department)of)industrial)and)systemsengineering) process ... · problem analysis type)of)ac-vi-es...

1
Implementa)on Problems 1. Inefficient processes within the Order Management Cycle. 2. Manual job scheduling for warehouse packing. Objec-ves 1. Redesign order management process to reduce inefficiency. 2. Develop a warehouse scheduling tool using Excel VBA plaIorm. Order Arrival Process Order Credit Check Schedule Packing Job Forwarder Pickup Pack Close Order Problem Analysis Type of Ac-vi-es Current Proposed Redundant processes 3 0 Automated processes 6 11 Handoffs 11 6 Scope Process reengineering in order management cycle and warehouse opera)ons. Fishbone Diagram 5 major reasons for inefficiency: Excessive managerial interac)on Lack of standardiza)on Slow communica)on Manual handling Lack of storage area Problem & Objectives Methodology Aims of Process Reengineering Eliminate unnecessary steps (price confirma)on, release of green light, etc.) Reduce interdepartment handoffs U)lize IT support to automate (system stock/credibility check, automa)c scheduling) Improve informa)on flow (shared online database) Simplify paper work by electronic billing and documenta)on 1. Mul-ple job handovers 2. Linear processes 3. Manual Scheduling 4. Hardcopy documenta-on 1. Greater job ownership 2. Parallel processes 3. Automated Scheduling 4. Electronic documenta-on Value Stream Mapping 4 sectors are iden)fied to )me wastage and inefficiency: DRP & Commercial check Credit Check Warehouse Packing Shipment Process Reengineering of Order Management Cycle Scheduling Tool— EzSchedule 1) Op)miza)on model on AIMMS 2) User func)on development and UI building 3) Test and valida)on Phases Descrip-ons Func)onal tes)ng User func)ons were verified during the developing phase with extensive test data. Usability tes)ng Usability of the interface was checked with target users to ensure userfriendly design. Beta tes)ng The applica)on was installed on site and run by target users with actual data. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering IE3100R System Design Project User func-ons: Automa)c scheduling Enables manual adjustment Instant global view of packing status Facilitates documenta)on of packed orders 4) Features of improvement Improved scheduling efficiency and capacity Reduced cycle )me through schedule op)miza)on Increased global visibility and informa)on flow Enhanced order tracking Retained flexibility of manual schedule adjustment Standardized packing documenta)on Management Method Machine Milleu Making Known Inefficient informa)on flow Lack of standardiza)on Frequent intra departments handoffs Liaison laps between departments Manual warehouse scheduling Stock pull from external warehouse Linear order processing Frequent delay of intercommunica)on Effects Problem Reasoning Process Inefficiency Presented by: Jerry SIM, JIANG Tao, SHI Yuran, YANG Le Supervisors: A/P CHEONG Taesu, A/P POH Kim Leng Industrial supervisor: Mr. Julius THIO System check for Credibility 1) Credibility Ranking Criteria: 4 criterion iden)fied for credibility ra)ng 2) Computa)on of Credibility Score for all exis)ng customers by pairwise comparison 3)Assess each customer’s credibility score based on the ra)ng system and decide whether to prepack. Current Order Management Cycle Proposed Order Management Cycle Receipt of customer’s PO Price confirmation Create SAP line Credit release & Green light for packing Packing doc preparation Liaison with warehouse for packing schedule Forwarder pickup Warehouse packing Manual doc Vessel booking De-conflict for low inventory* Post goods issue and billing Stock check System check (stock availability & Credibility) Create SAP line Packing doc preparation Automatic scheduling with EzSchedule Forwarder pickup Warehouse packing E-doc Vessel booking Post goods issue and Electronic billing Receipt of customer’s PO De-conflict for low inventory* Automate Automate *Op)onal: Deconflict is required only at low stock level. Time Reduced by Lower/Upper Bound (Hr) Average (Hr) Removal of redundancy 0.5 ~ 4 2 Automa)on 2~8 6 Wai)ng )me reduc)on 4 ~ 16 10 Ini-al Problems Presence of process inefficiencies resul)ng in longer cycle )me. Manual scheduling of packing jobs. Current Accomplishments Iden)fied redundant & inefficient processes. Reduce cycle )me through introduc)on of automa)on, simplifica)on and removal of inefficient processes. Automate packing scheduling process. Future Improvements Refinement of SAP system to accommodate greater process flexibility. Centraliza)on of warehouse opera)ons. Conclusions Data Analysis of Achievement Present System Ideal System The team’s study has uncovered several areas where process inefficiencies are prevalent and have analyzed them from a reengineering perspec)ve. The proposed systems and implementa)ons can expect to reduce overall cycle -me and increase job efficiency. Improvements are con)nuous and the team recommends further process enhancements which can further improve produc)vity of the Order Management Cycle. Financial Strength Loyalty Liquidity Payment History Global Weights Financial Strength 1 2 2 2 0.243 Loyalty 1/2 1 2 2 0.511 Liquidity 1/2 1/2 1 1 0.102 Payment History 1/2 1 1 1 0.144 Financial Strength Loyalty Liquidity Payment History Customer 1 >100M 610 years >1.75 No delayed payment Customer 2 80100M <2 years 1.51.75 10% delayed payment Customer 3 4060M >10 years <1 No delayed payment Customer 4 >100M 25 years 1.51.75 No delayed payment Customer 5 <40M 25 years 1.251.5 No delayed payment …… Financial Strength 0.243 Loyalty 0.511 Liquidity 0.102 Payment History 0.144 Total Weight Score Prepacking without payment in Customer 1 1.000 0.563 1.000 1.000 0.777 Yes Customer 2 0.833 0.183 0.906 0.212 0.419 No Customer 3 0.500 1.000 0.500 1.000 0.827 Yes Customer 4 1.000 0.325 0.906 1.000 0.645 Yes Customer 5 0.264 0.325 0.828 1.000 0.459 No ……

