METHODS ENGINEERING:Within-Operation Analysis

By -
3.5. Within-Operation Analysis

This section will discuss fish diagrams, decision structure tables, and checklists.

3.5.1. Fish Diagrams

Fish diagrams graphically depict a multidimensional list. See Figures 20 and 21. Professor Ishikawa developed them while on a quality control project for Kawasaki Steel; they are the ‘‘cause’’ side of cause-and-effect diagrams. The diagram gives an easily understood overview of a problem.

Start with the ‘‘effect’’ (a fishhead), a specific problem. Then add the ‘‘cause’’ (the fish body), composed of the backbone and other bones. A good diagram will have three or more levels of bones (backboneA, major bones, minor bones on the major bones). There are various strategies for defining the major bones. Consider the 4 M’s: manpower, machines, methods, materials. Or use the 4 P’s: policies, procedures, people, plant. Or be creative.

Figures 20 and 21 were used at Bridgestone to reduce the variability of the viscosity of the splicing cement used in radial tires. Figure 21 shows the variability of the four operators before and after the quality circle studied the problem.

A very effective technique is to post the fish diagram on a wall near the problem operation. Then invite everyone to comment on possible problems and solutions; many quality problems can be reduced with better communication.

3.5.2. Decision Structure Tables

Decision structure tables are a print version of ‘‘if, then’’ statements (the ‘‘what if’’ scenario) in computer programs. They also are known as protocols or contingency tables; see Table 21 for an example. They unambiguously describe complex, multivariable, multirule decision systems. A spread- sheet is a computerized decision structure table.

Decision structure tables give better quality decisions due to (1) better decision analysis (higher- quality personnel make the decision, using complex analysis techniques if necessary) and (2) less time pressure at the time the decision is made. They are a game plan worked out in advance, not in the heat of battle. However, in addition, decision structure tables force a good methods analysis because all possibilities are considered systematically. The tables also are good training aids.

3.5.3. Checklists

Checklists allow a novice to use the distilled expertise of others. Table 6 is a checklist to prioritize potential ergonomic problems; it focuses on force, duration, and repetition for various body parts.

SNAG-0039

SNAG-0040
clip_image005Checklists can also focus more precisely. Table 7 is a checklist for just the upper extremity. Table 8 is a checklist to prioritize potential ergonomic problems due to posture; it focuses on force and duration for neck, trunk, and general body.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DUALITY THEORY:THE ESSENCE OF DUALITY THEORY

By -
Image
THE ESSENCE OF DUALITY THEORY Given our standard form for the primal problem at the left (perhaps after conversion from another form), its dual problem has the form shown to the right. Thus, with the primal problem in maximizatio n form, the dual problem is in minimization form instead. Furthermore, the dual problem uses exactly the same pa r amete r s as the primal problem, but in different locations, as summarized below. 1. The coefficients in the objective function of the primal problem are the right-hand sides of the functional constraints in the dual problem. 2. The right-hand sides of the functional constraints in the primal problem are the coef- ficients in the objective function of the dual problem. 3. The coefficients of a variable in the functional constraints of the primal problem are the coefficients in a functional constraint of the dual problem. To highlight the comparison, now look at these same two problems in matrix notation (as introduced at the beginn...
Read more

NETWORK OPTIMIZATION MODELS:THE MINIMUM SPANNING TREE PROBLEM

By -
Image
THE MINIMUM SPANNING TREE PROBLEM The minimum spanning tree problem bears some similarities to the main version of the shortest-path problem presented in the preceding section. In both cases, an undi r ecte d and connected network is being considered, where the given information includes some mea- sure of the positive length (distance, cost, time, etc.) associated with each link. Both problems also involve choosing a set of links that have the shortest total length among all sets of links that satisfy a certain property. For the shortest-path problem, this property is that the chosen links must provide a path between the origin and the destination. For the minimum spanning tree problem, the required property is that the chosen links must provide a path between ea c h pair of nodes. The minimum spanning tree problem can be summarized as follows: 1. You are given the nodes of a network but not the links. Instead, you are given the po- tential links and the positive length for each ...
Read more

INTEGER PROGRAMMING:THE BRANCH-AND-CUT APPROACH TO SOLVING BIP PROBLEMS

By -
TH E BRANCH-AND-CUT APPROACH TO SOLVING BIP PROBLEMS Integer programming has been an especially exciting area of OR since the mid-1980s be- cause of the dramatic progress being made in its solution methodology. Background To place this progress into perspective, consider the historical background. One big break- through had come in the 1960s and early 1970s with the development and refinement of the branch-and-bound approach. But then the state of the art seemed to hit a plateau. Rel- atively small problems (well under 100 variables) could be solved very efficiently, but even a modest increase in problem size might cause an explosion in computation time be- yond feasible limits. Little progress was being made in overcoming this exponential growth in computation time as the problem size was increased. Many important problems arising in practice could not be solved. Then came the next breakthrough in the mid-1980s, with the introduction of the b r an c h- and-cu t approach to sol...
Read more