1. System Design Review MSD-20092 P10458

2. 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:
Meeting Time: 4:00-5:30pm
P10458

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. System States
P10458

8. P10458 8

9. P10458

10. Customer Needs
P10458

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Specifications
P10458

15. 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))

16. Work Break Down
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.
P10458

18. 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

19. Risk Assessments
P10458

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. Concept Design & Selection

26. Concept Designs-Main Line Cart

27. 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

28. Concept Designs – Kitting Cart

29. 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

30. Software & Information
P10458

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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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