je.st

Home › setup

Tag: setup

SETUP REDUCTION BASICS

2017-06-19 12:12:53| Anderson Tool and Die

Two weeks ago we listed some of the steps required to set up a job. With those steps in mind, the first and most important task in setup reduction is to divide those steps into INTERNAL and EXTERNAL setup steps. Simply stated, Internal setup requires the machine be stopped. External setup does not require the machine be stopped. Recall our list of setup steps, and divide that list into those steps that can be done while the machine is running, and those that cannot be done while the machine is running. Of the 37 steps listed (I should have numbered them), only 8 are internal steps, and all the rest are external. The first internal step is number 22: Test load part into machine. Be careful, the distinction between internal and external is based upon needing the machine for the action, not upon whether the setup person is available to perform the task. According to the experts, if we make a serious effort to treat as much of the setup operation as external as possible, then the time needed for internal setup (the time the machine must be stopped) can be reduced by 30% to 50%. Mastering the distinction between internal and external setup, and then performing the external set up during production is the key to SMED. (Setup reduction is often called SMED, shorthand for Single Minute Exchange of Die. The Single Minute means less than 10 minutes). It is also worth emphasizing that, for the purposes of this discussion, setup time is measured in “idle machine-hours”, not man-hours. Per Shigeo Shingo, the recognized master and creator of SMED, “In traditional setup operations, internal and external setup are not separated; what could be done as externally is done as internal setup, and machines therefore remain idle for extended periods”. This passage from Shingo’s SMED book is quoted only to point out that the way we historically have operated is no different than other shops throughout the world. But now that we know the better way, we can, and must improve.To summarize, SMED’s objective is to cut the setup time to zero, thus economically permitting lower quantities per order, faster delivery, and greater varieties of parts per day. If done wisely, it will also cut the total man hours to do setups. Distinguishing internal from external steps is where it all starts. By now everyone is thinking, “How am I going to get all that external setup for the next job done while still running production?” That’s the subject for next week!

Tags: reduction setup basics setup reduction

SETUP and STANDARDIZATION - THE BALANCING ACT

2017-06-19 12:12:53| Anderson Tool and Die

The ultimate setup time is zero setup time. Theoretically the ultimate process standardization would use only one tool, one holding device, and one program for all parts. That would mean zero setup, always. Unfortunately, things do not work that way. The point to remember is, the more we can standardize, the more we automatically minimize setup. (Note: Quality always comes first, so If quality requires another tool, then the best we can do is use another standard tool.) One of the prime advantages of standardization is the minimizing of tool setup. Yet, one of the reasons we often substitute one tool for another is for productivity advantages. Let’s see here: on one hand we keep a standardized tool in the machine to avoid setup time losses to gain productivity, and on the other hand we change to specialized tools to gain productivity. This sounds contradictory! That’s because both actions are taken to gain productivity. Which process yields the best productivity? Here comes the balancing act. We have to very carefully compare the advantages and disadvantages of a standard tool with the advantages and disadvantages of a special tool in order to determine which choice minimizes the total cost of the process, including setup time. We are essentially comparing setup time savings using the standard tool versus potentially improved run time savings, minus setup time, if we change to another tool. The best process wins by producing lower cost products. Standardization often wins if all of the other factors, such as the costs associated with selecting, sourcing, purchasing, storing, tracking, and setup of specialized tooling are considered, Be aware of the significant hidden costs associated with having “just one more tool” in the cabinet. Setup often costs more than expected making the costs even more difficult to recoup; especially with the smaller lot sizes were seeing. Nonstandard tooling, however, is always lurking in the shadows calling out to us “Use me, I can run it better/faster”. We all want to run better/faster, so we are easily lured into the better/faster trap. Before we know it we have special tools for every job, costing setup time for ourselves, plus the hidden costs mentioned above of adding “just one more tool” to the inventory. The bottom line is; we must carefully balance standardization with specialization. As a general rule, standardization should always win unless there is overwhelming proof that specialization is cost justified. Then, the last question to be answered before adding a new tool to the inventory is, “What current tools can be eliminated if we do add this new tool to our tool box? On one hand we want to minimize the number of tools we use, and at the same time we must constantly evaluate new tools and technologies in order to have the most productive tools available to use! Only one thing is certain; standardized tooling helps setup reduction.

Tags: act setup balancing standardization

Specialist Services Announces the Setup of a New Group Company in Delhi

2016-10-12 15:08:00| Offshore Technology

Specialist Services Group recently announced they have established a new Group Company in Delhi NCR, India. The new company, Specialist Engineering Services Private was formally inaugurated on 20 September 2016. The company's managing director, Manoj

Tags: services group company specialist