distribution of equipment utilization costs in the chemico-pharmaceutical industry

P R O D U C T I O N O R G A N I Z A T I O N AND E C O N O M I C S

D I S T R I B U T I O N OF E Q U I P M E N T U T I L I Z A T I O N C O S T S

I N T H E C H E M I C O - P H A R M A C E U T I C A L I N D U S T R Y

II. DISTRIBUTION OF EQUIPMENT COSTS AND EQUIPMENT

UTILIZATION COSTS IN FACTORIES MANUFACTURING

FINISHED MEDICINAL PRODUCTS IN THE FORM OF TABLETS

G. N. M o r o z o v a a n d A . I . A n a s h k i n a UDC 661.12.003.]/.2

As a r e su l t of technical p r o g r e s s the amount of manual labor involved in production has r ecen t lybeen substant ia l ly reduced. At many f ac to r i e s in the pharmaceu t ica l industry which manufacture finished med ic - inal p roducts (FMP), the technical equipment provided for individual w o r k e r s has inc reased by 40-50% c o m - pa red with 1965. Under these conditions the p rob lem of the c o r r e c t dis t r ibut ion of expenditure between the amount of equipment and i ts uti l ization (EEU) as between individual types of final products a s s u m e s special impor tance .

At fac tor ies producing FMP in the fo rm of table ts , where significant d i f fe rences exis t in the degree of mechanizat ion of individual product ion p r o c e s s e s , especia l ly with r e s p e c t to packaging, the method used for the EEU (i .e . , in p ropor t ion to the wages of the main production workers ) does not re f lec t the actual ex - penditure on individual types of production. The use of this method leads to a situation where a significant pa r t of the expenditure is r e f e r r e d , quite without foundation, to the cos t of the products manufactured bythe l e s s mechanized types of labor . For example , the EEU per thousand packs of Osa r so l (average weight 0.3 g) No. 10, uacked on a model AUT table t -packing machine, amounts to 46 kopecks, while the labor cos t s a re 75 kopecks. In packing sal izyl amide (average weight 0.3 g) No. 10 on a model "Roteks" tab le t -packing machine, the percen tage mechanizat ion of the production p r o c e s s e s is half that when using the model AUT machine, these cos t s being, respec t ive ly , 63 kopecks and 1 ruble 15 kopecks.

At the No. 1 Pha rmaceu t i ca l Fac tory , Moscow, in o rder to br ing out an EEU distr ibution method which is on a sounder economic bas i s as applied to the production of table ts , we calculated the distr ibution by two methods, the p r inc ip les of which are explained in the f i r s t half of this paper .

In method 1 the EEU is dis t r ibuted between individual types of production in propor t ion to the labor cos t s of the production p r o c e s s , d i rec t ly associa ted with the running t ime of the machines . In method 2, the EEU is d is t r ibuted between individual types of production in propor t ion to the running t ime of the equipment, with due allowance for the complexi ty of maintenance.

Using method 1, the calcula t ions are c a r r i e d out in two ways: 1) using the overa l l l abor cos t for unit production as the s ta r t ing point (1 ton of t ab le t s o r 1 thousand packs); 2) using the labor cos t s of the o p e r a - t ions d i rec t ly assoc ia ted with the basic product ion equipment as the s ta r t ing point.

Using method 2, an a t tempt was also made to c a r r y out the calculat ion by two methods: 1) calculat ion of the EEU for the tablet ing section as a whole (without dividing the cos t s between the tablet ing and packing sections); 2) separa te calculat ion of the cos t s for the tablet ing and packing sect ions.

Genera l Minis t ry Depar tment for Technical and Economic Invest igat ions, TsKTB "Mekhan iza t s iya , " Moscow. Trans la ted f rom Kh imiko -Fa rma t sev t i chesk i i Zhurnal, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 60-62, February , 1972. Original a r t ic le submit ted May 13, 1971.

�9 1973 Consultants Bureau, a division of Plenum Publishing Corporation, 227 West 17th Street, New York, N. Y. 10011. All rights reserved. This article cannot be reproduced for any purpose whatsoever without permission of the publisher. A copy of this article is available from the publisher for $15.00.

