f y O b j e c t i v e A X X X X

P h a s e 3

P r o c u r e S y s te m S X X X X X X

I n c o r p o r a t e S y s te m 0 X X X XN X X X X

S e l e c t D r a w in g s a n d V e r i f y D a ta B a s e D X X X X X X

C l a s s i f y P a r t s J -C Y 7 6 X X X X

*P L « P r o j e c t L e a d e r ; PE ■ P r o c e s s E n g i n e e r s ; ED = E n g i n e e r i n g D r a f t s m e n ; CP =C o m p u te r P ro g ra m m e r ; A = A c c o u n t i n g ; a n d ME = M e th o d s E n g i n e e r i n g .

T a b l e B-2. P e r s o n n e l R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r S e c o n d A l t e r n a t i v e in I m p l e m e n t i n gG r o u p T e c h n o l o g y

P h a s e a n d A c t i v i t y

C a le n d a r T e a r a n d M on th

O p e r a t i o n a l Team a n d A s s i s t i n g D e p a r t m e n t s *

PL PE ED CP A ME

P h a s e 1

S e c u r e TNO S e r v i c e s N -C T 7 4 X

D e t e r m in e D a t a -B a s e R e q u ir e m e n t s D X X

S e l e c t I n i t i a l D r a w in g s J -C Y 7 5 X X X X X X

D e v e lo p D a t a B a s e F X X X X X X

C l a s s i f y I n i t i a l D r a w in g s M X X X X X X

D e v e lo p C o n c l u s i o n s A X X X X X X

R e p o r t C o n c l u s i o n s M X X X XJ X X X XJ X X X X

P h a s e 2

I d e n t i f y O b j e c t i v e A X X X X

S e l e c t D r a w in g s a n d V e r i f y D a t a B a s e S X X X X X X

S e c u r e TNO S e r v i c e s 0 X X X X

C l a s s i f y P a r t s N X X X XD X X X X

D e v e lo p C o n c l u s i o n J -C Y 7 6 X X X X

P h a s e 3

P r o c u r e S y s t e m F X X X X

I n c o r p o r a t e S y s te m M X X X X

*P L = P r o j e c t L e a d e r ; PE = P r o c e s s E n g i n e e r s ; ED = E n g i n e e r i n g D r a f t s m e n ; CP * C o m p u te r P r o g r a m m e r ; A - A c c o u n t i n g ; an d ME = M e th o d s E n g i n e e r i n g .

COST AND MANPOWER SUMMARY FOR INCORPORATION OF M ICLASS SYSTEM

A p p e n d i x C

A p p e n d i x C

COST AND MANPOWER SUMMARY FOR INCORPORATION OFM ICLASS SYSTEM

T a b l e C - l . C o s t s an d T im e R e q u ir e d f o r I n c o r p o r a t i o n o f M ICLASS S y s te m

F Y 7 5 F Y 76

It e mP h a s e 1 ( 8 M o n th s )

P h a s e 2 ( 7 M o n th s )

P h a s e 3 ( 3 M o n th s )

T im e -S h a r eT e r m i n a ls $ 2 , 2 6 8 $ 2 , 2 6 8

TNO S e r v i c e s 1 3 , 4 0 0 2 5 , 0 0 0 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0

T im e -S h a r eT e le c o m m u n ic a t io nS e r v i c e s 2 , 0 0 0 6 , 5 0 0

L i t e r a t u r eS e a r c h e s 5 0 0

T o t a l s $ 1 8 , 1 6 8 $ 3 3 , 7 6 8 $ 5 0 , 0 0 0

G ra n d T o t a l $ 1 0 1 , 9 3 6

B e n d ix P e r s o n n e l T im e *

E n g i n e e r i n gD i v i s i o n 1 5 . 0 1 8 . 0 6 . 5

C o n t r o l l e rD i v i s i o n 4 . 8 4 . 2 2 . 5

T o t a l s 1 9 . 8 2 2 . 2 9 . 0

G ra n d T o t a l 5 1 . 0

* A 1 1 t i m e s sh ow n i n m a n -m o n th s .

