Project Using Arena Simulation

Table of Contents
Executive Summery 4
Goals 5
Expected Output 5
Process Flow Modeling 6
Part Numbers 8
Kitting 8
Animation 8
Logical Diagram 8
Empty System Timer 10
Part Request & Release and Blackbox of Factory 10
Plane Creation (Release Parts for Production & Kitting) 10
Batching and Loading 10
Transportation Modules 10
Assumptions 11
Arrival Rates 11
Number of Planes 12
Numberof Parts 12
Number of Kits 13
Number of Modules 13
Matrix 13
Second Issues 14
Finished Goods Inventory 14
Part Processing/Flow times 15
Transportation Module Flow 16
Distance Factors 17
Speed Factors 17
Loading/Unloading Delay Factors 17
Costing 17
Regular and Overtime Costs 18
Second Issue Costs 18
Finished Goods Costs 18
Raw Material Safety Stock 19
Control Model 19
ControlModel Verification 20
System Inputs and Initial Results 21
Variable Models 22
System Outputs 22
Data Results 22
Parts Completion Percentage 23
Finished Goods Inventory Costs 24
Conclusions 24
Appendices 25




Executive Summery



At the beginning of the spring 2009 school semester our group from Scott Metlen’s business simulations class was assigned a project with Boeing Skin andSpar in Frederickson, Washington. The nature of the project involved utilizing the simulations programming skills we would acquire throughout the semester on a real life, real time, and real money situation.

The group was comprised of five seniors from the University of Idaho Production/Operations Management program: Dustin Smith, Jeremy Wemple, John Noble, Nic Pentzer, and Shane Wemhoff. Wetraveled to Boeing at the beginning of the class at met with Boeing’s Industrial Engineering group to discuss project scope and expectations. Our assigned group sponsors were Rick Jones and Don McCart.

We utilized Rockwell’s Arena simulations software to complete the project modeling Boeing’s skin and spar production facility in order to determine an appropriate level of finished goodsinventory. Each student had access to personal laptops for use, while the main model was ran through a personal high capacity desktop computer owned by one of the students.

We reported our discoveries on May 1, 2009 to Boeing. This report is a follow up to the presentation and its purpose is to relay all the research and conclusions we came to as a team, as a deliverable document for Professor MetlenPh.D and Boeing’s Industrial Engineering group.

We have accumulated a lot of knowledge throughout the semester on process management and the value of simulation as a powerful tool to assess and improve any process in any organization. We would like to thank Boeing for the opportunity to work with them, especially Rick and Don. We are confident the following information will aid the processimprovement situation at Boeing skin and spar.



Goals



The purpose for modeling the production, kitting, and transportation system for the Frederickson plant is to determine adequate levels of safety stock either in raw material or finished goods inventory. The objective is to minimize factory disruption caused by independent demand defined here as additional demand occurring fromcustomer requests or parts rejected by quality control procedures. The objective arises from five observations taken directly from the factory:

1. Direct module loading philosophy minimizes finished goods inventory. This observation occurs as part of a broader company initiative to implement lean manufacturing principles and subsequently eliminate most finished goods inventory. The productionsystem is intended to produce parts with a mindset analogous to a just-in-time philosophy. In theory, when parts need to be transported they should be finishing the manufacturing process with the timing set to almost eliminate inventory. This process is effective at reducing inventory but it leaves the system highly vulnerable to disruptions caused by rejected parts or additional unforeseen...