128

T A B L E 1. t ion ( a rb i t a ry n u m b e r s )

Basic types of equipment used in packing

AUT

"Volkogon"

"Roteks" (convoIuted)

"Roteks" fin glass)

-Kmtka ~

"Fasovka" in bulk

C o m p a r i s o n of EEU in Using Var ious Methods of D i s t r i b u -

Products produced (tablets)

Sulfadimezin, 0.8 No. 10 Gidroperit, 1.5 No, 6 Asfen, 0.5 No. 6 Osarsol, 0.3 No. 10

EEU"(in roubles and kopecks) per unit of finished production

[ method i method ! authors' "I second 1 method first second I

method method variant

Gidroperit (powder), 9,0

Diethylstilbestro1, 0.1 I No. 10 I Salicyl amide., 0.3 No. i0 Salieyl amide, 0.SNo. I0

Methyltestesterone, 0.I, [ No. 20 (export) Pantotsid 0 12 No . . . . . . . . . . I , . : 2 o

Aspirin. 0.6 No. 6. in carton eases

Aspirin. 0.6 No. 6, in anodized eases

Izoniazid. 0.33 Aspirin. 0.8 Levomycetin. 0.5

60--42 125--22 58--80

0--58 0--62 0--93 1--32 0--37 0--47 0--46 0--59

0--93 1--18

0--61 0--78

0--63 0--88 0--69 0--84

4--15 3--21 1--89 1--39

0---65 0--61 1--62 0--61

24--03 36--23 23--44

0--61 0--91 0--43 0--58

0"92 t 0--92 0--94

1--91 0--86

0--52 0--52

24--02 55--18 21 --60

0--91 0--89 0--60 0--77

1--00

0--27

0--35 0-46

0--92 0--61

�9 0--98 0--98

78--15 92--52 60--47

T A B L E 2. C o m p a r i s o n of Rela t ive Cos t s for Var ious Groups of Equ ip - men t and Its Uti l izat ion, as Calcula ted by Method 2 and as Calcula ted D i r e c t l y in the A u t h o r ' s F a c t o r y

GrOU p of equipment ~t.e., basic type~ of packing machines)

AUT "Volkogon'" "Rotel~ ~ (convoluted) ~Rotel~ ~ (in glass) "Kru~g" Machines for sealing cans (tins) Lozenge machtne$ Box stapling machines (in packing in bulk)

Tota l cest.s,

63,5 4,4

12,9 0,7

13,3 1,5 2,6 1,1

I00,0

65,0 3,0 10,0 2,0

14,0 ' 2,0 2,0 2,0

100,0

However , even in the f i r s t s t ages of ca lcu la t ion us ing the f i r s t va r i an t of method 2, it was found tha t the use of this v a r i a n t led to a s igni f icant r educ t ion in the p r o p o r t i o n of e x - pend i tu re taken up by the t ab l e t s in bulk. This was due to the fac t tha t in p roduc ing the given type of p roduc t the i m - p o r t a n c e of the EEU was a s soc i a t ed with t ab le t ing r a t h e r than with pac king.

The r e s u l t s obtained in ca lcu la t ion by the d i f fe ren t me thods a re shown in Table 1.

Both v a r i a n t s of me thod 1 a r e r e l a t i ve ly s imple f r o m the point of view of ca lcu la t ion and p rov ide an i m m e d i a t e m e a n s of obta in ing the total EEU for the t ab le t ing and p a c k - ing sec t ions . However , ana ly s i s of the ca lcu la t ion r e s u l t s by any of the v a r i a n t s of method 1 (and a l so by the method c u r r e n t l y used in the a u t h o r s ' fac tory) does not r e f l ec t the t r u e cos t s . Thus , fo r example , in us ing method 1, the p a c k - ing c o s t u s ing the model "Roteks" m a c h i n e s is 50% h ighe r than when us ing the mode l AUT mach ines .

The m o s t re l i ab le ca lcu la t ion r e s u l t s in ca lcu la t ing the E E U a r e obtained by us ing method 2, s ince the p r inc ip le

of d i s t r ibu t ion is on a sounder e c o n o m i c bas i s , i . e . , i t is p ropo r t i ona l to the t ime of ope ra t i on of the equ ip - men t with due a l lowance fo r the c o m p l e x i t y of ma in t enance .

I t should a lso be noted that the r e s u l t s obta ined in ca lcu la t ions by method 2, a re in good a g r e e m e n t with d i r e c t expe r imen ta l da ta obtained in the a u t h o r s ' f a c t o r y (Table 2).