43

A p p e n d ix D

GROUP-CONFIGURATION STATUS REPORTS

Fam ily Configurations - Ju ly 3 1 , 1975Group Technology

No.o f

D escrip tion Parts

X. R otational < .7 nm (.2756) diameter 195 w /eccentric operation one d irectio n and one sense.

2 . Sane as (1 .) except d ia . > 7 mm ( . 2756) 79

3 . G ears, hexagonal shaped parts and . 38s im ila r c la s s ific a t io n numbers

4. R otational p arts w /eccentric 142operations more than one d ire ctio none sense and bar o r sheet parts< 1 8 nm. (.7087)’.

5 . Bar o r sheet parts and box form 42

S . C a stin gs, fo rg in g s, and f la t 37p arts < 1 8 nm '(.7087)

7 . Thin P la t Parts 21

T o ta l 55̂

1stH a lfCY76 NumberWdrk Number o f Machines Number

Content o f Used Less o f In it ia l(<} Machines Than 5 Times Routings Configuration

26 10 3 25 29 machines

5 8 2 37 39 machines

9 9 4 16 24 machines

35 22 8 127 62 machines

10 10 3 35 37 machines

12 9 0 28 37 machines

3 8 2 1 5 28 machines

^2 283 79 unique machine

Sroup Technology

Family Configurations - July 24, 1975

D escription

1 . Rotational ^ 7 mn ( . 2736) diameter w/eccentrio operation one d ire ctio n and one sense.

2. Same as (1 .) except d ia . > 7 nm (.2756) 79

3 . Gears, hexagonal shaped parts and 38sim ila r c la s s ific a t io n numbers

4. R otational parts w /eccentric 142operations more than one d ire ctio none sense and bar or sheet parts < 1 8 mn. (.70 87).

5. Bar or sheet p arts and box form 42

6. C astin gs, fo rg in gs, and f la t 37p arts < 1 8 mn ( . 7087)

7. Thin E la t Parts 21

T o ta l 554

No.o f

Parts

195

1stH alfCY76 NumberWork Number o f Machines

Content o f Used Less( f ) Machines Than 5 Times

26 10 3

5 8 29 9 4

35 22 8

10 10 312 9 0

3 S' 3

42

Numbero f In it ia l

Routings Configuration

25 29 machines

37 39 machines

16 24 machines

127 62 machines

35 37 machines

28 37 machines

1 5 28 machines

283 79 unique machines

iroup Technology

Family Configurations - Ju?.y J, 1975

No.of

D escrip tion Parts

1. R otational < 7 (.2756) diameter 195w/eccentrio "operation one d ire ctio nand one sense.

2. Same as (1 .) except d ia . > 7 ran (-2756) 79

3 . Gears, hexagonal shaped p arts and J8s im ila r c la s s ific a t io n numbers

4. R otational parts w /eccentric 142operations more than one d irectio none sense and bar or sheet parts< 18 ran (.7087).

5. Bar or sheet p arts and box form 42

6. C astin gs, fo rg in g s, and f la t 37parts < 1 8 ran (.7087)

7. Thin ? la t Parts 21

Toted 554

1st H a lf CY7 6 Work

Content_J!L_

26

5

9

35

1012

3

NumberNumber o f Machines Number

o f Used Less o f PreviousMachines Than 5 Times Routings Configuration

10 3 25 Same

8 2 37 Same

9 4 16 Deleted p ro file m illed p arts.

22 8 127 Added p ro file m illed Darts fro:Group 3*

10 3 35 Same

10 0 28 Same

9 3 *5 Same

283

Group Technology

Fam ily Configurations - June JO. l'V l'

D escription

No.o f

Parts

1 stH alfCY76Work

Contentw

Numbero f

Machines

Number o f Machines

Used Less Ulan 5 Times

Numbero f

RoutingsPrevious

Configuration

1. Rotational <i ? an (.2756) diameter w/eccentric operation one d ire ctio n and one sense.

195 26 1 1 2 42 Same

2 . g” — as (1 .) except d ia . > 7 nm (.2756) 79 5 14 3 37 Same

3 . Gears, hexagonal shaped parts and sim ila r c la s s ific a tio n numbers

92 34 23 7 65 Same

4. Rotational p arts w /eccentricoperations more than one d irectio n one sense and bar or sheet parts < 1 8 an (.7087)

88 10 13 0 90 Added 2 parts from r--*

5 . Bar or sheet parts and box form 42 10 1 1 3 35 Added box form p arts.

