View Full Version : Benchmarks for Plastic Injection Molding - Let's Share!
Helmut Jilling 15th May 2006, 02:46 PM I am collecting some Benchmarks for plastic injection molding, for a project I'm working on.
Anyone willing to share their best performance for benchmarks?
Ext. PPM
Int. PPM
Int. Scrap
On Time Delivery Performance
Productivity
Unscheduled Downtime
Mold changeover times
I'll share the composite results, if we get enough answers.
Thanks. H Jilling
Helmut Jilling 16th May 2006, 08:49 AM I am surprised there are no takers on this? With all the experts posting on this board, does no one have any good numbers they are willing to post..?
Let's open it to other industries as well. Does not have to be plastic only, but list the kind of process so we can sort it appropriately.
Thanks, Hjilling
I am collecting some Benchmarks for plastic injection molding, for a project I'm working on.
Anyone willing to share their best performance for benchmarks?
Ext. PPM
Int. PPM
Int. Scrap
On Time Delivery Performance
Productivity
Unscheduled Downtime
Mold changeover times
I'll share the composite results, if we get enough answers.
Thanks. H Jilling
Caster 16th May 2006, 09:50 PM I am surprised there are no takers on this? With all the experts posting on this board, does no one have any good numbers they are willing to post..?Let's open it to other industries as well. Does not have to be plastic only, but list the kind of process so we can sort it appropriately.Thanks, Hjilling
It does seem odd there are no takers. Your list looks like key business metrics, which we all should have at our fingertips...
There are tons of free, semi, free and very costly BM studies out there.
Several hours on google will bury you in free data.
http://www.plantemoran.com/NR/rdonlyres/CF825484-74E8-4DF3-836B-709AEFF608EC/0/article_modernplastics.pdf
Years ago we spent big bucks for a foundry benchmark report. Surprisingly we blew away almost ever measure in it. We ended up not getting too proud of ourselves, the best of a bad lot doesn't mean very much.
And the best in class result needs no report, somewhere some company is at 0 ppm defects, 0 die change time, obscene profitability, etc.
If I recall QS 9000 suggested comparing our metrics to benchmarks, that seems to have dropped out of TS16949, a missed opportunity I think.
Helmut Jilling 16th May 2006, 09:58 PM It does seem odd there are no takers. Your list looks like key business metrics, which we all should have at our fingertips...
There are tons of free, semi, free and very costly BM studies out there.
Several hours on google will bury you in free data.
http://www.plantemoran.com/NR/rdonlyres/CF825484-74E8-4DF3-836B-709AEFF608EC/0/article_modernplastics.pdf
Yeah, I'm surprised too. There must be some companies on this board with some good numbers? I have some numbers from my clients that provided, but I wanted to broaden the population. I'll look at the link you sent me thanks.
If I recall QS 9000 suggested comparing our metrics to benchmarks, that seems to have dropped out of TS16949, a missed opportunity I think.
Actually, it is still there, but as a note in cl 8.4.1.
Helmut Jilling 17th May 2006, 02:53 PM Ok, so far no posters. 73 reviews , but no posts. If you don't want to post, at least tell me why? Thanks, Hjilling
Crusader 17th May 2006, 04:13 PM I would post if I could but I don't track/have access to that data in my company.
rangotango 18th July 2006, 04:00 PM ext ppm 3000 per month
int ppm 3000
delivery > 97%
Helmut Jilling 19th July 2006, 01:52 AM ext ppm 3000 per month
int ppm 3000
delivery > 97%
Why thank you. I had given up hoping anyone would post anything to that.
I am curious, that your internal and external PPM would both be 3000? Is that a unique coincidence?
gszekely 19th July 2006, 02:09 PM Hello Hjilling !
I was busy. There are many sources.
Check first this, and post your quastion in that forum as weel. Or contact the editor of IMM.
http://www.immnet.com/community/benchmarking.html
The data was not filled up, for the last few years, but it is available.
His mail adress is available on this topic:
http://www.immnet.com/dcforum/DCForumID10/1.html
Jeff Sloan
jsloan@immnet.com
Editor
IMM
I"m shore that he will help.
