I learned several things as a result of playing the Manufacturing
Operations Game. The first lesson learned was the realization of the
importance of teamwork. Everyone in the room brought somewhat similar, yet
slightly different skills and experiences to the game. It was up to each of
us to bring our own perspectives into the game, and thus get a variety of
points of view when the team was faced with a game situation or problem.
Teamwork also means that everyone, although responsible for a different
area, whether engineering, operations, or management, must try to understand
what the other groups is facing. In this way, a member of the operations
team understands what kind of calculations are going on when engineering is
trying to persuade a certain course of action. Furthermore, operations must
have a good sense of how a decision made by engineering will affect
manufacturing, and thus, how manufacturing will react thus impacting
operations indirectly.
Another important lesson learned was the importance of division of
labor and specialization. Although everyone must understand theory to
calculate shortfalls or backlogs, decision making would have been slowed if
every individual had to calculate new starts, yield impacts, or projected
WIP. When working on a cross-functional team with little experience could
result in wasted time if all 12 team members were working on the same problems.
The importance of having a good structure that would allow the
organization to truly work as a unit was required. One of the first things
that I believe everyone in a team first learned from the game was the
importance of eliminating redundancies by having a well-defined organization
with good leadership. Arguments regarding different issues could go on for
hours if management did not step in and try to organize discussion. These
discussions could turn into merry-go-rounds, that is the same points being
rehashed and addressed every five minutes. The importance of focusing the
group and heading toward a common decision or resolution quickly, while
still looking at all viewpoints in an organized manner, was an important
lesson learned by all.
Over the course of the past two weeks, I had the opportunity to
participate in the OR416 Operations Game, a 20 day simulation of a high
technology process line. Personally, I was involved in the operations team
that was responsible for monitoring work-in-process (WIP) levels, number of
raw material starts, and product priority levels. The following discussion
outlines the lessons that I learned from my experience and the suggestions
that I can offer to potentially improve the game for future participants.
In addition to being an interesting experience and offering a
chance to work closely with Professor Roundy, the game offered both
technical and practical lessons. Understanding inventory flows and the
effects of bottlenecks, experiencing first-hand the issues discussed in
lecture, seeing the consequences of both good and bad decisions, and
dealing with the challenges of group dynamics, are all positive things that
I took with me from this experience.
UNDERSTANDING INVENTORY FLOWS:
Although the idea of passing a product through several stages of a
production process seems rather trivial, one doesn't really gain an
understanding of how time and quality play a role until he or she observes
such a process. Having the chance to see the variations in yield levels
and the effects of differing process times and subsequent bottlenecks gave
me a much better understanding. The importance of production planning
became very clear.
FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE:
A large percentage of the time one never gets to see the ideas
discussed in lecture actually put to work. The operations game was a great
opportunity for me to see an actual WIP wave move through a process, to
notice the effects of a faulty machine, and to follow closely an updated
production summary at each stage. The value of experience is hard to top
in teaching.
EFFECTS OF DECISIONS:
The opportunity to deal with unexpected circumstances called for
many instances of decision making. During the entire 20 day simulation,
there were several chances for the group to see the effects of our
decisions on the process. We were able to work through each circumstance
to reach a decision that we thought was best. Sometimes are decisions were
better than others, but the opporunity to decide and learn from the
mistakes was great.
GROUP DYNAMICS:
The operations game allowed me to work both within my own team and
as part of the entire group. Learning to see a situation from a different
perspective and compromise when appropriate is important. This experience
provided many opportunities to do just that.
I thought that the operations game was a very good learning
experience. There were a variety of things that I learned from it. Not
only did I learn the operations management "technical" aspect of the game,
I more importantly learned how the personal dynamics of a group can affect
the results of any business venture. I would like to concentrate on three
lessons learned from the game. First, I would like to talk about how
working with all of the groups affected our results. Secondly, I would
like to discuss the idea of time management with decision making in the
business market. Finally, I would like to talk about the decision making
process with respect to the final goal of the game.