6 . C astings, fo rg in g s, and f la t parts <.18 mm (.7087)

3? 12 14 0 28 Added f ia t parts ^ 18 ram (.705

7. Thin P la t Parts 21 3 9 1 15 Separated out parts < 18 nan (.7087 ) from group of 23 part.= 32 machines and 22 routings.

T cta l 554

.fc.00

Group Technology

Family Configurations - June lj5, 1975

D escription

1. Rotational ^ 7 inn (.2756) diameter w/eccentric operation one d ire ctio n and one sense.

2. Same as (1 .) except d ia . > 7 m

3 . Gears, hexagonal shaped parts and s im ila r c la s s ific a tio n numbers

4. Rotational parts w /eccentric operations more than one d ire ctio n one sense, and bar or sheet parts< 18 run (-7087).

5. Box Form

6. Bar or sheet parts

No.of

Parts

195

79

92

86

1stH alfCY76Work

Content(*)

26

5

3̂

10

3

39

Humberof

Machine-

11

14

23

13

610

7. Castings or fc.rging.-i

3. Thin F la t Parts

Total

33

25

55̂

114

15

32

Number o f Machines Number

Used Less o f PreviousThan 5 Times Routings Configuration

2 42 Same

s 37 Same

t 65 Same

'j 90 Added bar and sheet narts< .lS n n (.7087).

5 !. In it ia l configuration.

1 3^ ated' out parts sm aller’.r.in 19 mm (.7087 in .) from

of 64 parts using 46 , 58 routings.

2 24 Si.W'i

26 22 Is .- - . - iL . configuration same

3roup Technclogy

Faraily Configurations - June 6, 1975

No.of

D escription Parts

1. Rotational <; 7 nia (.2756) diameter 195w /eccentric operation one d irectio nand one sense

2. Sane as ( l . ) except d ia . > 7 « 7y

3 . Gears, hexagonal shaped parts and 92sim ila r c la s s ific a tio n numbers

4. R otational parts w /eccentric 61operations mo.e than one d irectio none sense.

5. Box Form 36. Bar or sheet parts 64

7. Castings or fo rgin gs 338 . Thin F la t Parts 25

Rest F ile

Total 554

1 st H alf CY76 Work

Content f f )

26

5

3*

7

211114

NumberNumber of Machines Number

of Used Less ofMachines Than 5 Times Routings

1 1 2 42

PreviousConfiguration

184 parts not including parts with sp e cia l chamfers or cones

14 3 37

23 7 65

13 0 90

6 5 3

46 28 5815 2 24

32 26 22

56 parts not including parts with sp e cia l chamfers or cones.

Added 4 parts from Group 4, placed 2 parts in re st f i le .

Combined Z groups using57 machines

In it ia l configuration


Same


Separated from Group 3 required thread grin d in g.

Group Technology

Family Configurations - May JO, 1975

No.Of

D escription Parts

1. Rotational v 7 inn (.275o) diameter 184v/eccen tric operation one d irectio nand one sense

2. Same as (1 .) except d ia . > 7 mm 563- Gears, hexagonal shaped parts and 90

sim ila r c la s s ific a tio n numbers

4. Rotational parts w /eccentric 41operations in inner form or endfaces

5. Rotational parts w /eccentric 58operations in outer fora ■

6. Box Foini 3

7. Bar or sheet parts 64

3. Castings or forgin gs 33

Thin F la t Parts

Total

1stH alfCY76 NumberWork Number of Machines Number

Content o f Used Less o f Previous({6) Machines Than 5 Times Routings Configuration