Upload: others

Post on 17-Jul-2020

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Department)of)Industrial)and)SystemsEngineering) Process ... · Problem Analysis Type)of)Ac-vi-es Current)Average)(Hr) ProposedTime)Reduced)by Redundantprocesses 3 0 Automated+processes

Implementa)on  

Problems  1.  Inefficient  processes  within  the  Order  Management  Cycle.  2. Manual  job  scheduling  for  warehouse  packing.  

Objec-ves  1. Redesign  order  management  process  to  reduce  inefficiency.  

2. Develop  a  warehouse  scheduling  tool  using  Excel  VBA  plaIorm.  

Order  Arrival  

Process  Order  

Credit  Check  

Schedule  Packing  Job  

Forwarder  Pickup  

Pack  

Close  Order  

Problem Analysis

Type  of  Ac-vi-es Current   Proposed

Redundant  processes 3 0

Automated  processes 6 11

Handoffs 11 6

Scope  Process  reengineering  in  order  management  cycle  and  warehouse  opera)ons.  

Fishbone  Diagram  

5  major  reasons  for  inefficiency:  •  Excessive  managerial  

interac)on  •  Lack  of  standardiza)on  •  Slow  communica)on  •  Manual  handling  •  Lack  of  storage  area  

Problem & Objectives

Methodology Aims  of  Process  Reengineering  •  Eliminate  unnecessary  steps  (price  confirma)on,  release  of  green  light,  etc.)  •  Reduce  inter-­‐department  handoffs    •  U)lize  IT  support  to  automate  (system  stock/credibility  check,  automa)c  scheduling)  •  Improve  informa)on  flow  (shared  online  database)  •  Simplify  paper  work  by  electronic  billing  and  documenta)on  

 

1.  Mul-ple  job  handovers  2.  Linear  processes  3.  Manual  Scheduling  4.  Hardcopy  documenta-on  

1.  Greater  job  ownership  2.  Parallel  processes  3.  Automated  Scheduling  4.  Electronic  documenta-on  

Value  Stream  Mapping  4  sectors  are  iden)fied  to  )me  wastage  and  inefficiency:  •  DRP  &  Commercial  check  •  Credit  Check  •  Warehouse  Packing  •  Shipment    

 

Process Reengineering of Order Management Cycle

Scheduling  Tool—EzSchedule    

1)  Op)miza)on  model  on  AIMMS  

2)  User  func)on  development  and  UI  building  

3)  Test  and  valida)on  

Phases   Descrip-ons  

Func)onal  tes)ng  

User  func)ons  were  verified  during  the  developing  phase  with  extensive  test  data.  

Usability  tes)ng  

Usability  of  the  interface  was  checked  with  target  users  to  ensure  user-­‐friendly  design.  

Beta  tes)ng   The  applica)on  was  installed  on  site  and  run  by  target  users  with  actual  data.  

