Ficep Logistics Improvement

Ficep Logistics
Improvement
Approaching Lean Management
Ficep Logistics Improvement 1

Ficep today First impressions
 World’s leading machine tool  No efficient standard
manufacturing company procedure
 Ficep counts 70 different  Coding system is not efficient
types of machines and all of
Introduction which can be shaped
 High fixed assets
according to customer needs  Few people know the
connections among process
 It is split in three main
phases
production plants: one in
Gazzada, one in Casale Litta  No existing KPI to control the
and one in Castronno. processes

Stakeholders
Loris Reato
Marco Brambilla
Alberto Portioli
Kaustav Kundu
Who Departments
Where General WH
What Parking area

Cell warehouses
Assembly line
“Changing process materials management to avoid

missing parts at assembly line”

Group 1 Group 2
Project Pietro Borsani Giulia Bossi
workload Sandeep Kumar Mishra Thomas Cousin
definition • Current state of the material • Analysis of current situation

management of WH management
• Future state of material • Optimization of positioning

management according to certain criteria
• Introduction of specific KPIs • Introduction of specific KPIs

Is Is not
A matter of
Clarify the A matter of
product
system
quality
problem:
IS/IS NOT Uncontrolled Production
ANALYSIS process problem
Each phase is
affected

Inbound logistics
Group 1
Ficep Logistics Improvement - Group 1 6

Time planning
Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 7

Plan Cognitive map SIPOC
Breakdown the
problem
Fishbone diagram Countermeasures KPIs and Targets
Control Quality
Do Supplier
Classification
Inbound Logistics Department
renovation
Raw Materials
Management
A3 model
Check Pilot tests
Evaluation of
results
Strategy for the

Act Review of
countermeasures
application of
countermeasures

Breakdown the
problem
Control Quality
Do Supplier
Classification
renovation
Raw Materials
Management
A3 model
Check Pilot tests
Evaluation of
results
Strategy for the

Act Review of
countermeasures
application of
countermeasures

Inadequate
management
Customer dissatisfaction system
Inadequate logistics
generating Master plan 4 times a year management
Delay in production
Consequences Direct root causes
Clarify the Is defined as

MISSING PARTS
problem: Indirect root causes
COGNITIVE Lack of
MAP components to
assembly lines
No sense
of urgency
Coding errors No traceability of
responsibility
No defined
areas/destinations
for raw materials
And concerns No control of suppliers

over time
Big components Small components Which is a consequence of
Not taking into account key Misleading management of the

performance parameters (TIME, movement of article codes
QUALITY and QUANTITY)
“The main problem is the presence of an inadequate
logistics management system
Clarify the
problem: They don’t have a proper way to classify and control over
time suppliers as well as KPIs to evaluate impact on the
PROBLEM process
STATEMENT
There is not a clear assessment of the destination for raw
materials”

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers
Breakdown External suppliers Items Assemblies Assembly line
the problem: GW logistics man Raw materials Sub-assemblies

Machine
SIPOC
Purchasing Receiving Logistics man stores Picking order is Items to the
Picking action
the items in WH released assembly line

FLOW
Preliminary analysis of the flow according to Suppliers’
behaviour based on the actual classification
DESTINATIONS
Breakdown
 Cell warehouses
the problem  Control quality department
 External storage Area

FLOW
It is affected by the frozen

classification performed in past
years based on quality
performance and means of
transportation
Breakdown We generated a database and it

came up that about the 85% of
the problem suppliers should be considered as
a source of problem
This lead to managerial problems Duplication of the code for

the same supplier
related to huge amount of Error in the parametrization
articles delivered from suppliers phase of the supplier
that are bad in performance and
do not perfome in a standard and
uncontrolled way

Breakdown
the problem DATABASE
analysis

Clarify the
problem:
PROCESS
MAPPING

CONTROL QUALITY DEPARTMENT
It is fundamental for Ficep because is in

charge of reducing problems generated by
defects in the assembly line.
Codes coming from Red label Suppliers

(4%) pass through this departments.
Breakdown
the problem NOT
DEFINED
Checking activities and claims
WORLD
OF
AREA generation performed by 2
MOUTH
employees that are also in charge
HUGE
NUMBER
of solving problems at the
OF ITEMS
assembly line.
NO WORKLOAD PLANNING