There were four groups that made up the company; engineering,
operations, manufacturing, and management. In the beginning, as a group,
it was decided that the group as a whole would make the decisions. This
made logical sense because all of the decisions made, would affect every
group. However, as the game progressed, it seemed as if groups were making
decisions on their own, without regard to the other groups. It seemed as
if they only wanted to make the decision that was right for their
department, not the company as a whole. This separation really hurt,
because our ideas and decision making was too narrow sighted, causing us to
lose sight of the final task at hand. From this, I learned that in order
to effective, everyone must communicate and have the ability to express
their ideas. When a group can do this efficiently, it allows the group to
maximize ideas and thus create the best chances for success.
The second lesson that I learned from the operations game was that
time is an issue in this game, and in the business world. Our group stayed
until six o'clock on Friday to finish the game. I believe that we as a
group needed to make the best decisions possible. However, I think that we
took too long of time to make those decisions. A better way of
communicating our ideas had to created. Because we were going over the
same decisions time after time. When this occurs, focus is lost, which
could result in bad decision making. In addition, in the real world,
oftentimes decisions are needed quickly. I do not believe that if we were
in a real world situation, we could have met the requirements. By the time
we would have made our decisions, the market would have already changed.
The third lesson I learend from the operations game was that in
order to make good decisions, it is wise to look at your final goal.
Oftentimes, we would make decisions that would benefit one aspect of the
goal, but would hurt us in the final goal. When we learned how to make
each individual decision in streamline with our final goal, our results got
exponentially better. Our final goal was to maximize our score, which
would indicate that we came close to meeting our production production,
wip, and yield predictions. When we focused on our goal, it seemed as if
we got really good results. When we deviated from it, it put us off track.
Three Lessons Learned
The operations game helped me see three factors necessary to manage
a high technology process line. The three lessons I learned are the
clarifying the problem, communication between teams, and the implementation
of the solution.
During the game, one of the most important task is to discover the
bottleneck of the manufacturing process. Sometimes, the bottleneck is not
the most obvious one, i.e. the process with the most inventory. It might be
the result of another process. In the first part of the game, we discover
that the inventory is building on sector 2. We classified it as the
bottleneck. We managed to increase the throughput of sector 2, but only to
find that the inventory of 3 increased dramatically. The probelm is that
the bottleneck has trickled down the process line. During the game, our
team discovered that our throughput was not meeting our requirement because
of these bottlenecks. We then clarified the problem by narrowing down the
true bottlenecks of the process line and attempted solving them by
increasing their capacity to meet our requirement.
The second important concept of the game is the importance of
communication. We see that even though we're physically in different teams,
we actually worked as a whole. Communication is necessary between team so
that our decision is unidirectional. If communication between teams are not
flowing, we might attempted to implement a decision that not all information
is gathered. As a whole, we have to put together our resoures and base our
decisions for the factory on our analysis of those data.
Once the problem was identified and possibilities analyzed, the last
step was to implement our decision. Again, communication played a key role
in this process. Decision we made were based on the inputs from each team.
Each team were given a chance to present their solution to the problem.
Afterward, the teams get together and put together a method to carry out our
decision. For example, we decided that we must increase the capacity of
sector 2. However, increasin capacity can be done many ways. Manufacturing
suggested overtime, operations wanted 2nd shifts, while engineering
suggested introducing new technology to the process. Each have their
advantages and disadvantages, so we have weight the pros and cons of the
situation and implement a decision that will satisfy everyone.
I. Three Lessons Learned from the Manufacturing Operations Game
There are several lessons which I learned from the manufacturing game.
First, it is very important to get a feel of where the bottlenecks will be.
This can be accomplished through the use of the cumulative flow plots.
Without knowing the location of the delay, it is very easy for the
management to waste time and effort trying to shoving more materials into
the system in hopes of meeting the production schedule. Such a practice
will only lead to delays thus further reducing the chance of meeting the
production quota. Second, once possible delay points have been identified,
the management needs to devise a production strategy to counter the
anticipated difficulties. The typical approach for dealing with bottlenecks
are overtime and adding shifts. These two methods have different
requirements and tradeoffs that must be considered carefully before
implementation. Overtime is easier to manage but less effective in a short
period of time. Adding shift, on the other hand, increases the capacity
dramatically but must be carefully timed to match the WIP. Finally,
management itself must have clear understanding of the interrelationship
between Starts, WIP, and final production. Without such an understanding,
management can not assess the situation properly and devise a proper
production strategy.
