Tag: manufacturing

What’s the Difference Between a Manufacturing Bottleneck and a Constraint?

Bottlenecks and constraints are two terms that are often used interchangeably in Demand-Driven Manufacturing as well as in discussions on Lean Manufacturing and flow. It’s easy to use one term when you actually mean the other. However, since these two limiters on throughput need to be addressed differently, it’s important to understand the distinction.

What is a Manufacturing Bottleneck?

A bottleneck represents a temporary overload on a resource. The cause of the overload can be wide-ranging: a malfunctioning machine, an absentee operator, missing tools, an unexpected materials shortage, newly hired personnel, etc. While a bottleneck can cause serious delays, these are all issues which can be “fixed.”

What is a Manufacturing Constraint?

A constraint is a long-term and persistent limiter to flow. For example, the constraint might be a work center that cannot go any faster because the equipment is already operating at maximum speed or a process, such as a chemical reaction, that takes a set amount of time. Constraints can be found outside the organization as well. For example, a persistent shortage of skilled workers in their industry is a constraint that many manufacturers face.

Based on these explanations, cast your vote on whether Lucy and Ethel’s situation in the chocolate factory represents a bottleneck or constraint. (This is completely anonymous and just for fun. Once you vote, you can see how others voted.) Vote here.

Manufacturing Bottlenecks Are a Prime Opportunity for Continuous Improvement

As I mentioned earlier, bottlenecks are temporary – or at least they should be. In fact, they are often a prime opportunity for continuous improvement.

If WIP regularly backs up in front of a work center because a machine is down, the operator is late getting back from lunch, or the necessary tools have gone missing again, it may not be an easy problem to fix, but the power is in your hands. As part of your continuous improvement efforts, you should be trying resolve recurring bottlenecks.

One thing I’ve learned over the years, is that you can’t resolve these types of problems sitting behind a desk. If you’re pouring over reports in your office, all you’ll see is the variability. No amount of data can tell you what caused it.

You can ask your shop floor supervisors, and they’ll give you their perspectives, but nothing beats getting down on the shop floor on a regular basis and seeing the reality behind the data.

Turn Your Gemba Walk Into a Power Walk.

Constraints: If You Can’t Remove Them, Manage Them

Constraints are also an opportunity for continuous improvement. According to Constraints Management (a.k.a, the Theory of Constraints), there are five steps to addressing a constraint:

1/ Identify – You can’t address a problem if you don’t know it’s a problem. That applies to constraints as well. You probably have a pretty good idea of where your constraints are, but value-stream mapping has shown more than one manufacturer that things aren’t always as they seem.

2/ Exploit – Get as much as you can out of the constraint “as is.” For example, you might reorganize the work center in small ways to smooth the flow of work and increase productivity.

3/ Subordinate – Here, everything else is synchronized to the rate of the constraint. Experts also suggest re-evaluating your constraints at this stage because the process of subordination can cause the constraint to shift to another work center.

4/ Elevate – Take whatever action is necessary to eliminate the constraint, e.g., replacing or refurbishing outdated equipment, adding manpower at the constraint, or reorganizing the factory to remove wasted motion.

5/ Return to Step One. You will never eliminate all constraints. (Nor would you necessarily want to, but that’s a subject for another day.) Elevating a constraint so that it is no longer a constraint just means that something else will become the limiting factor on flow. As part of your continuous improvement efforts, you need to return to step one, identify the constraint and assess whether its capacity is enough to meet demand.

Learn How to Subordinate to a Constraint

For many, step four seems the most challenging because it often involves a capital expense. Even if the business can afford the investment, a business case still needs to be made.

Read: Smart Capital Investing in a Recovering Economy

However, step three is where real performance improvements take place, so be sure you don’t skip over it! We call this step constraints management, and it is a larger part of a demand-driven (or pull-based) production system. For a more detailed explanation of how constraints management works, please download our new white paper – Demand-Driven Manufacturing Principles: Eliminate Bottlenecks; Manage Constraints.

