Still, while some tout that flow manufacturing principles can be implemented successfully, regardless of the industry, type of manufacturing environment, or product volumes, the concept has not been everything to all people so far. It is still challenging or even unsuitable to use in a jobbing shop producing highly configure-to-order (CTO) or engineer-to-order (ETO) products with high setup and long lead times, although when it has been occasionally deployed there, it has met almost as much success as in high-volume, more repetitive make-to-demand environments.
The fact is also only a minority of all ERP vendors properly supports the ETO environments, let alone flow manufacturing concepts. Cincom is one notable exception, given its Flow Manager product handles kanban replenishment and demand smoothing (but not line design and operation method sheets (OMS), because these features do not bring much benefit to ETO manufacturers). Their customers often specify product families that include products requiring one or two unique and expensive components in addition to common parts that could benefit from flow methods of smoothing spikes in demand.
Also, only certain industries like high-tech, aviation and defense (A&D), and consumer packaged goods (CPG) have been the best candidates to adopt flow manufacturing, because they can most feasibly achieve feedback from reconfiguring the shop floor into dedicated production lines for product families, around which flexible and cross-trained work teams are established. However, for other organizations, that feat will not happen overnight, since achieving flow manufacturing takes more than moving equipment into product family production lines, creating flexible workstation teams, establishing quick changeovers, or introducing kanban signals. It also requires specific flow manufacturing training, continuous discipline and process improvement mindsets (e.g., zero defects, zero setup, the use of standardized components, and zero inventory).
Until relatively recently, there have not been many off-the-shelf software applications to help manufacturers institute flow processes, other than cumbersome spreadsheets and internally developed packages or practices to handle some flow techniques, such as line design, line balancing, kanban management, and mixed-model production. In addition to the lack of consensus regarding what exact set of features constitutes the flow manufacturing software, there has also been a philosophical debate about what flow manufacturing software should do in relation to ERP/MRP.
On one hand, John Costanza Institute of Technology (JCIT) has been advocating the misfit of ERP's concepts of planning and scheduling, which do not allow a manufacturer to use a demand forecast as the basis for a reliable materials purchasing plan. Conversely, flow-oriented manufacturing starts with the earlier-mentioned process called demand smoothing, which technique involves looking at a forecast over a certain period of time (anywhere from one week to several weeks) to determine how many products must be built each day to fill the total amount of orders expected over that time. The flow manufacturer will then ask its suppliers to deliver parts every day, with each shipment amounting to only enough parts to satisfy that day's quota.
On the other hand, there are some indications that flow systems cannot handle demand variability, variable product mix, shared resource constraints, or complex products with long lead times, thus limiting flow for items where variability is only at the end item mix, and not with frequent content variations of option mixes. For this, and all the above reasons, most manufacturers implement this method gradually and use flow to make one product family, which necessitates ERP, MRP, or APS (advanced planning and scheduling) for the rest of the business. While lean/flow manufacturing leverages practices to stay ahead of actual demand, the traditional approaches better coordinates secondary, back-office systems like accounting and human resources (HR) management. Moreover, flow should be a company-wide strategy that does not only impact manufacturing.
Thus, many prospects will be more amenable to the flow manufacturing product designed to complement an MRP II or ERP system rather than replace it. To that end, for example, Oracle's and American Software's system offer full support for demand flow techniques on the shop floor while also providing a standard interface to the rest of the business systems for activities like purchasing, accounting and order management. A further example would be QAD that uses MRP for mid- and long-term planning, on the execution side however, it also caters to both JIT that is used for build-to-order or final assembly manufacturing, and to lean manufacturing, which is suitable for build-to-demand pull for finished and component items. Namely, most companies will still use MRP to ascertain longer-term dependent demand (i.e., based on forecasts), but replenishment will be based on independent demand (i.e., actual customer orders), with closely managed inventory buffers. Customer demand cannot be predicted months ahead, since nothing is that certain. Thus, many ERP systems are employing heuristics, algorithms, and even simulations to estimate the uncertainty in demand and effects of constraints on the shop floor. Understanding these variations then allows enterprises to assign flexible boundaries around material and capacity plans.
