Stefan Enjem – ISE Joe Van Hofwegen - ISE Young Lee - ISE Joe Pecht - ME Walter Freitag - ME Jason Zion - ME Luis Garcia - EE

Introduction Product Goals Increase QPH 4 to 6% 2 year payback Safety and Quality

Production Line Layout EOLT 90 Continuous Counterclockwise Loop Variable Staffing

Areas of Improvement Downtime End of Line Tester Leak and Snap Ring Test Process Time PCV Assembly Station Procedures Production Board Preventive Maintenance Work Flow Pallet Flow Control and Failure Response Alternative Configurations

Downtime Micro-stop - Downtime of less than 5 minutes # of Micro-stops/month

Downtime: End of Line Tester Purpose Final Station before leaving clean room Fully tests all motors Problems Downtime Micro-stops Causes Existing Technology

Assembly Cell Design Downtime: End of Line Tester

Solution Original system specs Modifications required Design New connector

Finite Element Analysis Benefits Reduced downtime Decreased operator interaction Increased potential motor output by 7% Downtime: End of Line Tester

Rubber Connectors Leak Test Problem Solution PM Downtime: Leak and Snap Ring Test (210)

Optical Test Problem False Failures / Glare Solution Mirror Assembly [Nerlite Doal-50-led] Station Improvement Benefits 1% increase in total motor output Downtime: Leak and Snap Ring Test (210)

Process Improvement Histogram shows major sources of backup

Process Time: PCV Assembly (90) Problems: Process time, bin layout Solution: Move part bins, Modify Program Benefits: Reduction in assembly time (5 seconds), Ergonomically designed set up BeforeAfter

Procedures: Preventive Maintenance Creation of a Preventive Maintenance Schedule List of tasks to be completed on a weekly basis Complete inspection of the line Benefits Increased reliability of stations Reduction in catastrophic failures Less disruption of production time Similar PM programs show a 4% improvement

Procedures: Visual Production Board Performance Assessment Communications Hub

Work Flow Improvements Pallet Flow Control Inhibiting Release Logic Failure Response Time Minimizes blocking Increases motor output EOLT 90

Arena Simulation Arena Model created to analyze system Mimics the behavior of the real system Interface for user created Analyze potential system changes

Arena Model: Background

Arena Model: Set-up

Arena Model

Work Flow: Alternatives Arena Model used to analyze system Optimal configurations and results Based on improvements made to the line: Optimal Pallets is 47 OperatorsSpeedPartsMotors Station ImprovementsOptimal System % Improvement8.0%9.5%

Cost Analysis of Total System ImprovementCostOT Saved (After 2yrs) EOLT $ 12,000 Preventive Maintenance (4% output increase) $ 50,000 $ 144,000 Station 210 $ 1,500 Procedures $ 100 Station 90 $ 7,000Agreed to w/o Payback Total $ 70,600 $ 157,500 Estimated Cost Analysis Net Present Value

Conclusions All Deliverables were met Standardized Procedures Preventative Maintenance Set Production Guidelines Fix Problematic Stations End of Line Tester Efficiency Identify improved system configurations 9.5% improvement and met 2-year payback.

Acknowledgements Thank you: Mentor, Dr. Michael Kuhl Coordinator, Dr. Paul Stiebitz The entire Valeo Staff including Richard Guerin, Paul Vandeursen, James Ely.

Arena Model

Data Slides

PM Schedule

Industrial Standards Clean Room Certified Class 100,000 QS 9000 Quality standard TS Valeo Union Standard 423 minutes per shift Ergonomic Guidelines

Bill of Materials

Motor Count

Counter Data

Micro-Stops

Station 90 Time Study TypeTime Savings Body TurnTBC10.67 Reach Bin AC0.44 Reach Bin BC0.44 Body TurnTBC10.67 Reach Bin CC0.41 Reach Bin DC0.41 Body TurnTBC10.67 Reach Bin EC0.39 Reach Bin FC0.39 Seconds Saved4.4928s Avg. Process Time20.48s Percentage Savings21.94%

Regression

Process Time Bottleneck Ranks RankStationAvg Cycle Time 1EOL A A B B B B A B A A A B B A

WBS