August 20, 2018
Why Data-Driven Manufacturing is Not Enough

Occasionally, someone will mix up DDM (Demand-Driven Manufacturing) with another DDM acronym in our industry: Data-Driven Manufacturing. There are similarities. For example, executing demand-driven principles relies heavily on data and shop floor visibility. However, it doesn’t stop there.

In this post, we’ll take a look at Data-Driven Manufacturing and why it’s useful but not enough to help you reach your goals.

Data: It Is What It Is

One of the main problems with data is that it’s just data. It passes no judgment on whether the results you’re getting from the shop floor are good or bad. Nor does data provide guidance on how to use it to improve operations.

As an example, let’s say you’re monitoring the utilization rate for a new piece of equipment in which you recently invested several hundred thousand dollars. Suddenly, the utilization rate starts dropping. Is that good or is that bad?

The knee-jerk reaction you’ll probably get from your average, stressed-out production manager (or the CFO that signed off on the order for the equipment) is that it’s bad. However, to make that call, you need to put the data into context.

Maybe your new equipment is so efficient that it is no longer a constraint in the system. At the lower utilization rate, you are still producing product fast enough to meet demand. In that case, the drop in utilization rate isn’t a problem. In fact, if you can find profitable ways to use that extra capacity, such as taking on new business, then the drop in your utilization rate is actually an opportunity.

Trying to address the “problem” without putting it into its proper context could lead you to produce more than you need, which could lead to even greater problems like inflated inventory levels.

You’ve Got to Have the Right Principles

You often see continuous improvement talks or articles that promote the idea of the three levers of improvement: people, processes, and technology. To that, I’d like to add a fourth: principles.

I’m not talking about ethical principles as in “doing the right thing.” (Although that’s never a bad idea.) I’m talking about manufacturing principles such as Lean, Theory of Constraints (TOC), Flow. and Demand-Driven Manufacturing.

In the example I gave above, in making a judgment call on whether the drop in utilization of your expensive new equipment was good or bad, we put it into the context of Demand-Driven Manufacturing and TOC.

Creating Chaos

Many manufacturers take a principle-agnostic approach. They don’t necessarily discount that concepts like Lean, TOC, and Demand-Driven Manufacturing have something to offer, but they understand push manufacturing and MRP because that’s the context they’ve been using for years.

Instead of jumping wholeheartedly into something new – though most of the concepts behind Demand-Driven Manufacturing are hardly new as they’ve been around since at least the middle of the last century – they figure they’ll just take the best from all of these principles and combine them into a holistic approach to continuous improvement that is as unique as their organization.

Unfortunately, this just creates chaos in an environment that is already prone to chaos. Without common principles, senior management might issue an edict to improve productivity and efficiency, while shop floor managers initiate a pull-based skunkworks project. Individual work center operators see one thing from the CFO and the COO, but hear another from their manager. In the end, no one knows quite what their priorities should be.

If you’re still taking the agnostic approach, we can help. John Maher recently wrote a series of posts exploring the use of TOC, Lean, and Six Sigma in a demand-driven environment. In addition, we have a number of white papers that may prove useful such as our Kanban Series White Paper: Gaining Control: Exploring Push v. Pull Manufacturing. Finally, we also have a recorded presentation on YouTube explaining Theory of Constraints if you need a refresher on the concept.

And as always, I welcome your questions and comments. Either reach out to me directly or add them in the comment box below.

June 25, 2018
Going Lean: Should You Replace Your ERP System?

By Trey Jordan, Senior Software Consultant

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) has been around for decades. You’d think, by now, the industry would have it figured out. Yet, every year, we hear news about ERP implementations that fail. For every one of these high-profile flops, there are many, many more implementations that simply fail to live up to expectations.

At some point in their Lean journey, nearly every manufacturer faces the same decision: Do you take the time to fix or replace your broken ERP systems or just keep working around them?

