Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1411055
14 PCB007 MAGAZINE I SEPTEMBER 2021 ed to hold off releases systematically over a three-month period, gradually phas- ing into our new cycle time and returning workers to the front end of our processing. 3. Most importantly, agreement was reached to redefine some of the responsibilities of shop supervisors and production control. On-time delivery became primarily the responsibility of first-line supervisors, and it could only be accomplished by maintain- ing a half-day or less queue at each of their work centers. A new attitude of urgency was formed regarding work sitting around. e shop manager was allowed to question any order observed at the same work center for two consecutive days. Potential Problem Resolution Most of the planning meetings were spent identifying and creating plans to minimize po- tential problems. Five problem areas were ad- dressed and common to the plans made in each work center. 1. Short-term load fluctuations. Solution: A load smoothing effort was undertak- en by production control to persuade our larger customers to balance their week- ly requirements. Given that load balancing cannot be perfect, shop disruptions were minimized with a large-scale cross-training effort. A management attitude was formed viewing running out of work as not being all that bad, in fact, almost an objective from a production standpoint. 2. Order holds and date changes. Solution: We correctly felt that by shipping orders a month aer they arrived, the opportuni- ty for customers to change requirements would be slight and the accuracy of their initial scheduling would be greatly im- proved. A simple agreement was made with our customers: If the order was in the shop, we would not allow it to be held or pushed out; the order would either be shipped or cancelled. 3. Machine downtime. Solution: Production management, not maintenance, was assigned the responsibility to protect against this situation and more emphasis was placed on spare part levels, operator preventive maintenance, and repair priorities. e most critical, potential problem work centers were identified, and contingency plans were made for subcontracting. 4. Poor load visibility. Solution: e load smoothing effort coordinated with our customers would be a necessity to mini- mize these problems. Much more effort was made by our production control to work with customers in producing accurate three-to-six-month requirement forecasts. A successful project was com- pleted by the purchasing department to translate these forecasts into our MRP system and large decreases were made in raw material levels. 5. Labor productivity. Solution: It had to become clear to our labor force that the jobs they would be working on tomorrow would be arriving today. With our "keep it moving" philosophy, emphasis was placed on picking the nearest job rather than sorting through priority lists. e move- ment of cross-trained personnel to the busiest work centers certainly helped prevent a deterioration of productivity. As much as possible, the overhead require- ments for tooling or preventive mainte- nance, etc., were performed in periods of extremely low or zero queue. A curious change was seen as our queues were shortened. When work in one work center became low, the supervisor or lead person could usually be found in the earlier work center applying subtle pressure to get more work to them. It's possible this "pulling" technique is a more effective motivator than a ponderous queue.