BR
György
Helmut Jilling 19th July 2006, 08:00 PM Hello Hjilling !
I was busy. There are many sources.
Check first this, and post your quastion in that forum as weel. Or contact the editor of IMM.
http://www.immnet.com/community/benchmarking.html
The data was not filled up, for the last few years, but it is available.
His mail adress is available on this topic:
http://www.immnet.com/dcforum/DCForumID10/1.html
Jeff Sloan
jsloan@immnet.com
Editor
IMM
I"m shore that he will help.
BR
György
Thank you, but I think the information is too old now to be relevant. Much has changed in the last 3 years. I have much info available from audits, but I was most interested in info as to the benchmarks of my fellow visitors to the Cove. Thanks.
gszekely 20th July 2006, 04:10 PM Hello Hjiling !
So let's tighten the molding area. What are you interested in ? The IM industry covers a wide range. I'm interested in some segment of it.
Let see how we can classify
1)Type of moldigs
General molding propose
2K molding
IMD molding
Lens, display and other transparent
Thin wall molding
and the lis goes on
2) Molding machine you have in shoop
what year of purchese
hidraulic, all electric and so on
what branch: Nisse, Toyo, Sumitom,Engel, Fanuc, Krauss-Maffei and so on
3) Tooling
who is your tool supplier, first class or not
accuracy and tool validation process
4) Resin used and resin suppliers (ex. Pa or not, GE or noname, etc)
If you don't have all the above info, your benchmarkin effort may fail, or lead to wrong conclusions.
Just my opinion.
György
Helmut Jilling 21st July 2006, 12:19 AM Hello Hjiling !
So let's tighten the molding area. What are you interested in ? The IM industry covers a wide range. I'm interested in some segment of it.
Let see how we can classify
1)Type of moldigs
General molding propose
2K molding
IMD molding
Lens, display and other transparent
Thin wall molding
and the lis goes on
2) Molding machine you have in shoop
what year of purchese
hidraulic, all electric and so on
what branch: Nisse, Toyo, Sumitom,Engel, Fanuc, Krauss-Maffei and so on
3) Tooling
who is your tool supplier, first class or not
accuracy and tool validation process
4) Resin used and resin suppliers (ex. Pa or not, GE or noname, etc)
If you don't have all the above info, your benchmarkin effort may fail, or lead to wrong conclusions.
Just my opinion.
György
My original question was in response to some discussions going on at the time, both on the Cove, and with clients. I had some benchmarks from some clients, and wanted to broaden it to include the Cove members. Yes, we could get extremely specific, but the actual intent was to determine general world-class benchmarks: PPM, Scrap, Productivity, along those lines. There are too many variables from company to company to attempt to do finely defined comparisons unless one were to go into formal deep research, which is far more specific than I intended.
Actually, I had even broadened the question to include other industries.
Phil P 21st July 2006, 08:11 AM Why havent you posted your data Hjiling?
Helmut Jilling 21st July 2006, 10:31 PM Why havent you posted your data Hjiling?
Fair question. But, you will notice, I am a consultant/auditor. I don't have any data of my own, because I don't run a plant.
However, I do have some very good world-class benchmarks of some of the clients I have worked with. I can't mention names (confidentiality agreements), but the data is excellent. It is an indication of what can be done, in ISO and TS, when one understands and implents this system well.
This "faulty" system, (as is being discussed in a different thread,) has enabled a number of clients to maintain 99.9-100% delivery, and 0-10ppm for many, many months. In at least two particular cases, where I have actual data, for 24 months plus, and counting. Although, there are a number of my clients who have gotten to that level, more or less.
The point is, this stuff works. It's not rocket science, but it's not easy either. But, with good guidance and training, and diligent work, it is doable and sustainable. That is what we need to draw from this.
(The original request for data was prompted because a Plastics Mgr. at one client was confident that he was pretty darn good. I wanted objective benchmarks to show him he still had a little left to learn. Needed to take him down a notch so he would listen).
|
|