1. System Level Design Review MSD-20092 P10458

2. P10458 2 Meeting Purpose 1. Present design ideas and discuss improvement options. 2. Review project status and expected timeline. Meeting Date: 1/21/2010 Meeting Location: 9-4425 Meeting Time: 4:00-5:30pm

3. Agenda P10458 3 TimeItemWho 4:00WelcomeTeam 4:05Project OverviewLaura 4:10Current ProcessKelly 4:15Future ProcessKelly 4:20Customer NeedsJoe 4:30Work BreakdownLeo 4:35Risk AssessmentKelly 4:40Final Assembly Material Handling Device ConceptsJoe 4:45Kitting Material Handling Device ConceptsKelly 4:50Software ConceptsLeo 4:55Next StepsLaura 5:00QuestionsTeam 5:30

4. Team Members P10458 4 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

5. Project Overview P10458 5 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?

6. P10458 6 RIT Team: 10-15 hours of work/week (12/11/09- 5/14/10) Budget: $250,000.00 Resources

7. System States P10458 7

8. 8

9. 9

10. Customer Needs P10458 10

11. Customer Needs: Information Customer Need #ImportanceDescriptionComments/Status CN11 Standard operating procedures for replenishing the proposed Moving Assembly Line and related sub- assemblies. CN21 Software that will update current product Bill of Materials to relate Part Numbers and M.A.L. stations or sub- assemblies. CN33Efficient picking order for kit building. CN42 A visual system that indicates when product should flow. P10458 11 Scale: 1 (Important) – 3 (Convenient) )

12. Customer Needs: Material Handling Customer Need #ImportanceDescriptionComments/Status CN51 Conveyance of Single-Turbine products through M.A.L. CN61 Material handling equipment for kitting/staging/replenishing. CN71Must not damage parts. CN82 Design able to be moved when factory reorganizes in six months. CN91Must be able to fit in factory. CN102 Design must accommodate full range of product models and sizes. May not have to design to extreme largest valve body due to infrequent orders P10458 12 Scale: 1 (Important) – 3 (Convenient) )

13. Customer Needs: Safety Customer Need #ImportanceDescriptionComments/Status CN111 Implemented equipment or procedures do not endanger workers. CN122Visibility on M.A.L. Fixtures or components to M.A.L. should not exceed 6 feet in height. P10458 13 Scale: 1 (Important) – 3 (Convenient) )

14. Specifications P10458 14

15. Specifications P10458 15 Revision #: 3 Engr. Spec. # ImportanceSource Specification (description) Unit of Measure Marginal Value Ideal ValueComments/Status ES11 CN1OP states Description of job tasksBoolean 1 ES2 1CN1OP states tools needed listBoolean 1 ES3 1CN1OP states Estimated time for each taskBoolean 1 ES43CN2Manageable file size.KB25,000<2,000 ES51CN2Computational timeMin1<.5 ES63CN3Manageable file sizeKB50,000<25,000 ES71CN3Computational timeMin1<.5 ES82CN3Travel matrixBoolean1 ES9 1CN5Load Capacitylbs3000>3500hold large SST ES10 2 CN4 CN5Speed of Final Assy MHDft/min106 ES11 2CN6Speed of Kit MHDft/min2012 ES12 1CN7Weight lifted by workerlbs50<30 ES13 2CN10Lengthft >5 ES14 2CN10Widthft >5 ES15 1CN10Kitting must accommodate all parts in assemblyBoolean 1 ES16 2 CN12 CN9Height of deviceft6<5Requested by Matt Corman ES17 1 Cost$250,000<250,000 ES181 CN8 No Attached Hardware to FoundationBoolean 0 ES191CN11Safety ViolationsBoolean0 Scale: 1 (Important) – 3 (Convenient) )

16. Work Break Down P10458 16

17. P10458 17 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.

18. P10458 18 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 Dresser Rand Responsibilities

19. Risk Assessments P10458 19

20. Risk Assessment Risk ItemEffectCause 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 20

21. Risk Assessment cont. Risk ItemEffectCause 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 21

22. Risk Assessment cont. Risk ItemEffectCause Action to Minimize Risk Owner Change in project RIT deems project inappropriate for senior design Change in project 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 RIT team P10458 22

23. Risk Assessment cont. Risk ItemEffectCause 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 23

24. Risk Assessment cont. Risk ItemEffectCause 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 24

25. Concept Design & Selection P10458 25

26. Concept Designs-Main Line Cart P10458 26

27. Main Cart Design Selection Overhead Truss Moving TablePull PlatformConveyer Overhead Conveyer Ease of use23342 Ease of implementation53411 Not permanent55511 Safety22232 Cost54421 Reliability (breakdowns)44311 Sum: 2321 128 P10458 27 Scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best.

28. Concept Designs – Kitting Cart P10458 28

29. Kitting Cart Design Selection Scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best. P10458 29 Multi-Level CartFlat CartFlow Through RackBaker's Cart Ease of use4531 Ease of implementation5535 Safety+Ergonomics3553 Storage Space Provided5345 Footprint5135 Visibility1541 Mobility3533 Sum: 26292523

30. Software & Information P10458 30

31. P10458 31 Bill of Materials needs to be organized based on information from outside sources automatically. Utilize current software systems. Efficient picking order. Customer Needs

32. BOM-Implementations P10458 32 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 – Pros Based off of current software/system framework. Excel available, Access available in some instances. Software capable of holding and integrating product & process information. Customizable design. – Cons Maintenance & updates may take specialized knowledge. File storage and manipulation may be computationally cumbersome. Custom Software (Sharepoint, Windows Application) – Pros Totally customizable solution. – Cons Hard to implement. Hard to design. High cost/time associated with design

33. Efficient Picking-Implementations P10458 33 Excel Solver Pros Integrates with current software. Good solution. Cons May be hard to implement. May be hard to maintain. External Solving Package Pros Good solution Cons Integration hard. Hard to maintain. Potential cost. Heuristic Pros Easy implementation. Replicate current process. Cons Sub-optimal solution.

34. Software Implementation Selection P10458 34 Excel & WordDatabase & ExcelCustom Software Ease of use544 Ease of implementation441 Software Availability532 Ease of Design 532 Maintenance & Upkeep 331 Cost 543 Sum: 272113 Scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best.

35. Pick Implementation Selection P10458 35 Excel SolverSolver PackagesHeuristic Ease of use433 Ease of implementation425 Software Availability525 Ease of Design 333 Maintenance & Upkeep 313 Optimum Solution453 Solve Time345 Cost 525 Sum: 312232 Scale of 1-5 with 5 being the best.

36. Next Steps P10458 36 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