M
Matt Swartwood
Good afternoon all. Unfortunately it seems that lately I am only on here when I have a question or need help. For that, I apologize; business has had me on the road or in the air the last few months.
I do; however, have a question to those who have dealt with Metal stamping, primarily Brake Presses. We are a job shop on a large scale and at the moment produce about 10,000 different part numbers. Our brake press department currently and consistently contributes the largest amount of product to the PPM. My question is how do you error-proof a process that is 80% operator driven and 20% machine/product variation without hindering production demands? It is very difficult to build guides or locating pins due to the amount of movement and different positions required to manufacture the part. In addition, brake press tooling is considered perishable tooling and is not generally purchased to run a single part; more like a multitude of parts.
Our company is very prevention oriented and I am highly opposed to resorting to detection methods (check fixtures or 100% inspection) just because we have hit a stumbling block. Although the check fixtures would prevent product from getting out to the customer, the amount of investment it would take to build fixtures for every part and the productivity losses incurred with the additional inspection is just not feasible.
I believe that we have a much broader problem than just the lack of error proofing in the department, but still think it should be one of the items addressed. I am starting a fairly detailed benchmarking campain, which includes the comparison of the following (but not limited to):
--Orientation of new hires and previous experience
--Training program and the verification of effectiveness
--Length of service at their current position
--Pay rate and the class of technicians they are able to acquire (we are not in an industrial area).
--Turnover rates
--Mistake-proofing methodologies
--Technological advancements available for equipment
--Types of product produced
--Types and quality of material used
--Customer specific requirements
Having said all of that, I hope to identify what is causing the higher PPM rate (may be a multitude of things). Anyway, back to the subject; any suggestions on what we could do to improve the mistake proofing methodologies for our brake presses? Any advice you could offer would greatly be appreciated.
I do; however, have a question to those who have dealt with Metal stamping, primarily Brake Presses. We are a job shop on a large scale and at the moment produce about 10,000 different part numbers. Our brake press department currently and consistently contributes the largest amount of product to the PPM. My question is how do you error-proof a process that is 80% operator driven and 20% machine/product variation without hindering production demands? It is very difficult to build guides or locating pins due to the amount of movement and different positions required to manufacture the part. In addition, brake press tooling is considered perishable tooling and is not generally purchased to run a single part; more like a multitude of parts.
Our company is very prevention oriented and I am highly opposed to resorting to detection methods (check fixtures or 100% inspection) just because we have hit a stumbling block. Although the check fixtures would prevent product from getting out to the customer, the amount of investment it would take to build fixtures for every part and the productivity losses incurred with the additional inspection is just not feasible.
I believe that we have a much broader problem than just the lack of error proofing in the department, but still think it should be one of the items addressed. I am starting a fairly detailed benchmarking campain, which includes the comparison of the following (but not limited to):
--Orientation of new hires and previous experience
--Training program and the verification of effectiveness
--Length of service at their current position
--Pay rate and the class of technicians they are able to acquire (we are not in an industrial area).
--Turnover rates
--Mistake-proofing methodologies
--Technological advancements available for equipment
--Types of product produced
--Types and quality of material used
--Customer specific requirements
Having said all of that, I hope to identify what is causing the higher PPM rate (may be a multitude of things). Anyway, back to the subject; any suggestions on what we could do to improve the mistake proofing methodologies for our brake presses? Any advice you could offer would greatly be appreciated.