Lessons Learned
The three lessons that I learned are based on three broad categories:
technical, political, and cultural. First of all, by playing the operations
game I have increased my understanding of a production environment. I now
know what specific areas of data to analyze in order to make appropriate
decisions. More precisely, by concentrating on the individual sectors,
their work in process inventory, and capacity I, along with group members,
could decide in what manner we wanted to resolve specific bottlenecks.
Additional technical skills involved production scheduling. By comparing
actual production, yield, and work in process inventories to planned numbers
I was able to fully understand the steps to take to reach our production
goals. The steps to meet production expectations were to either increase
capacity on a time basis and push it through the system or to increase
capacity over a period of time so as to not shock the system. The technical
aspects of an organization are not the only the items that make it
successful, an organization must possess an environment that enables the
people to implement the technical skills in a positive, productive manner.
It was the political structure of the operations game where I learned my
second lesson. There was a reason that the professors put us in large
groups of approximately 12 students instead of smaller groups of 4 or 5.
If we were able to play in smaller groups we would come to group decisions
much quicker since there would be a smaller number of voices to be heard.
Instead, decisions on individual problems often took 15-25 minutes because
of major group discussion/disagreements. I found this to be healthy. By
hearing differing opinions it opened up my mind, it enabled me to look at
the problems from a different angle, and often, a better angle that lead to
a better decision. I also believe this was a beneficial learning experience
since it is a representation of real world teamwork. Thus, when I do
finally enter that foreign world I will have additional experience in group
decisions.
Finally, I learned that technical skills and organizational structure do
not make a group totally successful. The third element of the puzzle is the
interaction of the group members, how well they work together, how open they
are to opinions different than theirs. I found in my group that people were
very open to other opinions on particular problems. This was advantageous
and created an environment that could move forward together rather than
segregated with differing opinions. Unfortunately, I did also learn that
some people are not as willing to stick their head out and offer their
voice. Thus, decisions in our group hinged on 5-7 people instead of the
entire group. This limits the power of a group and at the same time limits
the growth of individuals since they did not participate and get a true
feeling for the exercise. This leads me into improvement methods.
In real world, manufacturers need to deal with many factors, which have
influences on the production schedules. Among of these factors, capacity,
production quantity per period, and worker are the most important issues to
be focused.
First, capacity is the most important factor in a manufacturing system.
Full utilization of the capacity will result in the maximum production
quantity without extra expenditure. Sometimes, the demand is not so much.
Basically, the capacity should be manipulated as tightly as possible in the
beginning of a period. The manufacturers can have some safety stock for
uncertainties. If the production quantity is still insufficient while all
capacity are manipulated, it will be a good idea to introduce more
production facilities. The consequence of inadequate capacity is losing
more sales and long run customers.
Trying to average daily or every period's production quantity is another
important issue. Because of finite storage space, a manufacturing system
prefers a smoother production schedule. Although overtime and second shift
can catch up a tardy production schedule significantly, the drastic
increasing of a certain type of parts will destroy the WIP balance.
Unbalanced WIP levels need extra storage space which will cause unnecessary
cost.
Worker is the most complicated factor that manufacturers ever faced. Some
physical and mental situations maybe happen to workers. Illness, one of the
physical situations, will cause the absence of workers. Consequently, the
capacity of system decreases without warning. Depression, one of the mental
situation, will cause the lower productive abilities of workers. The
capacity of system decreases, but nobody knows what is going on.
Introducing automatic facilities is a possible way to minimize the
influences from workers' statuses.
Throughout the Manufacturing Operations Game, I was put in the position of
team member, decision maker, communicator, leader and follower. This
experience has made clear to me several issues that may present themselves
in a situation such as this one. In the roles that I played, I learned the
frustrations of communication, experienced the feeling of powerlessness,
and discovered how important team work can be.