EXTERNAL STORAGE AREA
It is the area of the plant

dedicated to the storage of
Pro Cons
Raw Materials
Basically is a non defined area

and everything lies down “like
Breakdown potatoes”
the problem Shortest path picking policy

adopted by Logistics Men

Product People
Barriers to change
Complex design phase

Not responsible
Coding system
Own way of doing
Analyze the
root causes: INBOUND
LOGISTICS
FISHBONE Family company

No standard procedures
DIAGRAM No KPIs
No control over time of Supplier
No layout optimization
for raw materials storage Error in the coding system
Management Process

KPIs to classify and
control over time
Suppliers
• Control over supplier in real Time

Procedures definition and
time scheduling for the • Better distribution of good in the
main logistics activities process
• Improving tracing responsability

Countermeasures
• Reduction of the global stocking
Control Quality time
Department renovation in
term of layout + rules
• Workload management according
to tack time
Raw materials
management

Which KPI should be evaluated?
 Cost of Poor Quality

KPI to assess  Stocking Time
The main problem is to define a consistent
way to evaluate it

What? When?
Understanding the current flow from the entrance gate to the
By w.47
storage area (Cell Warehouses + External Area)
Database analysis of existing Suppliers By w.50
Generation of standard procedures for Inbound Logistics By w.51
Set targets Layout and procedure in the Quality Control Department By w.51
Classification and definition of “Parking Area” for Raw Materials By w.52
Estimation of actual Storing Time By the end of the
project
Estimation of COPQ(Cost Of Poor Quality) By the end of the
project

Breakdown the
problem
Control Quality
Do Supplier
Classification
renovation
Raw Materials
Management
A3 model
Check Pilot tests
Evaluation of
results
Strategy for the

Act Review of
countermeasures
application of
countermeasures

PLANNING & PURCHASING
• History of the supplier
• Timeliness
• Packaging and information conformance
Supplier
Classification
PRODUCTION
• Quality
• Quantity Conformance

QUALITY TIMELINESS
Analysis performed for Order
the main suppliers based Promptness
Reliability
on those parameters
recorded by the
company Non
Punctuality
Conformity
Supplier
Classification ColourID is
related to the
old classification

STANDARDIZED FREE PASS IMPROVING
BEHAVIOUR or TRACEABILITY OF
FOR SUPPLIERS NO FREE PASS RESPONSIBILITY
SCHEDULING REDUCE
Inbound TIME VARIABILITY
Logistics
TIME
NEW NEW
WINDOW NEW TASKS
LAYOUT PROCEDURES
GENERATION

Each Cells Warehouse is
going to be madu up by 3
main areas:
-Receiving
-Storage
-Assembly (4tomorrow)
Inbound
Logistics
The working day for Logistcs men
should be divided in time windows
connected to specific activity to be
performed
No problem in term of work-force

MANAGEMENT IMPROVING
CONSIDERING
OF THE DAILY TRACEABILITY OF
URGENCY
WORKLOAD RESPONSABILITY
Control ENABLE VISUAL

IDEA OF FLOW
Quality MANAGEMENT
Department
renovation
NEW VISUAL INFO-POINT
CHECK-SHEET
LAYOUT DASHBOARD FOR CLAIMS

New layout that
outlines specific area:
-Controlled Parts
-Uncontrolled Parts
Control -Rejected Parts
Quality
Department INFORMATION
Supplier Code Article Code Quantity Ordered Quantity Check Material Check
CHECKING
Dimension Check Treatment Check Sample Size Quantity Rejected
RESULT
Quantity Accepted in Account Error
Claim Number
renovation
In the checking area will be
performed an analysis on:
-Quantity
-Quality (dimension, material,
treatment)

Raw Materials “L” and “P” are the main dimension to be
considered in order to have an idea of
management the surface occupied
These columns have been filled by

looking at technical documents

ZONA VITI
Looking at the data collected we suggest a new layout based on 3 parking areas (macro-areas):
Wip (3 couples)
i)small (1)
ii)large (2)
Finished parts (2 couples)

i)small (1)
ii)large (1)
Buffer New (1 couple)
Raw Materials Design of the area

management
Orientation of the piece

Breakdown the
problem
Control Quality
Do Supplier
Classification
renovation
Raw Materials
Management
A3 model
Check Pilot tests
Evaluation of
results
Strategy for the

Act Review of
countermeasures
application of
countermeasures

WH reorganization
Group 2

Time planning

Plan Cognitive
map
SIPOC
Process
chart
Ishikawa
diagram
Picking time
Do Time chart estimation
model
Categories
creation
A3 model
Check Pilot
Act Standard
procedures

