System Design Review MSD-20092 P10458

Meeting Purpose Meeting Date: 1/21/2010 Meeting Location: 9-4425 Present design ideas and discuss improvement options. Review project status and expected timeline. Meeting Date: 1/21/2010 Meeting Location: 9-4425 Meeting Time: 4:00-5:30pm P10458

Agenda P10458 Time Item Who 4:00 Welcome Team 4:05 Project Overview Laura 4:10 Current Process Kelly 4:15 Future Process 4:20 Customer Needs Joe 4:30 Work Breakdown Leo 4:35 Risk Assessment 4:40 Final Assembly Material Handling Device Concepts 4:45 Kitting Material Handling Device Concepts 4:50 Software Concepts 4:55 Next Steps 5:00 Questions 5:30 P10458

Team Members Faculty Support Joe Bykowicz - Cradle design, structural design. Leo Gala – Visual Basic, Excel, programming. Laura Mandanas – Design and documentation of standard work processes. Kelly Votolato – Project leader, kitting design and layout. John Kaemmerlen Faculty Support P10458

Project Overview Design a kitting system to deliver materials from staging area to assembly lines (both main assembly line and subassembly lines) Delivery system design (pick lists and carts) Operator procedures Safely move single steam turbine engines down the assembly line Cart design Visual system to indicate kit status . What needs to be pulled? Are all parts present? P10458

Resources RIT Team: 10-15 hours of work/week (12/11/09- 5/14/10) Budget: $250,000.00 P10458

System States P10458

P10458 8

P10458

Customer Needs P10458

Customer Needs: Information Importance Description Comments/Status CN1 1 Standard operating procedures for replenishing the proposed Moving Assembly Line and related sub-assemblies.   CN2 Software that will update current product Bill of Materials to relate Part Numbers and M.A.L. stations or sub-assemblies. CN3 3 Efficient picking order for kit building. CN4 2 A visual system that indicates when product should flow. Scale: 1 (Important) – 3 (Convenient)) P10458 11

Customer Needs: Material Handling Importance Description Comments/Status CN5 1 Conveyance of Single-Turbine products through M.A.L.   CN6 Material handling equipment for kitting/staging/replenishing. CN7 Must not damage parts. CN8 2 Design able to be moved when factory reorganizes in six months. CN9 Must be able to fit in factory. CN10 Design must accommodate full range of product models and sizes. May not have to design to extreme largest valve body due to infrequent orders Scale: 1 (Important) – 3 (Convenient)) P10458 12

Customer Needs: Safety Importance Description Comments/Status CN11 1 Implemented equipment or procedures do not endanger workers.   CN12 2 Visibility on M.A.L. Fixtures or components to M.A.L. should not exceed 6 feet in height. Scale: 1 (Important) – 3 (Convenient)) P10458 13

Specifications P10458

Specifications Scale: 1 (Important) – 3 (Convenient)) P10458 Revision #: 3 Engr. Spec. # Importance Source Specification (description) Unit of Measure Marginal Value Ideal Value Comments/Status ES1 1  CN1 OP states Description of job tasks Boolean   1 ES2  1 OP states tools needed list ES3 OP states Estimated time for each task ES4 3 CN2 Manageable file size. KB 25,000 <2,000 ES5 Computational time Min <.5 ES6 CN3 Manageable file size 50,000 <25,000 ES7 ES8 2 Travel matrix ES9 CN5 Load Capacity lbs 3000 >3500 hold large SST ES10  2 CN4 Speed of Final Assy MHD ft/min 10 6 ES11 CN6 Speed of Kit MHD 20 12 ES12 CN7 Weight lifted by worker 50 <30 ES13 CN10 Length ft >5 ES14 Width ES15 Kitting must accommodate all parts in assembly ES16 CN12 CN9 Height of device <5 Requested by Matt Corman ES17 Cost $ 250,000 <250,000  ES18 CN8  No Attached Hardware to Foundation ES19 CN11 Safety Violations P10458 Scale: 1 (Important) – 3 (Convenient))

Work Break Down P10458

Team Responsibilities Joe Bykowicz - Cradle design, structural design. Leo Gala – Visual Basic, Excel, programming. Laura Mandanas – Design and documentation of standard work processes. Kelly Votolato – Project leader, kitting design and layout. P10458

Dresser Rand Responsibilities Details of picking process and information about current/future process Delivery of necessary data/access Balancing work line Administrative duties Set up standard work processes Train operators P10458