In a group setting, communication is essential to meeting any goal. It is
a difficult task to work with others who are on different levels of
communication. There are some who may speak too often, too long, or too
forcefully, thus intimidating other group members. On the other hand,
there may be some who don't feel the need to communicate, letting their
opinion known only when prompted. Another difficulty arises when group
members do not speak clearly. Whether this is due to different dialects,
foreign tongues, or merely misunderstanding; patience is key to those who
are listening. In any case, coordinating a group discussion can be
challenging. The game introduced me to some of these frustrations, and
some of their solutions as well.
The feeling of powerlessness, I'm quite sure, is not new to the
manufacturing scene. Being a member of the manufacturing crew, I
experienced this feeling in several stages of the game. It is difficult to
watch someone else making decisions about things that effect you, directly
or indirectly, when you have no voice in the matter. It is especially
difficult to live with those decisions when you believe they may not be
optimal. In a leadership position, I believe empowerment plays a key role
in adding enthusiasm and a feeling of worth among employees. During the
game, I learned that I would much rather be a leader than a follower;
empowering others rather than waiting for someone else to empower me.
This game also taught me the importance of team work. Our group began with
a weak team attitude. Our decisions were slow and ineffective; confidence
in choices was low. We realized our inefficiency and began to evolve into
a more team-based group. We communicated better, improved our respect for
other members, and worked toward our common goal. As a result, our
decisions were faster and more appropriate. Overall, I enjoyed the
Manufacturing Operations Game. I learned a lot about group work; lessons
which will be useful to me in future experiences, whether real or
simulated.
When the first mention was made that in 416 section we were going
to play a game, I inwardly groaned. It normally works out that whenever
students have to get together and participate in something like a game, no
one really wants to play along and the whole cheesy, poorly laid out affair
turns into a boring, everlasting event. Therefore, I approached 416
section on Thursday, September 5 with a great deal of trepidation. I was
quite pleasantly surprised to find however, that the game was very well
planned, laid out, and creative. I was also pleasantly surprised to find
that all the students were getting very involved in the game and were
actually having fun.
There were many important lessons to be learned from the
Manufacturing Operations Game. These lessons varied greatly in terms of
subject matter. I will discuss the three lessons that I thought were most
important.
The first lesson that I learned from the Manufacturing Operations
Game was that it was very difficult to accomplish tasks with a group as
large as 12 people. All throughout the game, we had a difficult time
getting input from all the team members and then getting a majority of the
people to agree on one decision. With a group of 12 people it seemed that
as soon as an individual began to express their ideas someone else would
break in to either support or rebuke the idea. The air would then be
filled with people discussing the subject and I would be unable to process
or even to hear all the ideas being expressed. Furthermore, whenever we
got to the point where everyone had expressed their ideas, we had a
difficult time coming to any form of a consensus. I definitely feel that
it would have been more efficient with fewer people trying to come to a
decision.
The second lesson that I learned from the Manufacturing Operations
Game was that we as students at Cornell were much too quick to move forward
through the game without adequately dissecting the data we were presented
with. The main screen of the operations game presented us with a wealth of
relevant information. However, sometimes we had to be reigned in from
making a rash decision before we sufficiently inspected the data with which
we were presented. I feel that this impulse on the students' part was a
result of our training here at Cornell. In general, we are presented with
so much information in our classes that we have to be very selective about
what we process or we will not have time to fit it all in. I think that
our lack of attention to detail is something that we will have to be very
conscious about once we get into the real working world where details are
of the utmost importance.
The third lesson that I learned from the Manufacturing Operations
Game was a lesson about how quickly each of the groups; manufacturing,
management, engineering, and operations bonded and were defensive about
their findings-findings which the computer game simulated and they as
people had no prior experience with. I was also fascinated with how well
people adapted to their varying roles within the organization. It was
almost as if we really were those people working in a real manufacturing
facility.
Overall, the Manufacturing Operations Game was a very valuable
teaching and learning experience. This game was a great team building
exercise that was well put together and well run. Because of my experience
with this game, I hope to approach games in this class with more excitement
and less trepidation in the future.
In playing the Operations Game I defineitely learned alittle bit about
manafacturing systems, but I think I learned a lot more about group
dynamics and decisions making.