Plan Cognitive
map
SIPOC
Process
chart
Ishikawa
diagram
Picking time
Do Time chart estimation
model
Categories
creation
A3 model
Check Pilot
Act Standard
procedures

Inadequate
Customer dissatisfaction management system
Suppliers’ bad
And consequently
performances Master plan 4 times a year Inadequate logistics
Delay in production
Consequences Direct root causes
Clarify the MISSING PARTS

problem: Is defined as Indirect root causes
COGNITIVE Lack of components to

assembly lines No monitoring process Wrong forecast
MAP
No traceability of
responsibility
And concerns Lack of control on WH
Big components Small components

Which is a consequence of
No standard procedures to No KPIs Inadequate management Inefficient coding system

stock and pick system
Clarify the “The main problem is the lack of standard and consistent
procedures in stocking/picking pieces.
problem: They do not have specific KPIs to assess.
PROBLEM This is leading to missing or late parts at the assembly
STATEMENT line.”

Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs Customers
Breakdown External suppliers Items Assemblies Assembly line
the problem: GW logistics man Raw materials Sub-assemblies

Machine
SIPOC
Purchasing Receiving Logistics man stores Picking order is Items to the
Picking action
the items in WH released assembly line

How do people work? How does management act?
 No standard procedures  Lack of control
 Costs
 Unwillingness to change
 Efficiency
 Not responsible
 Inherited habits
 Not conscious
 Not interacting with the real
Breakdown process
the problem What is the process? What is the product?
 Complex  Complex BOM
 Not properly coded  Machines designed by
different people with
 No standard procedures different principles
 Not properly clear  Many variants

Clarify the
 Reorganization of stocking positions so that both stock
problem: and picking activities are more efficient.
SCOPE OF  Standard procedures to pick up pieces
THE PROJECT

Suppliers
Project focus
Other WHS
Clarify the
problem: GWH
RA
L1
7B
PROCESS 7M 7P
Quality control
MAPPING
LU

What? When?
Understanding the current configuration of WH By w.46
Analysis of databases to find connections between critical
variables (BOM, type of machine, standard or optional By w.50
component, usage etc.)
Estimation of current picking time By w.50
Set targets Definition of classes to divide the WH according to critical

parameters
By w.2
Redefinition of addresses and how pieces are positioned inside

By w.2
the WH
Estimation of new picking time and consequent percentage of By the end of the
reduction project
Set up standard procedures to proceed with other dept. By the end of the
project

Product People
Barriers to change
Complex BOM
Not responsible
Coding system Own way of doing
Analyze the
root causes: Missing parts
ISHIKAWA Family company

No standard procedures
DIAGRAM No KPIs
No control over the process Twisted coding system
Management Process

Optional
components Standard
components
Type of
machine
DATABASE DATABASE Forecast

CREATION
BOM
Current
Usage position

1. Many components in BOM have a double code
2. Some components have no position in WH
PROBLEMS 3. Identification of movements to have a consistent database (7P
and 7B)
4. Erasement of items in kanban

# Pick up per PN since 01 2015
More than
 Many parts have no reason to 15
149
be here 11%
9 to 15
 Either not used 162
12%
1 to 3
581
 Either rarely used for various 43%
reason 4 to 8
469
 Many parts are only dedicated 34%
to one specific usage
RESULTS LU parts usage # Upper levels out of used PNs

5 UL
4 UL 0% 6 UL
2% 0%
3 UL
8%
Not used 2 UL
543 17%
40% Used
818
60% 1 UL
73%

Proposal of items that
should be taken out of the
WH
Standard measurements
of picking time Improvements
Countermeasures
Definition of dedicated
areas where to put items
accordingly to different
criteria such as rate of
consumption and type of
machine

Plan Is/is not
analysis
Cognitive
map
SIPOC
Process
chart
Ishikawa
diagram
Picking time
Do estimation
model
Categories
creation
A3 model
Check Pilot
Act Standard
procedures

Which KPI should be evaluated?
KPI to assess  Picking time
Problems in how to evaluate
Problems in creating a standard model

Receiving
Work Order Process to be timed and used as KPI
Printing Moving Shelves Taking the box
Yes
« Distinta di prelievo » to first address out of the rack
t1 t2
Yes
Next
Taking the box part in Taking the
No Picking the part
End of back in the rack the
t3 trolley in the aisle
same t7
the list t4
box ?
?
Taking the box

out of the rack
Same
No Yes t2
shelf
group ?
Taking the the Taking the Moving shelves