Is “Rip and Replace” Really Worth the Effort?

If you’re even a modest-sized manufacturing enterprise, you’ve probably already sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars into your ERP system. If you add up everything including the software costs, implementation, training, maintenance fees, etc., the actual figures can get pretty scary.

Perhaps even worse than the costs, though, is the chaos that typically surrounds an ERP implementation. Some years ago, Gartner created a model called the Hype Cycle that they used to represent the life cycle of a technology. Though the intent was to represent technology as a whole, I think it also pretty well represents what we see in a typical ERP implementation. The only difference is that many manufacturers never emerge from the Trough of Disillusionment.

Gartner Hype Cycle

Does Your ERP Implementation Meet Expectations?

Depending on what study you reference, roughly three-quarters of ERP implementations fail to some degree. Many studies look specifically at whether or not the implementation finished on-time and on-budget. They often fail to consider whether the ERP system helps the organization achieve its desired objectives. If that were factored in, I suspect the percentages of “does not meet expectations” implementations would climb even higher, especially in manufacturing.

The challenge is that Lean Manufacturing, which unquestionably can help manufacturers achieve a wide variety of bottom-line benefits, requires a pull-based approach that is tied to customer-demand (throughput). ERP systems, with their forecast-driven, push-based approach to resource planning and production scheduling, aren’t necessarily designed to support a Lean environment. Even most ERP systems that claim to support Lean Manufacturing are still built around push-manufacturing, with pull implemented using a variety of add-ons and workarounds.

Interestingly, if you do a Google search on why ERP implementations fail, you will get lots of different answers, from lack of executive support to poor change management practices to unrealistic expectations. All of these may be valid, but they fail to address the core underlying issue: the ERP system wasn’t designed to work in a Lean Manufacturing environment.

Even if ERP systems were easier to implement, success isn’t likely to be achieved even with a new ERP system when success is measured against desired outcomes such as increased velocity and reduced inventory levels. So, why would anyone go through the hassle of replacing their ERP system as part of their Lean journey?

ERP: What is it Good For?

Now that I’ve completely ripped apart the concept of ERP, let me head back in the other direction for a moment. While ERP doesn’t do particularly well at resource planning and production scheduling, it does have its uses.

For most organizations, ERP is the system of record for all financial transactions and information. As things happen in the business, e.g., something is bought, sold or produced, these events trigger financial transactions that flow through the ERP system and eventually to the general ledger.

In addition, ERP is also the backbone of the sales system. Whether your sales team is using the sales order module that comes with your ERP system or add-on applications for configuration, pricing, and quotes, the ERP system is the system of record for master files such as bills of material, pricing and customer information.

Likewise, your current ERP system can create a solid backbone for a Lean implementation as it can provide the master data information needed and collect the financial transactions that result from production. You just need to overcome the inherent shortcomings of ERP in a Lean environment. For example, SyncManufacturing synchronized planning, scheduling and execution software (part of the Synchrono® Demand-Driven Manufacturing Platform) sits on top of your current ERP application(s), giving you the power to transform a push-based production environment into to a demand-driven, pull environment. It doesn’t really matter which ERP you use; SyncManufacturing can accept data from any source – even multiple ERP systems.

Related post: The Pros and Cons of Consolidating ERP Systems

But What if You Don’t Have ERP?

Occasionally, I will run across a manufacturer that doesn’t have an ERP system at all. Much of the time, the manufacturer started out as a small job shop using no more than a simple financial system and a few spreadsheets to manage their operations. Over the years, the business grew, and perhaps even changed manufacturing modes, but their systems didn’t quite keep up.

The question I often get from this type of manufacturer is a bit different. They want to know: Do I need to implement ERP at all in a Lean environment?

