iSixSigma

Cycle Time Metrics

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Operations Manufacturing Cycle Time Metrics

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #54122

    McNicholl
    Participant

    Dear Forum Members,
    I am targeted with reducing the cycle time to process waste returned to the plant and want a composite measure that will not only capture the cycle time but also whether or not the plant is keeping up with or falling behind in processing the waste arriving at the plant. What suggestions do you have? The latter is necessary because it is important that reduction in cycle time is not achieved through simply cherry picking the category of waste that takes less time to process than other waste types.

    Regards,

    Colin.

    0
    #193751

    Chris Seider
    Participant

    If some waste takes more time to process, is that waste more valuable? If not, then I’d say you need to look at your inventory levels at receiving as a key process indicator.

    Since you may not have precise measures of WIP for waste being processed….look at weekly trends of product shipped/waste received to see how you are doing?

    0
    #193771

    Prabhu V
    Participant

    Hi, According to me for the current situation on controlling the waste in the process the first pass yield and throughtput yield studies of process is good.

    This studies will give clear picture about of cost of poor quality in the process and this will be the fundamental/basic step in order to start any project.

    0
    #193783

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @colinmcnicholl Why do you want a composite measure?

    0
    #193825

    Hitesh
    Guest

    If i understand correctly falling behind in your queries suggests that there is a cut off/ target timeframe within which the waste has to be processed. If that’s a case then in that case you can use %age of Waste processed before cut off as a metric which will be a reflection of cycle time in Discrete form

    0
    #193827

    MBBinWI
    Participant

    @ColinMcNicholl – I must agree with my friend Mike Carnell. Why do you want a composite metric? You seem to have 2 KPI’s – cycle time and overall throughput. You want both to improve.

    0
    #193829

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @MBBinWI At Motorola we had the famous 6up charts that reported 5 metrics per month on each product and/or process that was being reported (one square was empty). I can’t imagine why you would create some obtuse metric driven by nothing more than the desire to have only one metric.

    Just my opinion.

    0
    #193844

    McNicholl
    Participant

    Hello Mike and MBBin WI,

    In answer to why do I want a composite measure? First off I wanted to see what ideas others had on this – were there any well accepted single measures that would capture both cycle time and throughput. Second I believe it is better to have just one or two metrics for a team to focus on. More than that may suggest there has not been enough work done on the Voice of the customer to determine what is really important. Accepted there is a risk of a composite measure being obtuse and having no clear meaning to the audience. Famous or not I have not yet come across the “6up” charts so I will look to find out more about those.

    Thanks for sharing your opinion.

    0
    #193848

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    @ColinMcNicholl MBBinWI Lets start with “Second I believe it is better to have just one or two metrics for a team to focus on. More than that may suggest there has not been enough work done on the Voice of the customer to determine what is really important.”

    Why do you believe that? I may be a little off on this but what customer cares about how fast and how much waste you process? That sounds a lot like an internal customer or Voice of the business (those always sound like such inane terms). Who outside you business cares about these metrics?

    0
    #193850

    sriram
    Member

    How about doing a value stream mapping to identify the value/non-valued added activities in the process thereby enhancing the process efficiency and reducing the non-value added effort in the process.

    0
    #193859

    McNicholl
    Participant

    Mike,
    Outside the business the customer who returns the waste cares because for larger cylinders the customer does not receive final verification of who much his bill will be (or credit) depending on the confirmed quantity and condition of the waste after it has been transported to the processing site and then gone through initial process steps. The customer will also care (or at least should) regardless of size of cylinder because under the waste regulations the waste producer (often the customer) cannot pass on responsibility. In other words the customer should be getting verification that the waste has indeed reached its final destination and been appropriately dealt with. In addition the waste enforcement authorities should care that the company it has issued a licence to is eg not loosing the waste in transit and not looking like it cannot cope with the waste processing and therefore for example building up a mountain of waste that may get the neighbours concerned.

    Sriram,

    Value stream mapping exercise has been undertaken. One of outputs is it shows how much the overall cycle time is made up of non-value added waiting (WIP between major process steps) and how little of the cycle time is actually hands on the waste doing something with it.

    Regards,

    Colin.

    0
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.