Analysis Of Lean Production Delivery System

The people of the world had a strong demand for up and coming products, so factories needed a new method for coming about creating products. “The Encarta graphic showing Henry Ford’s Assembly Line” (Document 4) shows that in one 8 hour work period, 1 man could put together a single car, whereas 5 men in an assembly line could put together 10 cars in an 8 hour work period. “The Encarta Graphic showing the factory” (Document 3) shows that the production of goods increasing due to the train outside used to transport mass quantities of goods, and the steam coming out of the top

This manufacturing process attains at high rates of output with a low per unit, with lower costs expected as volume rises. Mass production methods are centered around two general principles: (1) the division and specialization of human labor; and (2) the use of tools, machinery, and other equipment, usually automated, in the production of interchangeable parts and Countless factors came into play in the early 20th century to make mass production happen. Henry Ford's decided to create an economical automobile that everyday people could afford was a risk. He prospered in persuading his business partners to back his idea through sheer fortitude. The history of machine-driven innovation also played vital role. The rich talent much like California's Silicon Valley in the late 20th century permitted Henry Ford to employ talented workers. The migration growth in Michigan provided the Ford with uneducated workers for the assembly lines. But Ford's resolve to make Model T's and only Model T's helped in the progress of mass production methods based on the moving belt assembly line. The process was broken down into its simplest parts. As each component moved down the line, the pieces were fitted to form the whole. Henry Ford stressed precision; experts took note to the reliability of his automobiles. The assembly line gave Ford factories a fluid appearance and radically increased productivity. Without the assembly line Henry Ford would not have been able to keep up with consumer

The human race has made leaps and bounds in manufacturing of goods needed not only to survive, but to make our lives easier and more efficient. From the earliest recorded history, man has made the tools he needed to survive or gain a completive advantage. In the not too distant past, 100 years or so, we had skilled craftsman who had specific skills and talents. In a small town you would have a blacksmith, a tailor, a farmer, etc. Each of these people learned their skills through years of apprenticeships, and the items they made were unique. Their processes often took months or even years to complete. Since these times we as a society have progressed from craftsmanship to assembly lines. Even now we have robotic manufacturing,

Under the lean production approaches, a number of factors are essential to the process for

The factory system is a system that uses water and steam power to run machines to produce goods, this system replaced the domestic system, which was less efficient as it required the use of hand tools and was a very time consuming process. It was later perfected with the introduction of standardised parts invented by Eli Whitney in the late 1700’s, the assembly line developed by Henry Ford in the 1900’s which brought the division of labour to the workers, as each worker only had to work on one part of the good as it moved down the assembly line. The Factory system is an example of an evolution as it evolved from hand tools and manual labour to an automatic process which could produce mass produce goods

Initially at Ford motors, production used to take place by keeping the vehicle at one position and making the workers move in and about gathering the several parts together. This method unfortunately was a very tedious and time-consuming process. In view of this fact, Henry Ford appointed Taylor to monitor the operations taking place. Ford applied the scientific management

Even though Fordism revolutionised motor vehicle production industry it has a lot of disadvantages. Assembly line and specialisation result in less skilled work force, because workers are only trained to do one specific task and are only required to be using one skill (Clarke, 1990). Moreover, specialisation in this extend leads to inflexibility. Engineers become more specialised in one action they are doing and forget about their other specialities with time (Degan, 2011). High level of specialisation also results in small range of products and slow adjustment to change (Smith, 2011). This has proven to be a big issue because with time market demanded more diverse choice of cars than what Ford’s company offered. Another problem is also that working in an assembly line can become very boring and monotonous with time. It is very hard to motivate employees to perform their best work if they are bored.

The General Motor’s president, Alfred Sloan found out two critical issues that impeded his company to be succeeded in mass production and completed the mass production system based on Ford’s deficiency. Subsequently, Sloan resolved his firm’s problems step by step. Firstly, he established the decentralized divisions operated by some senior managers, who would share the profits with Sloan. Later, he created a product range from cheap to expensive that could satisfy most of buyers. From Sloan’s case, seniority seemed like a key to determine the workers, and it was also a basis for job assignments. Mass production became very popular in 1955 because many U.S. companies used Ford’s plant practices and Sloan’s management means to improve their productivity. At that time, the U.S. automobile industry led the world’s car manufacture with more than seven billion car were sold. The spread of mass production was not only in the United States, but also in Europe because many craft-production companies applied mass production for their products. However, the problems occurred, particularly, in the workforce. Workers figured out that the mass production work was unprofitable, and this caused the stagnant of mass products in the United States as well as Europe. This was the time for a new kind of production: “lean production”.