As far as manafacturing systems are concerned I saaaw the complexity of
inventory, inputs into a system and just a glimpse of how many problems
can occur in daily actvity in a plant. Our major concern was
figuring out our inputs to meet plan and we had various options to
increse or decrease them as needed. We also were concerned with our
yield percentages and our WIP. Thus we had to alleviate bottle neck
and poor production problems. On top of our overall group goal of
meeting plan goals we were faced with problems thrown in from the
system. We dealt with everything from low yield problems to missing
workers to machine mechanical problems. All of these things lead to
interesting group interactions.
In our group there were clear cut leaders, or maybe more so,
controllers. These were a couple of people who the rest of the group
turned to to make final decisions and move us along. There were also
several people who never added much of anything. Their opinions were
drowned out. In the decision making process, there were people who
wanted to go very slowly and analyze every detail. And there were those
who wanted to make snap decisions because that seemed quicker and
simpler. Those who kept dragging things out tended to annoy everyone.
While those who hasty lost their respectability because they seemed too
interested in finishing on time more than maki correct decisions. These
two groups seemed to moderate each other. The things I think that I
learned included: One, that manafacturing systems are complex with many
variable that can alter the system greatly. Two, In a group situation
you will always have people that tend toward leading and those that
follow. And Three, Decisions aare harder to reach when you increase the
number of opinions and opinion makers.
THREE LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS GAME
The Manufacturing Operations Game is a process oriented game in
which the players learn the fundamental techniques of managing a high
technology process line assisted by computer simulation. From the process
of management, I, which represent the manufacturing department of the game,
learned a couple of very important lessons. And from these learning
experiences, I got a better idea of how "real" manufacturing world would
operate and what kind of decision making would I encounter.
The first lesson I learned from the game is the importance of
communication. During the two lab period of the game, our group constantly
ran into confusions because not everyone was focusing at the same problem.
And this led to a shortage of time at the end so we were forced to finished
up in a hurry. This scenario will apply to the real world where a deadline
can not be met due to miscommunication among team members. Communication
is a key word in the manufacturing game because only full cooperation from
everyone can help achieve maximum output.
The second lesson I learned is that not all the time will there be
a clear route to choose when it comes to decision making in the
manufacturing world. And if we want to get the game going, we not only
have to be careful but also be bold in making our decisions. And again the
process of decision making can only be facilitated if everyone in the team
works together. Very often we do not know what will be the right thing to
do. However we will have to make some sort of decisons, hopefully they are
logical, so the operations can be continued. Decision making can become
one of the most cumbersome work we have face in the real world.
The third important lesson I learned is that although the real
manufacturing world can be unpredictable and full of possibilites,
preparation and careful calculations are crucial elements of a good
decision. When a team comes fully prepared to attack a problem, situations
and possibities can be analyzed through a larger scope with different sets
of perspectives. If scientific calculations are performed and facts
scrutinized, the chance that we will make the right decision increases
tremendously because the decision will be supported by logical reasons. Of
course not all situations can be solved by punch in numbers before hand.
However, decisions that are based on facts can help bring on agreement
among team members so ease the process of communication.
The operation game might not teach you exactly how to forcast the
right production for the next two months. But it certainly help you learn
and experience the process of decision making and communication.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The manufacturing operations game was an interesting experience in many
ways. First of all it exemplified the challenges and difficulties involved
when working with a large group of people to make decisions. The number of
people; however, could be considered a minor attribute compared to the
challenges presented when you cluster people into specialties that focus on
different types of information and different aspects of the problem. I
found that our best solutions came about when we left our assigned roles and
worked with in the group as a whole. This was the most time consuming way
of preceding, but often well worth the effort.
Second, I think the game pointed out the complexities of overseeing a
manufacturing operation. It is easy to examine one theory about one section
at a time, but it is difficult to watch each area continuously and
concomitantly. Even as we struggled to manage the relatively few aspects of
production that were simulated we would often realize that decisions that we
made would really be affected by other aspects of a production environment
that were not being simulated.
A third aspect of the game that I found educational was the impact of having
one individual focus for the game. We were force to put a relative
importance on these three factors of the production process: Total 20 day
production, WIP, and Yield, in that order. In a real business situation
there are the same types of priorities set. Even if the formulas are not so
cut and dry. The cultural and politics of an organization will determine
which aspects of the production line are important and in what order. This
is most definitely more complicated to determine than it is to implement a
strategy that would produce outcome accordingly. The game points out this
concept indirectly, but I feel it was an important thing to take from the
game none the less.
