First and foremost: efficiency
Supply continuity
is a priority
Key challenges
- Modeling processes in a way that avoids irrelevant aspects while maintaining the credibility of results.
- Analysis of historical data concerning the probability of consumption of specific types of parts depending on future demand from production workstations.
- Definition of physical and technical parameters of the logistics train and its travel routes.
Supply continuity is a priority
In the automotive industry, every minute of delay means hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses; therefore, continuity of supply to assembly lines is a top priority. In the analyzed case, parts were delivered using two logistics trains operated by a single operator. The process included loading, transport to the hall, delivery to workstations, and train rotation.
We always strive for the goal
Results of our work
Efficient parts delivery
Definition of the method of delivering parts to assembly workstations.
Equipment configuration analysis
Access to a tool that enables testing different equipment configurations (e.g., the number of wagons in the logistics train) and their impact on results.
Communication support
Providing arguments to support discussions with employees.
know how. Fit for the 21st century.
How did we achieve the objectives?
Start of cooperation
- The project was carried out using FlexSim software. The layout of the production hall was imported from a *.dwg file provided by the client.
- The model was created in the form of an application, enabling the analysis of one of three scenarios defined by the client, with the possibility of further parameterization.
Possible solutions
In the first variant, the train performed a single loop around the entire warehouse hall. In the second variant, two smaller loops were implemented, which required clearing parts of previously blocked routes. In this variant, the biggest uncertainty was whether warehouse staff would be able to prepare the next train set before the previous one returned, completing a shorter loop in less time.
In the third variant, an autonomous train (without an operator) was proposed. This allowed two trains to move independently; however, loading and unloading containers at workstations had to be performed by the employees of those workstations.
For each variant, the number of containers delivered to assembly workstations during one work shift was analyzed.
Implementation
Implementation of changes – what decision did the Client make?
The Client decided to implement variant no. 3 at their facility. However, assembly workstation employees believed that additional operations related to handling logistics trains would introduce confusion and generate unnecessary downtime. Therefore, we analyzed the additional workload resulting from these operations.The client decided to implement variant no. 3 at their facility. However, assembly workstation employees believed that additional operations related to handling logistics trains would introduce confusion and generate unnecessary downtime. Therefore, we analyzed the additional workload resulting from these operations.
It turned out that it would not exceed 5% of working time, i.e., 24 minutes. This argument ultimately tipped the balance in favor of implementing the selected variant.