In cut throat competitive environment, one of the ways toreduce costs is augmenting production. This is usually done by means ofincreased efficiencies or better utilisation of workforce. However, where bestefficiencies are reached, and workforce fairly well utilised, the only wayseems to be by expanding capacity which is a capital intensive thing, andrequires lead times. Finally of course, if the market demand is there, one hasto go for it. But before that, and to fill in the interim period, one can andshould look at extracting more from the existing machines. The question is how,if it is already running at good efficiency.
The answer lies in redefining efficiency, or a better termwould be, re-looking at the capacity utilisation of the machines and plant. Efficienciesper se can be slightly misleading. Consider this, plant A has efficiency of 90%with machines running at 300 RPM and plant B has 85% efficiency with machinesrunning at 350 RPM, on the face of it, plant A seems to be operating better.Yet if we calculate the final production, plant B gives higher production. By correlation, more earning. Thus, while efficiency can be one good monitoringtool, it can not be a absolute benchmark. So can there be another comparativestandard?
Yes, we would like to suggest a alternate method, one whichis in vogue in some units. That of recording Picks Inserted instead ofefficiency as the primary figure. Recasting the above example in this basis weget plant A operating at 270 picks per minute insertion, and plant B operatingat 297 picks per minute insertion. The final commercial performance is in linewith this ranking. Thus, during production evaluation itself, we get commercialperformance parameters to a certain level.
This system not only ensures that a machine put into production is best utilised, but also ensures that the machine is put into production at its highest possible operational capability. Otherwise, the inherent tendency torun machines at lower then best speeds is always there. All technicians knowdoing this will give them higher efficiency. Taking the highlight away fromefficiency readings helps curb this tendency.
Some units have already implanted this system. Targets areset in terms of picks that will be inserted over the time frame of selectedperiod the targets are set for. Evaluation and recordings on a daily basis arealso done on basis of picks inserted per shift or per day. This is fairly easyto do as most modern weaving machines come equipped with pick counters and readingscan be recorded straight from it. Even the latest loom data systems comeequipped with picks inserted displays. Still, we have observed that theycontinue to give prominence to efficiency recordings. We understand that thosefigures can also play a role in some evaluations, how ever, it is ourexperience that if both recordings are given equal importance concurrently, thetendency to veer toward monitoring on efficiency basis usually returns. Thiscan also be partially due to reluctance to abandon an age old system and alsothe normal human trait of going back to status quo.
Here we would like to suggest a drastic measure. It is opento debate and discussion. Why dont we stop recording efficiencies alltogether, and just record Picks Inserted? Will that cause any problems? In our opinion, whatever minor problems are likely to arise, can be tackled and somevia media found. Of course, like any other system the new one too is not goingto be perfect in all respect and will have its own pitfalls and drawbacks.Still, in the balance the new system has lot of merit in its potential toextract the hidden potential of the plant.
We welcome any discussion or criticism of the above approach. Let us at least evaluate and toss around this system, even if it is on paper.
To read more articles on
To promote your company, product and services via promotional article, followthis link:
marketing@alchempro.com