The operations game was a good portrayal of circumstances that
occur in real life manufacturing plants. Many of the decisions of the game
were good practice for team work.
The team had to learn to work within the time constraint given.
Daily operations and manufacturing delays had to be managed with
efficiency. It was a good practice to allocate daily time slots of
approximately fifteen minutes each day to make decisions on the day's
events in order to complete the project in time. In real world factories,
decisions had to be made quickly on the spot with the agreement of the
different departments such as engineering and management. Learning to work
within the time frame will help prepare the students for real life
situations.
The team also learned to face new obstacles as problems arise in
the plant. It is very common for factories to have worker problems and
machine breakdowns. Therefore, teams are able to be accustomed to the idea
of solving the issues as they occur and not to expect a smooth operational
manufacturing plant. For example, since the team did not specify which
sector to place a second shift in the plant, a second shift had to be
placed into all sectors for a day. As a result, the team had to adjust the
starts in order to balance for the lack of WIP. The team learned that just
as in real life that it in order to place a second shift of workers there
has to be a certain amount of previous notice before the shift can be
implemented.
Teams learned to place overtime on specific sectors in order to
reduce WIP waves. Furthermore, there are some sectors that took longer
processing periods than other sectors which meant overtime would help speed
the inventory through the sector.
The Operations Game provided our team of management, manufacturing,
operations, and engineering with 20 days to make decisions concerning the
production of two types of "card panels". Throughout the 20 days, our team
faced a number of difficulties with the manufacturing plant. The process
of making decisions to address these problems offered 3 main lessons to be
learned and 3 main ideas about how our team could have improved the
experience.
Lessons Learned
The first main lesson I learned was that a "right" answer doesn't
always exist in the "real world". Every decision made affects a number of
people in a number of different ways; some are positive and some are
negative. There will always be trade-off's so most times you will just
have to weigh the pros and cons of a decision and choose wisely.
Second, it will often be the case that you do not have all of the
information necessary to make a decision. In this situation there are two
options: gather additional information or decide based on the information
you have. For the Operations Game, we were limited to making decisions
with the information given so many times decisions were made based on
intuition. In most cases I think it is important to gain as much relevant
information as possible (within reason) to make an informed and logical
decision.
The last main lesson I learned from the Operations Game is that
often you do not have all of the time you need to make a decision. During
the game, time, or lack thereof, was a major factor in the decisions we
made. We didn't really have adequate time to sift through all of the
relevant information carefully and gain consensus from all team members.
Unfortunately, this is often true in the real world so it is important to
make decisions quickly and efficiently.
Overall, the Operations Game was a good experience. Many of us
will be working in groups and teams in our careers so it is important that
we get a lot of practice. There is a lot to be gained from working with
others so it is important that we learn how to do this effectively and
enjoyably.
Three Lessons Learned:
The three lessons learned from the Operations Game are 1) the
importance of understanding the pressure of having time as a constraint
when formulating decisions, 2) to expect the unexpected, and 3) the
importance of communication between the different groups involved (i.e.
Operations, Management, etc.)
Time is of the essence when trying to complete a project by a
specific time or date. We have to learn how to make quick and smart
decisions in the real world. If not, we will never get the project done on
schedule. This is very important when trying to get a new innovation out
onto the market or even just trying to make the next shipment to your
customers. There is no room for delays. In this project, low yields had
to be overcome with overtime and extra shifts in different sectors. This
is the same in the real world if we want to be able to complete our project
by a specified deadline.
Another lesson from the Operations Game was to expect the
unexpected. No project will ever be problem-free. We must take into
account this extra time caused by these delays and solve them as fast as we
can to reach our desired goal.
The communication between different departments is also the key to
success. Because every department has different information on a certain
situation, it is important to communicate them with the others so an
educated decision can be made. That is, all the factors pertaining to the
situation or problem should be gathered and weighed out before the
Management team makes any attempt to do anything. Communication is also
important because it creates a sense of unity between all the departments.