Department  of  Industrial  and  Systems  Engineering  

IE3100R  System  Design  Project  

User  func-ons:  ü  Automa)c  scheduling  ü  Enables  manual  adjustment  ü  Instant  global  view  of  packing  status  ü  Facilitates  documenta)on  of  packed  orders  

4)  Features  of  improvement  

ü  Improved  scheduling  efficiency  and  capacity  ü  Reduced  cycle  )me  through  schedule  op)miza)on  ü  Increased  global  visibility  and  informa)on  flow  ü  Enhanced  order  tracking  ü  Retained  flexibility  of  manual  schedule  adjustment  ü  Standardized  packing  documenta)on  

Management Method Machine

Milleu Making  Known

Inefficient  informa)on  flow

Lack  of  standardiza)on

Frequent  intra-­‐departments  handoffs

Liaison  laps  between  departments

Manual  warehouse  scheduling

Stock  pull  from  external  warehouse

Linear  order  processing

Frequent  delay  of  intercommunica)on

Effects Problem  Reasoning

Process  Inefficiency  

Presented by: Jerry SIM, JIANG Tao, SHI Yuran, YANG Le Supervisors: A/P CHEONG Taesu, A/P POH Kim Leng Industrial supervisor: Mr. Julius THIO

System  check  for  Credibility  1)  Credibility  Ranking  Criteria:  4  criterion  iden)fied  for  credibility  ra)ng  

2)  Computa)on  of  Credibility  Score  for  all  exis)ng  customers  by  pairwise  comparison  

3)Assess  each  customer’s  credibility  score  based  on  the  ra)ng  system  and  decide  whether  to  prepack.    

Current  Order  Management  Cycle   Proposed  Order  Management  Cycle  Receipt of customer’s PO

Price confirmation

Create SAP line

Credit release & Green light for packing

Packing doc preparation

Liaison with warehouse for packing schedule

Forwarder pickup

Warehouse packing Manual doc

Vessel booking

De-conflict for low inventory*

Post goods issue and billing

Stock check System check (stock availability & Credibility)

Create SAP line

Packing doc preparation

Automatic scheduling with EzSchedule

Forwarder pickup

Warehouse packing E-doc Vessel booking

Post goods issue and Electronic billing

Receipt of customer’s PO

De-conflict for low inventory*

Automate  

Automate  

*Op)onal:  De-­‐conflict  is  required  only  at  low  stock  level.  

Time  Reduced  by Lower/Upper  Bound  (Hr)

Average  (Hr)

Removal  of  redundancy 0.5  ~  4 2

Automa)on 2  ~  8 6

Wai)ng  )me  reduc)on 4  ~  16 10

Ini-al  Problems  Presence  of  process  inefficiencies  resul)ng  in  longer  cycle  )me.  Manual  scheduling  of  packing  jobs.  

Current  Accomplishments  Iden)fied  redundant  &  inefficient  processes.  Reduce  cycle  )me  through  introduc)on  of  automa)on,  simplifica)on  and  removal  of  inefficient  processes.  Automate  packing  scheduling  process.  

Future  Improvements  Refinement  of  SAP  system  to  accommodate  greater  process  flexibility.  Centraliza)on  of  warehouse  opera)ons.  

Conclusions

Data  Analysis  of  Achievement  

Present  System  

Ideal  System  

The  team’s  study  has  uncovered  several  areas  where  process  inefficiencies  are  prevalent    and  have  analyzed  them  from    a  reengineering  perspec)ve.    The  proposed  systems  and  implementa)ons    can  expect  to  reduce  overall  cycle  -me  and  increase  job  efficiency.  Improvements  are  con)nuous  and  the  team  recommends  further  process  enhancements  which  can  further  improve  produc)vity  of  the  Order  Management  Cycle.  

    Financial  Strength  

Loyalty   Liquidity   Payment  History  

Global  Weights  

Financial  Strength   1   2   2   2   0.243  Loyalty   1/2   1   2   2   0.511  Liquidity   1/2   1/2   1   1   0.102  Payment  History   1/2   1   1   1   0.144  

    Financial  Strength   Loyalty   Liquidity   Payment  History  Customer  1   >100M   6-­‐10  years   >1.75   No  delayed  payment  Customer  2   80-­‐100M   <2  years   1.5-­‐1.75   10%  delayed  payment  Customer  3   40-­‐60M   >10  years   <1   No  delayed  payment  Customer  4   >100M   2-­‐5  years   1.5-­‐1.75   No  delayed  payment  Customer  5   <40M   2-­‐5  years   1.25-­‐1.5   No  delayed  payment  ……                  

Financial  Strength  0.243  

Loyalty  0.511  

Liquidity  0.102  

Payment  History  0.144  

Total  Weight  Score   Pre-­‐packing  without  payment  in  

Customer  1   1.000   0.563   1.000   1.000   0.777   Yes  Customer  2   0.833   0.183   0.906   0.212   0.419   No  Customer  3   0.500   1.000   0.500   1.000   0.827   Yes  Customer  4   1.000   0.325   0.906   1.000   0.645   Yes  Customer  5   0.264   0.325   0.828   1.000   0.459   No  ……