I wonder if it depends on the purpose or intentions
you have in including setup as planned or unplanned
downtime. I just got back from a client in South
Africa, where they termed roll-changes, silo
changes etc as planned downtime. This added up to
around 6 hours every day. I disagreed with the
classification – but left them with what they had
chosen – as long as they used it to their benefit.
Arguing over where the various setups sat only took
away from focusing on what was going to be done
with them. I would normally suggest the only
downtime which should be termed “planned” is where
we plan to have shutdown for Maintenance, or where
Mgt have made a conscious decision to have downtime
(meeting, holiday, weekend, shift patterns). With
this client, we were able to reduced the “planned”
downtime by 50% – by using some very basic 5S and
SMED techniques.
So – OK to say setup is planned – but then it can
always be reduced.
For another example – a Print company who used
planned setup time. This was based on a standard
time per colour and base material for setup. They
compared that to “actual setup time” and calculated
as efficiency. Again – there was considerable room
for improvement using SMED (they called this
consolidated setup) and 5S.
In both above examples – automating also would
reduce setup time.
The concern with allowing setup time into planned
is that it allows us to overestimate and even
compensate (and therefore lose opportunity for
improvement).
As I mentioned at beginning of my post – it would
perhaps depend on your intentions.Davy T
.
.