24 11 2 42 Same

4 14 6 3 1 Same

34 23 7 65 Same

3 43 33 40 Same

7 52 39 53 Same

2 6 5 3 In it ia l configuration

11 46 28 58 In it ia l configuration

11 15 2 24 Same group, 36 machines,25 routings

4 32 26 ?2 In it ia l configuration

Group Technology

Fam ily Configurations - May 14, 1975

D escription

1. Rotational ̂ 7 nn (.2756) diameter w/eccentric~operation one direction and one sense

2. Same as (1 .) except d ia . > 7 ran

3. Gears, hexagonal shaped parts and sim ila r c la s s ific a tio n numbers

4. Rotational parts w/eccentric operations in inner form or end faces

5. Rotational parts w/eceentric operations in outer form

6. Bar or sheet parts

7. Castings or forgings

8. Thin F la t Parts

9. Box Form

Total

No.of

Parts

184

56

90

41

58

64

33

25

3

554

Work*Content

24

• 4

34

11114

2


o f Used Less of PreviousMachines Than 5 Times Routings Configuration

11 42 Same

14 6 51 Same

23 7 65 Same

43 33 40 Same

52 39 53 Same

46 28 58 In it ia l configuration




*Added work content, includes both se t-, std . h rs. and piece time std . hrs. on monthly b asis fc r schedule period, f i r s ix months of CY76.

Group Technology

Family Configurations - May 2, 1975

Numberof

D escription Farts

1 . Rotational <!7 nn (.2756) diameter 184 w /eccentric operation one d ire ctio nand one sense

2. Same as (1 .) except d ia . > 7 inn 563 . Gears, hexagonal shaped parts and 90

sim ila r c la s s ific a tio n numbers

4. Rotational parts w /eccentric operations 41 in inner form

5 . Rotational parts w /eccentric operations 58in outer form

6. Bar or sheet parts 64

7. Castings or fo rgin gs 33

8. Thin F la t Parts 25

9- Box Form 3

Total 55^


o f Used Less o f PreviousMachines Than 5 Times Routings Configuration

11 2 42 Same

14 6 32 Same

23 7 65 Reduced machine c e ll s izefrom 26.

43 33 40 Same

52 39 53 Same





Group Technology

Family Configurations - April 25, 1975

Numberof

D escription Parts

1. Rotational < 7 nm (.2756) diameter 184 w /eccentric- operation one d ire ctio nand one sense

2. Same as (1 .) except d ia . > 7 nm 56

5 . Gears, hexagonal shaped p arts and 90sim ila r c la s s ific a tio n numbers

4. R otational parts w /eccentric operations 41in inner form

5. Rotational parts w /eccentric operations 58in outer forra

o. Bar or sheet parts 64

7 . Castings or fo rgin gs 33

8 . Thin K la t Parts 25

9. Box Form 3

Total 55^

NumberNumber o f Machines Number

of Used Less ofMachines Than 5 Times Routings

11 2 43

14 6 32

26 7 70

^3 33 ^0

52 39 53

46 28 5836 28 2532 26 22

6 5 3

PreviousConfiguration

Reduced machine c e ll s ize from 16, routings were 95

Reduced machine c e ll s ize from 19, routings were 43.

Same

Same

Same





Group Technology


Numberof

D escription Parts

1 . Rotational £ 7 aim (.2756) diameter 184w/eccentric"”ope'.,ation one d irectio nand one sense

2. Same as (1 .) except d ia . > 7 ra 563- Gears, hexagonal shaped parts and 9'̂

s im ila r c la s s ific a tio n numbers

4. Rotational parts w /eccentric operations 41 in inner form

5. Rotational parts w /eccentric operations 58in outer fora

6 . Bar or sheet p ?rt3 64

7. Castings or forgings 33

8 . Thin P la t Parts 25

9 . Box Form 3

Total 55^

cn01

Numberof

Machines

Number o f Machines

Used Less Than 5 Times

Number*of

RoutingsPrevious

Configuration

16 95 Same group, 109 routings

19 10 4326 7 70

43 33 40

52 39 53

46 28 5836 28 25

32 26 226 5 3

Same group, 46 routings

Combined 2 groups using 4x and 35 machines re sp e ctive ly . 72 routings

Same

Same





♦Added routings; routing is a sp e c ific sequence of machines used to produce a p art.

