© Copyright 2010 Dresser-Rand Gasket Cell Relocation [Revision: May, 2011] Team Members: Cody Willmart, Aaron Marcotte, Jacky Li, Daniel Swol, Tyler Borden Mentor: John Kaemmerlen

© Copyright 2010 Agenda 1. Objectives/Scope and Project Benefits 2. Current Gasket Cell Operations 3. Machine Selection 4. Future Gasket Cell Location and Operations 5. Results 6. Performance vs. Customer Needs and Engineering Specs 7. Recommendations and Discussion 2

© Copyright 2010 Objectives/Scope and Project Benefits 1. Determine the optimal gasket cell design in terms of safety, quality, productivity and cost 2. Develop a detailed plan for the relocation and operation of the new gasket cell 3. An updated, efficient, and safe gasket cell in an operating area of Dresser-Rand’s Painted Post facility 4. A model project for process innovation and the implementation of lean principles for both Dresser-Rand and RIT 3

© Copyright 2010 Current Gasket Cell Operations 4 Requires a total of seven operators over two shifts to run cell Machine portion occupies less than 25% of cell with the remaining 75% allocated towards the storage of dies and materials Old cell is located in an area that is going to be shut down The old gasket cell location is far from shipping (Primary Customer) Cell occupies ~ 6000 sqft. area

© Copyright Machine Selection Pugh Chart Purchase CostOperating Cost Blade Cutting$86000$4000/year Laser Cutting$100000~$4000/year Water Jet Cutting$165000$16000/year

© Copyright 2010 Eastman Blade Cut Machine Key Features Nesting Capability Travels up to 60 in. per second Cut 12 gaskets in 3 minutes during a machine demo Capability to write part number Less than 2 minute setup time Safety shield and automatic stop mechanism 6

© Copyright 2010 Cell Relocation  New cell occupies 1500 sqft.  Requires less operators to run cell at current production levels 7  Cell relocated closer to shipping and other finished goods delivery points

© Copyright 2010 Transition Plan 8

© Copyright 2010 Future State Value Stream Map 9

© Copyright 2010 Visual Control  Initial Visual Board Design 10

© Copyright 2010 Visual Control  Current Efforts of the Visual Board 11

© Copyright 2010 Material Usage Analysis 12

© Copyright 2010 Results  Machine Acquisition – with a purchase price around $90,000 the Eastman Machine will pay for itself in less than 9 months  Location – the new gasket cell location is directly across from the shipping department which significantly reduces travel time to the direct customer  Operating Costs – reduced by 36% annually 13 CurrentFutureImprovement Footprint Square Footage % Reduction Total Process Time min< 15 minSignificant

© Copyright Performance vs. Customer Needs Gasket Cell - Customer Needs SummaryCN#Customer NeedImportance Reduce the space required for the cell and determine a feasible location for the cell in a new area of the plant 1Footprint Reduction (Improved Layout)9 2Relocation to Point of Use3 3Make Cell Adaptable to many locations in plant1 Develop a new inventory management system for raw materials, finished goods, dies and patterns, and tools 4Die & Pattern Organization and Standardization9N/A 5Match Inventory of dies/patterns with their current use3N/A 6Inventory Management (Raw & Finished Goods)3 7Tool Storage & Organization3 Research and recommend modern technology options 8Upgrade Technology3 9Digital Technology Option3 Develop an efficient process for producing gaskets with the new equipment 10Movement toward lean - one piece flow9 11Process Standardization3 12More Efficient Cell9 13Fast Response Time9 14Safety is the highest priority9

© Copyright Performance vs. Engineering Specs ES#ImportanceOperational Excellence Specification (description)Unit of Measure Current Value Marginal ValueStatusComments 19CostSquare footage of gasket cellsq. ft.5900> 50% Reduction New cell 1500 sq. ft. 23DeliveryTravel time to direct customersmin.10> 50% Reduction Shipping is located across from the new cell 33CostCost to move equipment$ N/ANot moving much from old cell, cost is minimal 41Cost Requirement for OE manufacture to move equipment Binary New machine is moveable if needed 53DeliverySearch time for dies and patternsmin.<5< 2 Dies and patterns will be eliminated now use files 63Delivery Store only actively used dies and patterns BinaryNoYesN/ADies and patterns will be eliminated 73DeliverySearch time for raw materialmin.5-10< 2 Material consolidation and new ordering system will decrease search time 89Delivery Search time for finished goods/kitting min.20 Finished goods consolidation and making kitting orders all at once, will decrease time spent 93DeliverySearch time for toolsmin.<5< 2 No search time required, all the necessary tools are already on the machine 103DeliveryAverage batch size# 20% Increase New machine can nest parts which will increase batch size 119DeliveryProcess cycle timemin % Decrease Reduced to ten minutes or less 123CostScrapsq. ft. 20% Decrease With nesting software scrap will be reduced 139DeliverySetup timemin.<520% Decrease  Set-up time will be about the same as current process 141QualityStandard Work AvailableBinaryNoCreate  Left for operators to create when machine arrives 153DeliveryWork in Process (WIP)# orders2As Needed If kitting orders are done at same time, WIP will be drastically reduced 169CostReturn on Investment (ROI)rate 11% Hurdle Annual savings of $390, CostPayback periodyears 1 Year 9 months 189CostOperation and maintenance costs$ Minimize $4000/year; includes replacement blades, tables, software, and warranty. 199DeliveryThroughputorders/day30≥ 30 Can cut gaskets in 17 seconds 203DeliveryMachine Timesec 20% Reduction  About the same as die cut 219CostCost of Labor$ Minimize 4 workers needed instead of 7 223CostTool lifedays Maximize  Blades need to be replaced once a week and tables need to be replaced once a year 239SafetySafety is the highest priorityBinaryLimitedYes Machine has numerous safety features

© Copyright 2010 Future Recommendations  Material Consolidation  Visual controls Production visual board Scheduling box Material reorder controlled with Kanban system Quality controls picture board  Follow transition plan  Finished goods audit  Review information flow and simplify to take advantage of the processing time of machine 16

© Copyright 2010 Project Feedback  Responsive to team’s questions and inquiries  Very supportive while at the plant  Could use more feedback during needs and specifications definition period  Good to have project open to allow the team to develop ideas and direction.  Have a defined plan for the trip to Eastman to gather the required information for Dresser-Rand to approve purchase of the machine.  Understand flow of information earlier to be able to give recommendations for new process and possibly implement and test changes.  Dresser-Rand feedback for RIT team? 17

© Copyright Questions

© Copyright