Risk Assessments P10458

Risk Assessment Risk Item Effect Cause Action to Minimize Risk Owner Incorrect project scope No clear success or even end to project Scope creep Written contract with Dresser Rand D-R and RIT Solution does not improve flow Quality measurements won’t improve Worker downtime Increased production costs Working on the wrong problem Basic infrastructure is not in place to support solution (information flow is bad, supply chain weak) Solution not directly related to flow Written contract with D-R Audit preexisting infrastructure and workplace conditions RIT team responsible for communicating with D-R D-R responsible for putting basic infrastructure in place P10458

Risk Assessment cont. Risk Item Effect Cause Action to Minimize Risk Owner Workers reject carts/process Carts unable to be used Culture change not effective Include workers in development and testing D-R management Bad data Incorrect assumptions made in design leading to incorrect design Project delayed Data does not exist Data is no understandable or in format we can use RIT team doesn’t ask for appropriate data D-R doesn’t give data to RIT team Ask for data, collect any data not readily available “Reasonableness” testing with D-R, consult with subject matter expert RIT team P10458

Risk Assessment cont. Risk Item Effect Cause Action to Minimize Risk Owner Change in project RIT deems project inappropriate for senior design Weekly meetings with MSD advisor Ask each week: is the plan still right? RIT team Design unfinished D-R unhappy with RIT Nothing to implement Delay MSD II Poor planning Poor risk management Poor communication Make a schedule to manage our time Communicate setbacks and difficulties in design P10458

Risk Assessment cont. Risk Item Effect Cause Action to Minimize Risk Owner Infeasible cart design Carts not able to be used Budget too limited Unreasonable expectations Lack of mechanical engineering expertise on team Written contract with D—R RIT team will ask for more team members D-R has to have reasonable expectations Senior design advisor must provide team with appropriate staffing P10458

Risk Assessment cont. Risk Item Effect Cause Action to Minimize Risk Owner Limited access to plant Design doesn’t match physical realities of plant Miscommunication, lack of information flow Worker distrust Data unavailable 2 hour drive Snow Limited student availability (1-16 hours a week) Authentic communication with workers, asking for feedback Make a schedule of visits + agenda for while we are on site RIT team P10458

Concept Design & Selection

Concept Designs-Main Line Cart

Main Cart Design Selection Overhead Truss Moving Table Pull Platform Conveyer Overhead Conveyer Ease of use 2 3 4 Ease of implementation 5 1 Not permanent Safety Cost Reliability (breakdowns) Sum: 23 21 12 8 Scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best. P10458

Concept Designs – Kitting Cart

Kitting Cart Design Selection Multi-Level Cart Flat Cart Flow Through Rack Baker's Cart Ease of use 4 5 3 1 Ease of implementation Safety+Ergonomics Storage Space Provided Footprint Visibility Mobility Sum: 26 29 25 23 Scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best. P10458 29

Software & Information P10458

Customer Needs Bill of Materials needs to be organized based on information from outside sources automatically. Utilize current software systems. Efficient picking order. P10458

BOM-Implementations Excel (Minor VBA) & Word Enhancements Pros Based off of current software/system framework. Simple solution. Software available. Cons May not be robust solution. May be hard to integrate or automate. May not meet all requirements. Data Base (Access, MySql,…) & Excel Integration with VBA Excel available, Access available in some instances. Software capable of holding and integrating product & process information. Customizable design. Maintenance & updates may take specialized knowledge. File storage and manipulation may be computationally cumbersome. Custom Software (Sharepoint, Windows Application) Totally customizable solution. Hard to implement. Hard to design. High cost/time associated with design P10458

Efficient Picking-Implementations Excel Solver Pros Integrates with current software. Good solution. Cons May be hard to implement. May be hard to maintain. External Solving Package Good solution Integration hard. Hard to maintain. Potential cost. Heuristic Easy implementation. Replicate current process. Sub-optimal solution. P10458

Software Implementation Selection Excel & Word Database & Excel Custom Software Ease of use 5 4 Ease of implementation 1 Software Availability 3 2 Ease of Design Maintenance & Upkeep Cost Sum: 27 21 13 Scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best. P10458

Pick Implementation Selection Excel Solver Solver Packages Heuristic Ease of use 4 3 Ease of implementation 2 Software Availability 5 Ease of Design Maintenance & Upkeep 1 Optimum Solution Solve Time Cost Sum: 33 22 26 Scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best. P10458

Next Steps 2/12: Complete standard process to divide future parts into stations; trial pull parts 2/19: Complete and review kitting operations procedures; detailed design review 3/8: Practice part delivery P10458