Group Technology


D escription

1. R otational < 7 nm (.2750) diametar w /eccentric”operation one d ire ctio n and one sense

2. Same as (1 .) except d ia . > 7 mm

Number Numbero f o f

Parts Machines

184

56

16

19

3 . Gears and s im ila r c la s s ific a t io n numbers 72 41

4. Hexagonal Shaped parts 18 35

5 . R otational parts w /eccentric operating in 41 43inner form

6. Rotational parts w /eccentric operations in outer form

58 52

7. Bar or sheet parts 64 46

8 . Castings or fo rgin gs 33 36

9 . Thin P la t Parts 25 32

10. Box Form

To ta l

3

554

6

Number o f MachinesUsed Less Previous

Than 5 Times Configuration

5 In it ia l co n figu ratio n , 29 machines

10 Combined 2 groups using 23 and 25machines

20 In it ia l configuration


33 Combined three groups of 11, 21 and9 p arts.

39 Combined three groups of 29, 15,and 14 p arts.





A p p e n d i x E

PLAN FOR QUANTITATIVE COMPARISON BETWEEN GROUP TECHNOLOGY AND PRESENT TECHNIQUES

ACTIVITY

1. SECURE APPROVALS FOR ADDITIONAL TIME-SHARING SERVICES AND FINALIZE INITIAL FLOW LINES

2. OPTIMIZE LAYOUTA. FINALIZE GROUP CONFIGURATIONB. MINIMIZE CELL SIZEC. ESTABLISH FLOW LINESD. DETERMINE SHARED AND EXCLUDED EQUIPMENTE. ESTABLISH BASIS AND RELATIONSHIP FOR OPTIMIZATIONF. PHYSICALLY LAY OUT EQUIPMENT

3. QUANTITIZE DIFFERENCESA. FACILITY COST TO REARRANGE EQUIPMENTB. ADDITIONAL CAPITAL EQUIPMENT COSTC. DIRECT LABORD. THROUGH PUT TIMEE. VERIFY OPTIMIZATIONF. REPORT CONCLUSION

COST SUMMARYTIME-SHARIN6 TERMINAL AND TELECOM4UNI CATI ON SERVICES (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

TOTAL $4500 BENDIX PERSONNEL (MAN-WEEKS)

TOTAL 56 MAN-WEEKS

ACTUAL PERFORMANCE

1. TIME-SHARING SERVICES (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

2. BENDIX PERSONNEL (MAN-WEEKS)

cnoo

WEEKS

M ACHINE-CELL FLOW LIN ES

A p p e n d i x F

C*0\.* 17-2-75□

O

\

-[\

□

9 □CROUP 57-H-75

■Q . 0

X

4 -

i«OuP 77-M-75CROUP 67-U-75

sroup ̂7-15-75o

Ei]

l°3M --——

'6 -b-.. I■Si si

O

* iEl «S*

MACHINE CC.LL FLOW LINES 55* PARTS 77 MACHINES 2068 OPERATIONS 85 PERCENT ON FLOW LINE 283 ROUTINGS

o

C5o

C3CO

0500

■ ■ c r in o e r ^ H

CROUP 79T I 21 PARTS

1 9 MACHINES" 8*» OPERATIONS

87 PERCENT ON TLOW LINE iS ROUTINGS

|EX SEN| 7-11-75

A p p e n d ix G

TYP IC A L PAR TS, BY GROUP, WITH DATA-BASE INFORMATION

GROUP I

CLASS NRftt 73-3262^361 4 13 l|340| 41 OOO 0 0 nnnnOOP [ 2 9 9 I 7 8 - I Ot I 2935D4HlNHlVnT

P/n I N O l> tEW .

— - M A ch code-n 1 7 3 91oooooooonoooooooon

SET-UP I PIECE TIME540nonnnonnonoonoono o I oô I onnoTonnnnono

PROC CODE I AODlTlONlrtl. IMFO.0-173 16828161770000000000000000000000 nnoioooooi onnonooono

GROUP 2

C LA S S MR0021 128219.116131 100003000000000000

P/M

303100-101NOME/J.

2 9 6 9 0 1 RETAINERP

mach do os. ser-up Piece Ttwe0021 030.32300000000000000 { OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 100000 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0021PROC CODE I riD D lTtotJA U IN F o

16128200000000000000 OOOOOOOOOOOO 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

GROUP 3

CLASS NR I I P/K I NOMEU02y4 I 1 ••j046 181 32|H22’.jO O n r r i n " ,rrrvT J;;•>.’ 17'<!-1 '• 1 J 1 wV.'i I ; /.M 'l i

MACH CODE I SET-UP I PIECE TIMEiV94 '35030 V341 /in'>n-|Mfy)rvv> J 22^0-: IS.-< '"'OT'n? r’ iO'> J i i j -j)

