System Level Design Review Hilltop Business Services at the Arc of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

System Level Design Review Hilltop Business Services at the Arc of Livingston-Wyoming Window Latch Assembly Automation

Agenda • System Design Phase Goal • Customer Requirements • System functional decomposition • Concept development • Concept feasibility • Morphological chart • Process Improvements • Risk assessment • System Architecture • Future plan

System Design Phase Goal The goal of this phase was to assess the required functions of the process, develop concepts for solutions to the customer and engineering requirements, as well as to start refining these concepts based on our analysis of their feasibility. Preliminary Problem Systems Detailed Detailed Definition Design Design Design Subsystem Integrated Build and Customer Build and System Build Test Prep Handoff Test and Test

Customer Requirements ● Increase production by 35 to 50% ● Reduce takt time down to 3 seconds ● Reduce labor by at least 75% ● Ensure that the final product is safe for customers ● Maintain safety of operators ● Maintain current quality standard ● Thorough documentation of machine and/or new process

Functional Decomposition • Primary function: Assemble Window Latches • Sub-functions: o Prepare for Assembly o Correctly Orient Part o Move part from Start to Finish (Unassembled parts to finished goods) o Connect/Assemble Parts o Inspect for Quality

Concept Development Utilize Functional Decomposition Break down functions/tasks How to accomplish Feasibility task Available Brainstorm Create designs Benchmark resources Automated Manual Deliverable concept

Morphological Chart • This is what the concept development leads to • Visual aid to for what can be utilized per task • Methods are a mixture of automation and manual • Can be used to generate final concept ideas

Concept Feasibility Scoring Cost and time to build 1. Working with a very limited time frame and budget 2. Effectiveness of concept Measures the repeatability and reliability of the concept and how well it meets customer and engineering requirements

List of Functions • Sort and feed parts • Transform/orient parts • Insert and rotate cam into carrier • Fasten lock in carrier • Inspection/in process quality Transport parts through assembly process o Secure parts o

Sorting Parts Feasibility Go/No Go Visual Weight No Tunnel of Gauge Inspection Scale Sorting Nominal Dimensions Cost and Time Feasibility 4 3 3 5 4 Meets Requirements 4 5 2 5 4 Weighted Feasibility 16 15 6 25 16 ● No sorting received the highest weighted feasibility score of 25

Feeding Parts Feasibility Manual Rollers Hopper Conveyor Carry Belt Cost and Time Feasibility 5 4 4 3 Meets Requirements 3 4 4 5 Weighted Feasibility 15 16 16 15

Transform/Orient Parts Feasibility Manually Vibrating Platform + Vibratory Bowl Flipper go/no-go tunnel Feeder Cost and Time Feasibility 5 2 2 3 Meets Requirements 3 5 4 4 Weighted Feasibility 15 10 8 12

Insert Cams Feasibility Manually Robotic Arm “Gun Barrel” “Cam Feeder” Cost and Time Feasibility 5 1 4 4 Meets Requirements 2 4 5 3 Weighted Feasibility 10 4 20 12

Rotate Cams Feasibility Rotating fixture Manually Drill-like tool Rotating fixture Created tool - cam - carrier Cost and Time Feasibility 3 5 3 4 5 Meets Requirements 4 3 4 3 3 Weighted Feasibility 12 15 12 12 15

Fasten Lock to Assembly Feasibility Manually “Staple gun” “Guided Lock Punch” Cost and Time Feasibility 5 3 2 Meets Requirements 3 4 5 Weighted Feasibility 15 12 10

Inspection/In Process Quality Feasibility Sensors Visual Go/No-go Gauge Cost and Time Feasibility 3 5 4 Meets Requirements 3 5 3 Weighted Feasibility 9 25 12

Transport Through Assembly Process Feasibility Manual Rollers Conveyor belt Rotary Index Table Cost and Time Feasibility 5 4 3 2 Meets Requirements 3 4 5 4 Weighted Feasibility 15 16 15 8

Securing Parts Feasibility Fixture/Vice Shields Pneumatic Arms Cost and Time Feasibility 4 4 2 Meets Requirements 4 5 4 Weighted Feasibility 16 20 8

Automated Process Flowchart

Process Improvements Current State: • Entire assemblies built individually • Multiple sets of parts per table • Bin for finished parts for each assembler • 1-bin system: full finished parts bin (63 pcs) emptied onto weight scale • ~30 second cycle time • Room for improvement and standard work

Process Improvements Proposed state: Assembly line Process Flow Process Improvements • • Assembly lines of 3 Improved parts people presentation • • Parts move in single Two-bin system • stream Standard work & • 1-2 tasks of a complete procedures • assembly per person Assembly tool • ~4-5 second takt time utilization

Process Improvements Operator #1 Operator #2 Operator #3 Place cam in Rotate cam in Fasten lock & place in finished carrier carrier parts bin

Process Improvements Two-bin system Empty bin Full bin is Benefits: brought back to collected and 3 1 assembly area • Allows assembly to continue empty bin and put behind pulled forward while foreman is occupied other bin • Reduces waiting time • Increases throughput Full bin brought to scale and parts are 2 removed

Process Improvements • Reduces cycle time • Proper parts presentation supports efficient assembly operations • Example: Cam and carrier presentation Parts • Improves consistency and standard work Presentation • Implement tool for rotating the cam in the carrier • Observed significant variation for this task in both how its done and task time • One operator used a make-shift tool to rotate the cam and resulted in faster cycle times Assembly • Make new standard for use a tool to rotate cam Tool

Current Process Flowchart

Process Improvement Flowchart

Process Improvements Current state flow Proposed state flow

Process Improvements - Demonstration

Process Improvement – Results No. of System Throughput Setup Cycle time (s) operators (parts/minute) Assy. Line - Sorted parts 3 3 20 Compare todays process producing 20 parts/minute or 3 second takt time: Assy. Line - Non-sorted parts 4 3 15 3 6 4 8 5 10 -70% 3 second 6 12 workforce takt time Current state 30 7 14 8 16 9 18 10 20 12 24

Partial Automation Results If partial automation is chosen, operators would still be required, thus the system takt time is constrained by operator cycle time Insert/rotate Fasten lock System takt time: cam in carrier in carrier Required No. of operators System takt time automated process takt time Auto 1 5 s Process 1 5.0 s 5 s 2 2.5 s 2.5 s 3 1.67 s 1.67 s 1 Auto 2.5 s Process 2

Risk Assessment Automated System

Risk Assessment Implementing Process Improvements

Next Phase • Meet with Subject Matter Expert • Prototyping • Test simulations • Preliminary drawings of design • Bill of Materials

Questions/Feedback