The answer is not necessarily. Technically, all master data (resources, items, BOMs, routings, inventory, purchase orders, and sales orders) can be entered and maintained directly into SyncManufacturing planning, scheduling and execution software. SyncManufacturing is also creating inventory transactions as parts are produced, consumed, received, and shipped. The business will probably want some sort of financial system of record to collect financial transactions and produce reports, but it is not strictly necessary to have even that to implement Lean using SyncManufacturing software. It is certainly not necessary to have MRP or production scheduling functionality in place before implementing Lean.

Still have doubts? That’s not unusual. Early in our careers, most of us were taught that getting MRP right was the key to improving results. It’s hard to give up MRP and ERP, if not totally, at least as the keys to all our operational challenges. But no matter where you are in your journey, I welcome your questions and comments. Please add them below or reach out to me directly, and I will do my best to respond to each and every one.

June 11, 2018
The Pros and Cons of Consolidating Manufacturing ERP Systems

Managing operations through multiple manufacturing systems can be challenging, but it’s a daily reality for many manufacturers. In this post, we’ll look at the pros and cons of consolidating ERP systems – and propose an alternative.

When Two Worlds Collide

Whenever two or more organizations merge, they are almost always using different ERP systems. As anyone who’s ever tried to consolidate an ERP systems knows, it’s not easy.

Each organization chose their respective ERP systems for a reason. For instance, one facility might operate in a make-to-stock mode and the other in a make-to-order mode even though they manufacture the same types of products for the same customers. Addressing local regulations and business practices is another common (and good) reason for implementing one manufacturing system over another.

Even if their chosen system isn’t perfect, the users in each facility may have learned it well enough (or customized it enough) to work around many of the application’s shortcomings. I’ve seen people who told me they HATE their ERP system fight tooth and nail to keep it when told the organization was considering replacing their system with the same system used at corporate or at another facility.

The 3 Cons of Consolidation

The first con of consolidation is obvious – consolidating ERP systems is hard on your employees. Even those who are willing to get with the program are going to have to learn an entirely new system. That takes time and money and eats into productivity.

Then there are the real and valid reasons why facilities chose different systems. Even if the ERP system on which the company decides to standardize is flexible enough to handle multiple manufacturing modes and other unique requirements, there will still be challenges. For instance, different setup parameters and customizations may mean that the systems won’t talk to each other the way you had hoped.

Finally, there is the expense of consolidation. ERP systems can cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars – just in software costs alone. Though some vendors offer ERP on a more budget friendly subscription basis in a SaaS model, the costs can still be considerable if you have a lot of users. Plus, you still have the upfront costs for things like implementation, training, customization, and so on.

The 3 Pros of Consolidation

If a consolidation project goes as planned – and that’s a big if – the company is probably hoping to gain benefits such as:

Simplified support and maintenance – Theoretically, if everyone is using the same system, user support should be easier. I don’t want to discount this benefit because it’s one that can be achieved, though it can take years to get there and may require functional compromises.

Increased visibility – Management wants to have a clear picture of what is happening across the enterprise. With disparate systems used in each of the facilities, getting accurate KPIs is a challenge. Getting KPIs in real time is next to impossible.

Decreased lead times – If the organization is vertically integrated, with facilities supplying each other, increased visibility into capacity and material availability across facilities should allow production managers to optimize production schedules and resource utilization. In my experience, though many ERP vendors claim to be multi-entity capable, in practice, their ability to handle cross-facility resource management varies widely.

Is it Time to Take Your Lean Initiative to the Next Level?

The Synchrono Demand-Driven Manufacturing Platform can help you achieve the consolidation benefits you’re looking for plus the benefits of Lean for a fraction of the cost and without the loss of productivity and sheer chaos of an ERP consolidation initiative. Here are just a few examples:

One version of the truth – Our Platform sits on top of your ERP systems, so there is no need to rip and replace any of them. We can consolidate information from disparate systems and serve up data and insights in role-specific dashboards.