The fact is also only a minority of all ERP vendors properly supports the ETO environments, let alone flow manufacturing concepts. Cincom is one notable exception, given its Flow Manager product handles kanban replenishment and demand smoothing (but not line design and operation method sheets (OMS), because these features do not bring much benefit to ETO manufacturers). Their customers often specify product families that include products requiring one or two unique and expensive components in addition to common parts that could benefit from flow methods of smoothing spikes in demand.
Also, only certain industries like high-tech, aviation and defense (A&D), and consumer packaged goods (CPG) have been the best candidates to adopt flow manufacturing, because they can most feasibly achieve feedback from reconfiguring the shop floor into dedicated production lines for product families, around which flexible and cross-trained work teams are established. However, for other organizations, that feat will not happen overnight, since achieving flow manufacturing takes more than moving equipment into product family production lines, creating flexible workstation teams, establishing quick changeovers, or introducing kanban signals. It also requires specific flow manufacturing training, continuous discipline and process improvement mindsets (e.g., zero defects, zero setup, the use of standardized components, and zero inventory).
Until relatively recently, there have not been many off-the-shelf software applications to help manufacturers institute flow processes, other than cumbersome spreadsheets and internally developed packages or practices to handle some flow techniques, such as line design, line balancing, kanban management, and mixed-model production. In addition to the lack of consensus regarding what exact set of features constitutes the flow manufacturing software, there has also been a philosophical debate about what flow manufacturing software should do in relation to ERP/MRP.
On one hand, John Costanza Institute of Technology (JCIT) has been advocating the misfit of ERP's concepts of planning and scheduling, which do not allow a manufacturer to use a demand forecast as the basis for a reliable materials purchasing plan. Conversely, flow-oriented manufacturing starts with the earlier-mentioned process called demand smoothing, which technique involves looking at a forecast over a certain period of time (anywhere from one week to several weeks) to determine how many products must be built each day to fill the total amount of orders expected over that time. The flow manufacturer will then ask its suppliers to deliver parts every day, with each shipment amounting to only enough parts to satisfy that day's quota.
On the other hand, there are some indications that flow systems cannot handle demand variability, variable product mix, shared resource constraints, or complex products with long lead times, thus limiting flow for items where variability is only at the end item mix, and not with frequent content variations of option mixes. For this, and all the above reasons, most manufacturers implement this method gradually and use flow to make one product family, which necessitates ERP, MRP, or APS (advanced planning and scheduling) for the rest of the business. While lean/flow manufacturing leverages practices to stay ahead of actual demand, the traditional approaches better coordinates secondary, back-office systems like accounting and human resources (HR) management. Moreover, flow should be a company-wide strategy that does not only impact manufacturing.
Thus, many prospects will be more amenable to the flow manufacturing product designed to complement an MRP II or ERP system rather than replace it. To that end, for example, Oracle's and American Software's system offer full support for demand flow techniques on the shop floor while also providing a standard interface to the rest of the business systems for activities like purchasing, accounting and order management. A further example would be QAD that uses MRP for mid- and long-term planning, on the execution side however, it also caters to both JIT that is used for build-to-order or final assembly manufacturing, and to lean manufacturing, which is suitable for build-to-demand pull for finished and component items. Namely, most companies will still use MRP to ascertain longer-term dependent demand (i.e., based on forecasts), but replenishment will be based on independent demand (i.e., actual customer orders), with closely managed inventory buffers. Customer demand cannot be predicted months ahead, since nothing is that certain. Thus, many ERP systems are employing heuristics, algorithms, and even simulations to estimate the uncertainty in demand and effects of constraints on the shop floor. Understanding these variations then allows enterprises to assign flexible boundaries around material and capacity plans.
Very well said. You have provided the most informative and helpful information. I really learned a lot. Eresource provides highly configurable manufacturing module for the shop floor control system.Eresource shop floor control module includes on-line routing maintenance, labour reporting, and scheduling.
ReplyDeleteThanks for such a nice blog...