Featured Product
This Week in Quality Digest Live
Lean Features
Emily Newton
Three challenges to reducing energy consumption while maintaining productivity
Harish Jose
A constructivist’s view of POSIWID
Bruce Hamilton
A good manager knows when to let a player swing away
Knowledge at Wharton
New research offers a tool for identifying motives and goals
William A. Levinson
Intermediaries that don’t add value don’t belong in the supply chain

More Features

Lean News
DigiLEAN software helps companies digitize their lean journey
Partnership embeds quality assurance at every stage of the product life cycle, enables agile product introduction
First trial module of learning tool focuses on ISO 9001 and is available now
Offset-aware programming of spindle transfers and bar pulls helps manufacturers drive multichannel CNC machinery
Freedom platform connects to any industrial asset to provide automated intelligence related to asset availability, utilization, and continuous improvement
Galileo’s Telescope describes how to measure success at the top of the organization, translate down to every level of supervision
Too often process enhancements occur in silos where there is little positive impact on the big picture
This book is a tool for improvement and benchmarking
Real-time data collection and custom solutions for any size shop, machine type, or brand

More News

Jason Furness


Finding the Weakest Link

How productivity was held hostage by a 1-in. hose

Published: Thursday, June 16, 2016 - 14:07

Here’s a “tales from the real worldextract from our book, Manufacturing Money (Amazon Digital, 2015). It offers an example of the “five focusing steps” to improvement, with a particular focus on step one, identify the constraint; and step two, maximize the constraints output.

This was a time when I looked at a problem for months before I finally figured out where the constraint was. I hope you enjoy the tale.

A large grey iron foundry that I used to run, the largest in the southern hemisphere at the time, had a massive green-sand casting line. At our peak we made over 3,000 engine blocks a day, along with crankshafts, flywheels, disc brakes, and other automotive components. The line ran from a basement to two stories in the air and had a few kilometers of conveyor chain, belts, flat-bed conveyors, and four massive 20-ton furnaces.

Lifting the rate of production out of this system was essential. We used to run the line for two shifts, ideally six days a week if we could get the people to work, and we still had shortages. The line ran at about 135 molds an hour and had been commissioned in the early 1960s. The ground did shake when it ran, which wasn’t often enough or fast enough.

Our maintenance department completed a massive study about downtime for each of the many machines and sections of conveyor that made up this massive integrated system. We had data on downtime occurrences in each area, their duration, their causes, and plan of fixes. During a nine-day shutdown encompassing an Easter weekend, we spent about $100,000 on replacing worn components, modifying downtime causes, replacing switches, lubricating the system, and generally giving the entire system a major upgrade. We were all confident that this was the game-changer we needed to lift our performance and break out of the scrambling pattern the team had been in for years.

We restarted production, and the mold-line speed stubbornly remained stuck in the mid-130s. My boss asked me, nicely but pointedly, when were we going to see the returns for all the money we had spent. A week later, no change, another week, still no real change. I was at a loss; we all were. During our downtime reduction meeting where we looked at the data every week, we started to ask what was the piece of equipment that shut the line down most often.

We added some sensors to try and see what was really going on (this was 1960s technology remember, so data capture was nonexistent until we built it), and what we discovered was that the main conveyor drive motors were being turned off and on every half-second or so by some part of the system. The main mold line never reached full speed because it was being flicked on and off continuously. Because this was happening so often and the sheer mass of the conveyor system meant that momentum kept the whole thing moving, no one noticed that the line was being turned off and on. The most common piece of equipment sending out a “stop the line” signal was the weight transfer machine.

When you pour molten metal into a sand mold, the air that is already inside the mold becomes superheated as it escapes. To ensure that the mold is not disturbed by the force of this escaping air, a large weight (+700 kg) is placed on top of each mold before the metal is cast. After the metal has been poured, this weight is then removed and placed onto another mold. This process occurs using a very simple, if rather robust, “pick and place” piece of machinery. This piece of equipment was what was actually stopping the line.

We were all confused as to how this machine could be the problem. It never showed up on our manual downtime logs as a significant cause. The maintenance group and the production supervisor went to investigate. The machinery was pneumatically powered (using compressed air), and there was a large, 2-in. air line going to the machine. Some time previously a rubber air hose that connected the main line to the machine must have broken. It appeared that no 2-in. hose must have been available, so a series of reducing nipples had been fitted, and it was actually a 1-in. air hose that fed the machine. The machine was being fed about one-quarter of the air it should have been. It was starved of air, and was running slower than it should have been. No one had noticed.

That night we replaced the 1-in. hose and all of the nipples, and fitted a 1.5 m length of the correct 2-in. diameter hose.

The result was instantaneous. The mold line rate jumped to about 145 during the next month, and we peaked at a monthly rate of 170 before I left. With the motor being allowed to actually hit full speed, the noise and speed of the system jumped dramatically. All of our downtime reduction efforts became focused on what was stopping the motor from running at high speeds.

During the next few months we gradually went to a five-day week then a nine-day fortnight since we could reliably run more production with less cost and time. Our weakest link was actually a piece of 1-in. hose.

The $100,000 did give us value because these items needed to be fixed to support the increased speeds, but it wasn’t the weakest link at that time and I wish we had fixed the hose first.

This is an excerpt from the book, Manufacturing Money (Amazon Digital Services, 2015) by Jason Furness and Michael McLean. See article on Manufacturship blog.


About The Author

Jason Furness’s picture

Jason Furness

Jason Furness, CEO and founder of Manufacturship, is an executive coach who provides lean manufacturing training and lean consulting in a pragmatic, hands-on way that gets clients results in a fast and sustainable manner. Furness oversees the development and delivery of Manufacturship’s curriculum, leads the mentoring of business owners and managers, and sponsors all client projects. During his 20-year career he has led 30 transformation projects for small and medium-sized enterprises. Furness is the co-author of Manufacturing Money: How CEOs Rapidly Lift Profits in Manufacturing (Amazon Digital Services, 2015).