Fast Cycle Production

As one who first started using simulation modeling in the early 90’s, it has been both exciting and educational to see how simulation modeling has evolved, especially within my own company. In those early days, simulation modeling was primarily used by "engineering types" for engineering purposes, such as determining the requirements capabilities of certain machines under various conditions.
 
As far as I know, I was one of the first to take simulation modeling out of the engineering department and put it into the hands of production people. I combined this "tool” with some production values that I subscribe to and used simulation to determine how a manufacturing plant or even a single department could improve their process productivity by analyzing potential changes to a process before they were implemented – and proving it!

In those days, simulation wasn’t trusted because there was a verification issue with simulation. Verification was described simply by saying, “To what degree can we be certain that the model is telling us the truth?”  The old saying, “garbage in, garbage out” was a very real problem when it came to credibility. The problem with verification in those days was pretty much a function of whether the simulator, rather than the simulation, was credible and could be trusted. The thought of making a very expensive change to a layout, or the purchase of expensive machines based on the output of a simulation was scary to many managers, and was a hard obstacle to deal with.

With the help of a new generation of simulation modeling software that not only gave visual presentations that actually looked like a manufacturing line, but displayed specialized reports and statistical graphics, the ball game really changed. Add to that the fact that I brought to the table a new methodology, combined with a new set of production values, and you had a new, fresh approach to the use of simulation modeling.

My new methodology for the use of simulation made me one of the more sought-after consultants in the startup team that eventually became known as the IBM Consulting Services. I had found my “niche” in this new team and I remained 90% billable right up to the time I left IBM to start my own company: Fast Cycle Production Consulting. With simulation as my primary tool, I kept busy.

My goal as a consultant has always been to give my clients a tried and true methodology for continuous improvement long after I had left them. Since the background talents necessary to make full use of simulation were mainly held by engineers, it was they that received the bulk of my simulation training. But the simulation people were only a part of the teams that I worked with. The rest were manufacturing people.  I trained my simulators to work with managers, leads and other manufacturing people to jointly create the models that were used to create a business-case for specific changes that the team would be recommending to management for approval.
 
The methodology was simple and repeatable.  The first step was to flow-chart the process under study to a high level of detail; analyze and tag each step of the process as to its value add/non-value add properties, and then determine from this value-add analysis, the "Top 10 “opportunities” for change. The top ten opportunities were then prioritized with the “Low Hanging Fruit” opportunities, which were placed at the very top of the list.

The so called “Low Hanging Fruit” as I called them, were opportunities that would be the first to be analyzed using simulation. They were so-named because of their relatively low-cost vs. high payback potential based on the following criteria:

1.      Least implementation cost
2.      Highest sustainable short term payback
3.      Highest favorable impact on cycle time and MCE (Manufacturing Cycle Efficiency) based on Little’s Law