What is important part count or utilization

[chrisryn]

I want to know in your opinion. At the end of the day what is more important part count or machine utilization in a production shop. After I get a few response I'll give the results of a test I conducted.

[RICHARD ZASTROW]

Why not both? Are they mutually exclusive?

Dick Z

[Geof]

How can you separate the two?

Imagine that at the end of a day you have a part count of X and a machine utilization of 50%; obviously if you improved your machine utilization to 75% your part count would go to 1.5X.

[ImanCarrot]

Bit of a daft question if you don't mind me saying.

Part Count dun matter if you're not making X profit on each part, machine utilisation is only important if it's making you money- spend 10 hours a day making stuff that isn't making you profit and you'll know what I mean. Factor in electricity, wages etc etc, you can have a machine running at a loss all day and that would not be very good, would it?

If you make 1000 parts a day at 1 pence loss per part then that ain't too good. make 1 part at 1000 pence profit and well, I think I make my point.

The both are tied together.

[chrisryn]

Here is why I posted this question.

I did a simulation run of 1 hour

Run 1 was orginal program, fixture, and procedure.
It resulted in 80 parts ran in an hour with a 50% utilization.
Cycle time was 1:34. Load/Unload time was 1:32

Run 2 was new program. Fixture and procedure was same as run 1
It resulted in 120 parts ran in an hour with 20% utilization.
Cycle time was 33 secs. Load/Unload was same as run 1


So in a production facility which run is better.
I say run 2 since it put more parts out the door.
Others say run 1 since all they care about is utilization.

Thats my argument, and why I posted this poll.

Edit due to typo.

[Geof]

I concede ; improving part count with a lower machine utilization seems counterintuitive.

[g-codeguy]

You are looking at it by comparing only how long it takes to run one set up. How about using the number of set-ups run in eight hours for a comparison? Looked at that way scenario number one could theoretically run 160 set ups while scenario number two could run 230 set-ups.

I would consider 2 to be a better utilization of the machine. How about you?

[ImanCarrot]

So in a production facility which run is better.

Neither unless you know whether you're making a Profit or Loss on every part that's spat out of the machine.

ie: if you're making a profit on each part then case 2 looks better, if you're making a loss then case 1 is better, unless you have employees that you need to keep busy at a loss so you got them for future work that'll make you money.

In actual fact... even if you're making only a small profit it's still not worth making stuff, you'll wear your machine out unless you've amortized the capital costs.

There's too many factors, but at the end of the day it's MONEY that matters

[chrisryn]

I agree in a typical shop that would be true. 99% of our production runs are profitable very rarely do we machine something and loose money on it. If we do its due to an operator failure and have to rework large orders due to scrap. So in this issue money isn't a factor.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by ImanCarrot Neither unless you know whether you're making a Profit or Loss on every part that's spat out of the machine..... ....you'll wear your machine out unless you've amortized the capital costs.... .....at the end of the day it's MONEY that matters

But read the detail of the analysis:

For Run 2 the machine utilization was reduced while the part count was improved.

Assuming the parts are making profit this reduces wear and tear on the machine and maximizes money at the end of the day.

Anyone who thinks that Run 1 is better is, to put it politely, not a good businessperson.

EDIT:

The only way to improve on Run 2 is figure out how to load the machine while it is running; i.e. use some type of pallet system so the changeover from a finished batch of parts to the next batch is a few seconds; then both part count and machine utilization improve.

[chrisryn]

Originally Posted by Geof But read the detail of the analysis: For Run 2 the machine utilization was reduced while the part count was improved. Assuming the parts are making profit this reduces wear and tear on the machine and maximizes money at the end of the day. Anyone who thinks that Run 1 is better is, to put it politely, not a good businessperson. EDIT: The only way to improve on Run 2 is figure out how to load the machine while it is running; i.e. use some type of pallet system so the changeover from a finished batch of parts to the next batch is a few seconds; then both part count and machine utilization improve.

In most cases that is correct, but you have the pallet change that increases cycle time and will reduce part count in the end. This issue deals with a company that doesn't see the machining side of the company as a "Machine shop." The consider it a production shop. It is run completly different than most machine shops I have worked in. I would go into detail about the differences but instead I'll list the only simularity to this shop compared to a typical machine shop. They both have machines.

[Geof]

Originally Posted by chrisryn In most cases that is correct, but you have the pallet change that increases cycle time and will reduce part count in the end.......

Your logic baffles me here, and I am not trying to be argumentative, planning for best machine utilization is what has been keeping me busy for the past few years, I am interested in how you support your logic.

Yes there is the time to change the pallet but if that time is less than it takes to reload a stationary machine you will improve both part count and machine utilization. Your example went from 1:34 run, 1:32 reload to 0:33 run, 1:32 reload; if you could somehow reduce the 1:32 reload time you will make more parts. And even if the run time increased slightly, so long as this was less than the reduction in the reload time you would still make more parts.