A sample dashboard from SyncView software

In the video, How Orbital ATK Enabled the IIoT and a Visual Factory, Orbital ATK’s systems architect shows a graphic of all the different systems from which their Synchrono implementation pulls data. The entire video is well worth watching, but if you just want to take a quick peek at their chart, it’s at about 5:15 in the recording.

Management by exception – Trying to keep your eye on everything that is happening across facilities can drive you crazy. Our visual platform allows you to see status across your enterprise and drill down on those that require your attention, to better understand the root cause of the issue.

This bird’s eye view of the entire enterprise was taken from the webinar Visualizing Metrics in the Factory of the Future.

Pull-based replenishment – Demand-driven inventory management is a core principle of Lean, and our eKanban software allows you to send electronic replenishment signals across facilities. You can also bring your suppliers into your Lean initiative – and improve supplier collaboration, visibility and performance – with our supplier eKanban capabilities and supplier communication portal. Watch a demo.

Synchronize resources across facilities – Our exclusive CONLOAD™ scheduling algorithm drives production flow across facilities by controlling the release of work into production based on the availability of people, machines, materials, etc. and managing constraints using principles from the Theory of Constraints. Watch our YouTube demonstration.

Capable to promise – Because we can access and manage data across multiple enterprise systems (and machines, sensors, etc.), our capable to promise functionality provides a true picture of what can be produced and when.

Learn More

Consolidating ERP systems is such a burdensome, disruptive process, it’s worth taking the time to at least consider the alternatives. In addition to the resources I’ve already shared throughout this post, here are a few more I think you’ll find helpful:

Article: What is Demand-Driven Manufacturing?

White paper: E2E Supply Chain Visibility Technology is Here

Video: How to Synchronize Production Planning, Scheduling, and Execution

June 4, 2018
Peace on Earth and Goodwill Between Sales and Production
The decorations. The music. The food. The holiday season is a time of cheer and goodwill for many people. Nevertheless, there are two groups who may find each other especially trying this time of year: sales and production. That’s because this isn’t just the holiday season; it’s also the end of the fiscal year for many organizations. While everyone else has visions of sugarplums dancing in their heads, sales has a vision of only one thing: making quota.

‘Tis the Season

It’s common knowledge that not every salesperson reaches their quota, but what you may not know is that that’s by design. Sales management theory suggests that 60 to 70% of people making quota is about right. Higher than that and you’ve set quotas too low.

Unfortunately, sales managers don’t always care about sales management theory. Their compensation is based off making their collective quota. If only 60% of their people make quota, they probably won’t be taking that extended family vacation this year. The actual number of reps hitting quota in most organizations is closer to 50%, which puts even more pressure on sales managers and their direct reports. In the heat of the moment, salespeople often make promises, such as faster delivery dates, without having all the information.

Demand-Driven Manufacturing Puts the “Happy” Back in the New Year

When I talk with salespeople, many of them tell me they don’t like the end of year situation any more than their counterparts in production. The problem is that everything happens so quickly, the customer is playing hardball (buyers know they have the upper hand this time of year), and the rep needs to close the business.

It’s time to break out of the vicious cycle that happens every December and often enough throughout the year as well. To do so, we need to look at the underlying causes – not counting the tremendous pressure on sales to make quota, which we’ve already covered and isn’t going to change. Instead, we’ll focus on what’s in our control:
- Many ERP manufacturing systems only consider material availability, not available capacity.
- Sales doesn’t have visibility into what’s possible.
- Adjusting production schedules to accommodate orders is time-consuming and often creates more problems than it solves.
SyncManufacturing^TM can solve these challenges. The software’s Capable-to-Promise Date (CTPD) functionality looks not only at material availability, but also at capacity. What-if analyses can be performed to determine realistic delivery dates, given the current production load. This helps sales avoid the mistake of over-promising, and it gives them an advantage. They don’t have to turn away business that they could accept if only they had visibility into what was possible.

