Font Size
Topic SMED with No External Resource

SMED with No External Resource

Home Forums General Forums Implementation SMED with No External Resource


This topic contains 4 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Chris Seider 10 months ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
  • #701599

    I am trying to implement SMED and I am struggling to transform internal setting into external, not because of a lack of ideas but more because of a lack of resource. The run times for this department are usually under 10 min, and the operator is expected to do some inspection work while a machine is running. As a result the operator only has 1 or 2 min in between each part which is too low to do their own external setting.
    I have suggested having a dedicated external setter, but the problem then faced is that the time saved from migrating internal to external is not enough to justify having person dedicated to it.

    Have any of you come across a similar problem? and if so: how have you managed to solve it?



    Operator loading should rarely be above 85% for a reality check.

    This “external resource” you mention…could they support multiple lines/vessels/equipment?

    If you don’t think you can get another body, consider automation, simplification, etc of the operator to make time for setups as you mention.


    Hi Brunehilde,

    This may be a tricky one. Could you describe this a little more, I’m not sure if I understand where internal and external activities sit in relation to the cycle time?

    Is it the case that the inspection work takes up so much of the cycle time so that there is not enough time to make an external setting for the next part, and therefore this external setting activity is currently stopping the machine and acting as an internal activity. Is that correct?

    So if we could use another operator to apply the external setting earlier in the cycle time then we could benefit from a reduction in switch over time?

    Reducing the inspection time or enabling the operator to do both the inspection work at the external setting at the same time could achieve the same results but I will assume those options are not possible. How about reducing the external setting time, could that be an option?

    Also how many machines are considering here? A higher number machines would help to justify a dedicated external setting resource.

    Sorry, more questions than answers so far.



    Thanks Chris, Liam, for your answer.

    To be more precise (I thought it would complicate things for my problem description) We have a dedicated pre-setter/external setter (who takes care of several machines at once) but he is overloaded so we cannot add extra work onto him, and the added work would not justify getting a second person.
    Liam: yes this is correct. The nature of our business means that 1) we cannot get rid of any inspection 2) almost every set is new (parts can go through once and we never see them again) so it takes some thinking and analysis for each set (which makes it complicated to do in cycle, where you can only concentrate on the set 2 min at a time).

    I think you are both right, the only way forward is to first simplify/improve what is currently being done (internal and external) to free up resource for pre-setting. So basically start with the streamline step of SMED and then go though separate and convert.

    Thank you for your help


    I want to compliment you on posting, digesting, and reposting.

    Nice discussion.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

5S and Lean eBooks

Six Sigma Online Certification: White, Yellow, Green and Black Belt

Six Sigma Statistical and Graphical Analysis with SigmaXL
Six Sigma Online Certification: White, Yellow, Green and Black Belt
Lean and Six Sigma Project Examples
GAGEpack for Quality Assurance
Find the Perfect Six Sigma Job

Login Form