129

A m o r e detai led cons idera t ion of the proposed method of EEU distr ibut ion ( i .e . , in propor t ion to the t ime of opera t ion of the equipment) is p resen ted under the nine headings given below.

1. The EEU is calcula ted sepa ra te ly for the tablet ing and packing sect ions.

2. The cos t s for the tablet ing sect ion are dis t r ibuted between the individual types of product in p r o - port ion to the volume of product ion by weight (in tons), since the s tages of the product ion tablet ing p r o c e s s a re approximate ly the same for all types of table ts .

In the packing sect ion the cos t s a re dis t r ibuted with r e spec t to groups of p roducts produced on d i f fe r - ent types of equipment, on the bas i s of the running t ime of this equipment and the complexi ty of maintenance.

3. In the dis t r ibut ion of cos t s in the tablet ing section, allowance is made for the effect of the average weight of a table t on the cos t s associa ted with the operat ion of the equipment. This is done by dividing all types of tab le ts into n groups (there were five groups in our calculat ions) . A fac tor was assigned to each group, which was calcula ted with due allowance for the difference in the labor cos t s of tablet ing as a func- tion of the average weight of the tab le ts (in our calculat ions, this fac tor var ied f rom 0.49 in producing t~blets of weight 1.5 g and above, to 2.63 in producing ve ry small tab le ts weighing 0.1 g).

With ce r ta in subs tances , tablet ing involves an inc rease "in the EEU i r r e spec t i ve of the average weight of the table t (for example , in our calculat ions on aspir in) . In this case , the substances are all placed in the same group.

4. The EEU in tablet ing one ton-unit of tablets is determined by dividing the total costs of the table t - ing sec t ion by the number of ton-units, and for each group of tablets by mult iplying the r e su l t obtained by the fac tor .

5. In dis tr ibut ing the EEU between the individual groups of equipment, a number of units of equipment, the running t ime, and a conditional (arbi tary) c r i t e r ion represen t ing a unit of maintenance complexi ty, a re taken into account. The coeff iceint of EEU distr ibut ion is de te rmined by finding the propor t ion of equipment hours in each group of equipment in the total equipment hours pe r section.

6. The cos t s for each group of equipment and the cost for i ts ut i l izat ion in the packing section are dis t r ibuted between individual types of product in the case of a single type of product ion equipment in pack - ing va r ious products , by dividing the total cos t s by the number of manufactured products (in packing in bulk, on "Kru tka ' mach ines in sealed tins).

7. In the re la t ion between the product ivi ty of equipment (type AUT table t -count ing machines , "Reteks ' and lozenge machines) and the type of packed products , these cos ts , exp re s sed in t e r m s of the unit of finished production, a re de te rmined on the bas i s of the t ime, and the cos t p e r hour of equipment running t ime in each group.

If the loading of the equipment in the fac to ry is not allowed for as a constant factor , the running t ime of each type of equipment can be de te rmined as the sum of the par t ia l t i m e s obtained by dividing the total production of each type of product by the product ivi ty of the equipment unit.

8. The cost p e r hour of opera t ion of a specific group of equipment in the packing section is de te rmined by dividing the total cos t for a given group of equipment by the number of hours for which it opera tes . The running t ime of the equipment (in hours) p e r unit of production (thousands of packs) , is de te rmined on the bas i s of the product ivi ty of the equipment.

9. The EEU pe r thousand packings for each type of product is calculated as the product of the running t ime of the equipment by the cos t p e r hour of operat ion.

It should be noted that the r ecommended method for the EEU distr ibution in the tablet ing sect ions di f fers both with r e spec t to the method cu r r en t ly used, and the more complex method, method 1. However, the use of the proposed method is made e a s i e r in p rac t i ce by the fact that the calcula t ions involved in de termining the propor t ion of EEU for each type of product is c a r r i e d out only once pe r y e a r in es tabl ishing the technical and industr ial budget, and the data obtained as a resu l t of these calculat ions can be used as the bas i s for the es t imated (normative) budget. The economic re l iabi l i ty of this method and the re la t ive s impl ic i ty of the ca l - culat ions provide a basi~ for recommending it for use in pha rmaceu t i ca l fac tor ies .

130