It’s worth noting that this frees up production planners as well. They’re no longer responding to urgent requests from sales asking for shorter delivery times or readjusting schedules to accommodate sales already made. When an order is accepted, the scheduling engine in SyncManufacturing automatically adjusts the production schedule, improving asset utilization and minimizing lead times for all orders.

Sales and Production are just two groups that benefit from applying Demand-Driven Manufacturing principles. If you’d like to learn more about the enterprise-wide benefits, download: The Enterprise-wide Impact of Synchronized Planning, Scheduling, and Production Execution.
December 27, 2017
3 Prerequisites to a Modern Demand-Driven Supply Chain

In 2010, Gartner estimated that manufacturers outsourced about 70% of the products they make to other manufacturers. I haven’t seen a recent statistic, but that still feels about right.

So, it only makes sense that, for most manufacturers, implementing modern demand-driven or pull-manufacturing techniques will require collaboration with many partners across the entire supply chain.

Before you can collaborate with your supply chain partners, you need to get your own house in order. Here are three things you need to do:

#1 Digitize. The demand-driven supply chain runs on data—the right data in the hands of the right people at the right time. Before you can make this happen, you may need to address a few data issues in your own operations. It’s not unusual for us to work with companies that have two or three ERP systems, especially if they’ve grown through acquisition, in addition to several point solutions for things like maintenance, scheduling, time management and so on.

For those of you who have been in the industry a while, the idea of a data standardization and consolidation project may send you reaching for the Tylenol bottle. You’ll be glad to know that with the right technology, you can get through this relatively headache-free. For example, we helped Orbital ATK, an aerospace manufacturer of custom composite parts, connect over 100 individual data sources to collect data from more than 61,000 tags. At a recent conference, Paul Hardy, Application Architect at Orbital ATK, gave a fascinating presentation on how they use this data to improve operations. You can access his talk on our YouTube page here.

#2 Synchronize. The next prerequisite is to synchronize everything (people, processes, materials, machines and data) at the order level. If production flow isn’t aligned to customer orders inside your own facilities, you can’t deliver the right data to your supply chain partners.

This synchronization alone can have a dramatic impact on performance. We worked with GIW Materials, a manufacturer of heavy-duty centrifugal slurry pumps, to help them lower cycle times and improve on-time performance. The crux of the solution was to optimize product flow and control cycle time by synchronizing everything to orders: pattern information, flasks, combination equipment, engineering revisions and capacity. The impact was so noticeable to their customers that GIW doubled their revenues in two and a half years. You can access their case study here.

#3 Visualize. Once you’ve digitized your data and synchronized production flow to customer orders, you need to put the right data into the hands of the right people. These days, there is almost no limit to the amount of data we can collect. In the demand-driven supply chain, more is not necessarily better because you can easily overwhelm people. Here are the three areas where you should focus your efforts:

Demand and supply – visibility and synchronization of the demand signal, material and resource availability to drive uninterrupted production flow.

Production flow indicators – visibility into stock buffer levels, constraints, shop floor events, etc.

Priorities – adapting to demand and communicating changes across the supply chain.

Pulling it all together

If the products you manufacture are heavily reliant on outsourced components or services, you may not have the luxury of waiting long before you roll out your demand-driven manufacturing approach to the rest of your supply chain. This was the case with a microchip manufacturer we recently worked with.

A growing part of this manufacturer’s business was to receive parts from OEMs and supply them to contract manufacturers. Both the OEMs and the contract manufacturers gave the manufacturer forecasts, but the formats were different, and like all forecasts, not always reliable. As a result, they were constantly in reactive mode, manually standardizing data from multiple sources in spreadsheets while juggling variances in supply and demand. We worked with them to consolidate the data into a single screen view that showed real-time, aggregated replenishment, inventory, and order status information. We also created a platform that allowed them to provide similar views to their OEM and contract manufacturing partners.

Related resource: White paper: E2E Supply Chain Visibility Technology is Here

November 20, 2017

“test”