This synthesised, scientifically managed workflow was meant to improve labour productivity and economic efficiency. And thirdly, rather than having machinery at the centre of the factory and workers moving to and from the product, assembly lines were used. This meant that the workers remained stationary and the product simply flowed past them (Murray, 1989). They were essentially treated as robots and dictated by machines; operating to the duplicated, repetitive tasks daily and not given the opportunity to express potential for advancement or improvement.

This essay is going to analyze a case study based on lean thinking principles and techniques. It is could divide in four significant parts. First, to outline the definitions of Lean manufacturing philosophy and applied the strategies to achieving, next create future state Value Stream Map, Furthermore justification Lean Six Sigma tools and techniques, which would appropriate, and critically discussed the key successful should his idea to the Evenort Company.

The goal of research described application lean manufacturing to improving the manufacturing process on an assembly line in a car plant. Currently manufacturing process have so many disanvantagees,such as low efficiency, high cost, mass production quality is not stable, the accuracy is not high, and more labor and labor intensity,and these led to increased costs and less profit. Also sometimes the company cant achieve planned daily production target due to some activity wastes, which not added value to the production process.These are not conducive to the company’s future development. In order to make the company more competitive, company must have a new strategy to solve these problems. To achieve and sustain manufacturing excellence, you have to eliminate waste across your global production

The performance comparison was done using the same 439 Industrial project data that was utilized for the correlation analysis. The three delivery systems compared are Design-Build, CM-at-Risk and the traditional Design-Bid-Build systems. The study aims to find significant difference between the performances of fast-track delivery systems (DB and CMR) and the traditional system. The project performance was compared in terms of schedule, cost and change performance using the same metrics as done for the Spearman’s correlation analysis.

The Toyota Production System (TPS) is a lean production Operations Management technique, steeped in the philosophy of operational efficiency, operational sustainability, operational effectiveness, and quality, with focus on waste elimination, innovation and human rights (Toyota Motor Corporation, 2015a; Toyota Motor Manufacturing, 2015). At its foundation, TPS utilizes the guiding ideologies of “Just-In-Time” production, or efficient resource management, and “Jidoka,” or quality assurance (Toyota Motor Manufacturing, 2015).

In defining how best to apply lean tools and techniques to the optimization of supply chain processes, the systemic structure of a firm's value chain needs to first be taken into account, with each specific sector of the supply chain considered an integral part. Of the many excellent insights gained from the study of Lean Logistics (Jones, Hines, Rich, 1997) one of the most significant is how the planning and execution of supply chain optimization processes must take a more strategic view in solving complex logistics problems, even if they appear to be isolated in a given area. Throughout the many examples of the logistics, supply chain and procurement processes that comprise the Toyota Production System (TPS) the authors succeed show that the selection of lean tools and techniques to optimize supply chain processes is more predicated on the context of a given challenge, not its isolated occurrence. This strategic view of supply chain optimization succeeds in taking into account the constraints of product strategy, people's roles and tasks, and the processes that unify the enterprise together. The outcome of this perspective is a model for optimizing supply chain processes that fits equally as well distribution-centric and manufacturing-oriented companies (Zylstra, 2005). The authors of Lean Logistics are careful to point out early in the article that the most popular approaches to

In former times, after the industrial revolution. The technological discoveries and the constant evolution of the companies impelled these to optimize the resources of manufacture in the jobs. also to implement new production methods. The current market that is becoming more competitive pressures companies to have a flexible system of products that gives the possibility to change and adapt to the needs of the customer. A lo largo del tiempo, pero ciertamente después de la revolución industrial, que los descubrimientos tecnológicos y la constante evolución de las empresas impulsaron a estas, a de optimizar los recursos de manufactura en los puestos de trabajo e implementar nuevos métodos de