No
trolley out of the aisle forklift out of the aisle to next position
t5 t6 t1

 No possibility to time operators because of unions
 No standard procedures
PROBLEMS  No standard picking missions
 Difficulties in having a representative average

 Excel model based on Picking G36HD Std Picking time
process and built database Total 2:49:00
G9GM00421
 Make possible computation of 0.46 hrs
16%
picking time estimation for each
Machine or subassembly based on
its BOM G9GM00509 G9GM00471
0.37 hrs 1.14 hrs
 Powerful tool to control and 13% 40%
communicate toward picking 72851400020

related problematics 0.07 hrs
RESULTS
3%
 Thus we are able to measure G9GM00456 G9GM00284

impact of stocking address 0.24 hrs G9GM00480
72851710283
0.36 hrs
reallocation 8% 0.11 hrs 0.07 hrs
13%
4% 3%
G9GM00471 parts picking time Wrong if red below

PN Address Shelf Gr Shelf Column Level First part Same box Same Shelf Group
Different Shelf 0
72102055020 16.002.002 H 16 2 2 265 0 0 0 0
72351256400 16.002.001 H 16 2 1 0 0 210 0 0
72351255620 16.001.003 H 16 1 3 0 0 210 0 0
214164700 05.002.001 C 5 2 1 0 0 0 375 0
214235300 04.001.006 B 4 1 6 0 0 0 375 0
Extract from « Picking time » Excel model

 Categories logic : G36 + G32 parts
 Machine Common
12%
 Common vs specific parts
 Standard vs optional parts
 Sub assemblies
 Dimensional and G32 specific G36 specific
storage space 51% 37%
 Based on this analysis we are able to draw a new

organization which will translate in KPI
CATEGORIES enhancement
CREATION G36HD Std parts repartition

SH 16
SH 11 SH 14 SH 15 4%
G36HD Opt parts repartition
No address
SH 17
1%
1%
3% 1% 7% SH 11
1%
SH 8
1% SH 15 SH 2
SH 7 22%
SH 10 32%
1% SH 5
2%
7%
SH 4 SH 2 SH 9
12% 53% 1%
SH 8 SH 3
SH 3 18% 4%
SH 7 SH 4
11%
9% SH 5 6%
SH 6 1%
2%

Check Pilot
• Repositioning of pilot items in the shelves for G32 and G36 machines
• Confirmation of actual results vs. estimations
Next steps
Act Standard
procedures
• Creation of classes
• New addresses allocation for LU warehouse
• Spreading plan and strategy to other warehouses

Thanks for your
attention!

Ficep Logistics Improvement

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ficep Logistics Improvement

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ficep Logistics

Ficep Logistics Improvement 1

Ficep Logistics Improvement 2

What Parking area

“Changing process materials management to avoid

Ficep Logistics Improvement 3

definition • Current state of the material • Analysis of current situation

• Future state of material • Optimization of positioning

• Introduction of specific KPIs • Introduction of specific KPIs

Ficep Logistics Improvement 4

Ficep Logistics Improvement 5

Ficep Logistics Improvement - Group 1 6

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 7

Strategy for the

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 8

Strategy for the

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 9

Consequences Direct root causes

Clarify the Is defined as

And concerns No control of suppliers

Big components Small components Which is a consequence of

Not taking into account key Misleading management of the

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 11

Breakdown External suppliers Items Assemblies Assembly line

the problem: GW logistics man Raw materials Sub-assemblies

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 12

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 13

It is affected by the frozen

Breakdown We generated a database and it

This lead to managerial problems Duplication of the code for

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 14

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 15

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 16

It is fundamental for Ficep because is in

Codes coming from Red label Suppliers

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 17

It is the area of the plant

Basically is a non defined area

the problem Shortest path picking policy

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 18

Complex design phase

Own way of doing

FISHBONE Family company

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 19

• Control over supplier in real Time

• Improving tracing responsability

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 20

 Cost of Poor Quality

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 21

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 22

Strategy for the

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 23

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 24

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 25

Inbound TIME VARIABILITY

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 26

No problem in term of work-force

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 27

Control ENABLE VISUAL

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 28

Control -Rejected Parts

Ficep Logistics Improvement – Group 1 29

management the surface occupied

These columns have been filled by