PROC CODE. | ADDVTVOV4AL \N\rOn .>04 3 7 I 4 1 i - H o l 2 I ;<ô o o O 'v» | r 'v v 'p n r 'v 'r n ' y y v , - / r . j ' W ' r. y,/-,

6 6

GROUP 4

CLASS N R

0123 388s>2 361 61 31 34 3 7 15 noonnonnnnooNOMEU-

266330-10| I 2 1 1 BHnilRTPn.RH

M A C W C O O E S E T -UP002 3 46020388/121 21 0071825 |40 35450npp.3n.Vi343533 22 1 330? 1 020907P2080Q

PIECE T I M E

P * O C C O D E a d d \t i o v i a l i n f o0023 16828320301 8 1235nnnp I ooonnnpoonoo ono|onnnn| ooooooonno

CLASS MR I I P/M I MOMEK1.0068 2787 1 <2 1 8 1 3^2232 I 'iooooorpoonon j 290 I 48- 1 01 | 293401 R; j |7} j |

M A C W C O D E I SET-UP I P<£CE Titv\E00*8 ^031 607 I n | 2242 I 1 1 no k 4 328?3435-1 M 12 33 30n| 11051 10 >o;*:> 1 'i.-n.'S 11> s

P R O C C O D E | ADDITIONAL INFOooo.M 162 11'31 2 1 4 1 982 j3nnnn I nr'nonnnonnnn ononorjpnni nnnn'MOOnn

CLASS MR0135 I 27')052 1 2 1 34

p /n34 I 804000n-v)000P0P|2.«'225O-|n|

M A C H C O D Eo V35 5 11 '">o 1 8:301 8'-»4 2 O0 nn00

P R O C C O D E

S E T - U P

54 41 3Ki 3 1 no’ I non-winn

M O M E W29<i6A,0i .HI Ik !)h‘

P\ECE T I M E0202I n0207"M0301 nnoo

ADDITIONAL IViFO0035 I 6351 8 3 2 8 3 0 0roononoo| ooooppnoppoo ono I ooôo 1 j •)OOono:V'nr

GROUP 5

CLASS NR I I ?M I MOMEVi.0.002 M 7 4 3 7 1 16 1 6 9 ^ 4 3 7 i a o n o o o o o o o o o o 12-62 <-62-1 o3[-24 4 8 0 4 S6-----------------

MACW CODE. SET-UP j PIECE. TlCAE______01O2 I 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 ? 18 H I 8 8 8 4 2 3 8 4 5 4 0 3 1 333029.350000 J I 5 1 7 10 0 7 3 1 0 5 0 4 15 2 3 0 2

PROC CODE. j ADD\T\OV\AL \MFO0002 1 9 8 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 J O O O O O Q O O O O _________

GROUPSCLASS MR j | P/M | WOWLEid_______

002 I 7 9 0 8 2 9 6 1 81 76J.344 1 1 5 0 0 0 o o o o o o 000 289839-101 12 8 3 0 ACTUATOH

MACW CODE I SET-UP j PIECE TIME0021 8 8 3 2 0 3 2 5 3 8 2 8 I 8 0 8 2 6 2 4 100294 4 4 1 4 9 4529344 2 3 7 |2 2 0 5 2 3 2 J 0526Q8Q9

PROC CODE 1 ADD\T»OM^\_ tViFO ______0021 8 3 8 2 M I 6353937 I 22200 lOOOOOOOOOOOO 000100000! 000000 0 0 0 0

CLASS MR I I P/M I W O M E N001 6 9 7 2 7 2 3 5 1 8 1 75|342 7 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 2 7 5 5 4 8 - 1 01 ( 2 6 5 6 P L A T E , L 0 M E J i

MKCH CODE j SET-UP I P V^CJsLTIME_______Oil 6 2 5 3 9 4 2 2 3 3 9 4 2 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 9 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 0 1 0 1 2 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0000

PROC CODE I ADtMTVOVlfcU \MFOO') 16 4 0 8 3 8 2 6 1 3 5 3 9 1 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n o I 000001 OOOOOOOOOQ. ______

6 8

Documents

BDX-613-1478 GROUP TECHNOLOGY Conference Paper C. P. …