Getting the Most out
of New Equipment
By Mike Adams
Most companies go
through a painstaking process in order to evaluate possible new equipment
purchases. They typically observe the equipment in a demonstration, perhaps have
samples produced, and call users for a recommendation. Often, they will travel
to a location where the equipment is installed to observe the equipment in
production and speak with the existing users about service and support issues.
Sometimes time studies are done to determine the projected return on investment.
Procedures like these are beneficial and necessary to be sure a piece of
equipment will benefit the operation. However, the above examples omit a very
important step that should be included in the evaluation.
Work Flow (Process)
Analysis
When new
equipment is installed, it should and does change the way we do things. In order
to get the most out of new equipment, the current work flow or process should be
analyzed and recorded before the new equipment is evaluated. Then, during the
evaluation, care should be taken to note the changes the new equipment will have
on the existing process. In many cases this extra effort can make the difference
between a new piece of equipment significantly increasing profitability, or
causing financial difficulty. This is often the case whether the equipment is
the best of it’s kind, or a distant second or third. Let’s take the
example of a small diemaking operation without computer aided design, using hand
operated bending equipment and a jig saw. A simplified version of the existing
work flow would look something like this:
Many of the tasks in this type of operation are performed by individuals skilled
in many different areas; the traditional "diemaker" who learned these
skills as an apprentice. When the operation has several diemakers, each job is
typically taken by a separate diemaker, who performs each of the tasks in
sequence, until the die is handed over to someone else. As the operation
grows, they see the need to automate the design process and consider adding a
computer aided design system, a digitizer, and a plotter. If management expects
to simply continue doing things in the same way after purchasing this new
equipment, severe problems will result. In the above work flow, the diemakers
were responsible for laying out the die. It would be unrealistic to train each
of the diemakers to use the new equipment. First, not everyone works well with
CAD. Second, it is more efficient to have an operator dedicated to the task, as
the operator gets more proficient with use. If management thinks about these
changes before purchasing, the equipment will be productive much sooner. After
the purchase, the work flow would look something like this:
As the operation continues to grow, a laser is considered. Once again, the
equipment requires changes to the process. The needs of the laser require
changes to the way designs are created in the CAD program. Scheduling systems
may need to be changed. The work flow may now allow some parallel processes.
Diemakers are able to concentrate on the more important skills of bending and
inserting rule into the die. This could be the new work flow that results:
When lasers were first introduced into this industry, companies had to find out
the process changes that were necessary the hard way; by trial and error. This
is often the case with new and revolutionary equipment and systems. In the case
of our example, continued growth has caused a bottleneck in the die room. The
skills involved in bending rule on hand or pneumatic equipment take several
years to learn, and young people are reluctant to invest time in training for a
career that they perceive as a manual process. As a result, the operation is
shorthanded in the diemaking department. But the addition of technology upstream
in the process has made those areas very productive. This prompts the operation
to consider automated rule bending. As more and more of these automated
bending systems are installed, the process analysis necessary to get the most
out of them becomes easier. But the need for the analysis is greater as the
technology is more revolutionary. Pricing systems, scheduling systems, design
procedures, scanning and digitizing methods, process sequences, job
descriptions, and many more details need to be analyzed before purchasing
equipment of this type. The work flow in our example operation after adding
automated bending might look like this:
In the example above, the traditional role of diemaker has changed significantly
during the addition of three high technology systems. Digitizing and design may
need to be changed in order to work with the laser as well as the automated
bender. It may be possible to begin bending the rule before the dieboard is
burned. In some cases, the task of bending and inserting may be further divided
into two separate operations. My own view is that these changes are not
negative, but rather positive. Those trained in traditional diemaking often
suffered wrist injuries as a result of the repetitive motion involved in hand
bending. Those trained in this newer process of rule bending are computer
operators. This does not eliminate the need for diemakers. It simply means that
diemakers no longer need to perform tasks that are repetitive, physically
taxing, and potentially harmful.
Managing
change is always difficult. Failing to manage change can be a disaster.
Request Information
in the mail
Contact
Us!