This is due to the fact that they are all trying to achieve one ultimate
goal and all have their individual input on it.
LESSONS
The Manufacturing Operations Game deals with the fundamental
of a high technology process line management. The most valuable lesson
learned from the game is the sense of teamwork. Team members had to
communicate effectively in order to avoid any misunderstanding and for a
more important reason, the satisfaction of each individual in the team.
Each person has the right to disagree with what other members have to say
as long as s/he provides reasons for his/her disagreement and possible
alternatives for what should be done. The game offers another lesson:
developing skills for handling and solving problems effectively. Each
department can not afford to take too long a time to come up with a
solution but it has to make sure that other departments know the problem.
All options must be observed and each member should realize that every
decision will have some sort of tradeoff. Therefore, everyone had the
opportunity to understand how to use the gathered data. The third lesson
learned from the game is a method of working in the vertical direction
within an organization. Each person learned to define his or her own role
explicitly within the organization and knows the appropriate course of
action in interacting with other departments.
Lessons Learned:
1. It is not beneficial to have a team full of people with common
methods of thinking and problem solving. Some of our best reasoned
decisions came out of challenges to a majority's initial reaction or
defense of this reaction. If we had all had the same ideas on all
problems, we would never have realized the proper reasons for believing
those ideas or considered other options which may have ended up to be
better decisions.
2. The longer you discuss something is not always the better. Watching
the lengthy detailed discussions that went on about simple decisions made
me realize why in most large organizations changes, decisions, and
actions are so slow in coming about. Not everyone has to fully agree and
fully understand the details of every aspect of operations. Hierarchies
and levels of management are designed to avoid this time consumption.
3. Occasionally sitting down and crunching out the nitty-gritty numbers
is highly beneficial to decision making. We all tried to avoid some of
the necessary lengthy calculations in our first few days and tried to use
educated guesses and estimates. We realized that in some cases, the more
detailed information you know, the better your decisions will be.
Three Lessons:
More people does not always mean more success. Simple, yet true.
If you have too many minds spewing out words and info to each other, then
confusion and lack of focus sets in. I found it uneccesary for all 12 of
us to be involved in each decision. We were much more efficient when we
could talk in little groups and get at deeper roots of the problem. By
this I mean that different points were discovered when small groups (3-4)
could talk through things and explore the problem. In cases of smaller
groups the more minds meant better success. I could share my view and have
direct feedback quickly. This would then ignite someone else's idea and
the problem comes closer to being solved.
Don't get me wrong though. I believe 12 people is definitely
workable, but the divisions of labor must be utilized or else its too slow
and confusing. In order to achieve success we must each trust and respect
our group members. It is neccesary for me to have faith in the
management's decisions so that I can focus on my engineering tasks. The
trust factor had to be earned in our group. The first day we didn't know
each other or each others capabilities, so it was slow. Once we trusted we
could do our own thing and function as seperate units of the whole.
The group as a whole must have focus. Focus, focus, focus. It
doesn't matter what you're doing in life; If you focus on it, it will
happen. Unbroken focus is the key to success. But before you focus you
must have something to focus on.
For us it was Production and Yeild. And yes, our group was once
again proof that focus will bring accomplishment. When we directed
ourselves toward Production and Yeild we did heaps better. All the other
superfluous details only took us away from our path. The same goes for
the smaller divisions as well. Each had to focus on their problem and
solve it, while keeping in mind the greater focus of the group.
This leads me to the next lesson I ( and the group) learned;
Though we had to focus on Production and Yeild, the focus must always lie
on group hapiness. This of course can come from achieving our goals. This
also needs to come from each person making an effort to assure that the
group is happy with themselves and the group.
I came out of the first section feeling very drained emotionally.
The decision making was very stressful indeed. It was stressful because we
made it that way. It was stressful because we created a stressful
environment for each other. Once again some of this is due to all the
people adjusting to each other, but now I can expect that and let
frustration just flow through me without it having a great effect. After
all emotions are just fleeting plays upon the open stage of the mind. We
are not emotions...we create them.
The theory is beautiful and works practically, but to help it along
it is good to have a nice freindly environment.( note:If all are of this
similar wavelength then the environment will seemingly create itslef
through intent) What had to be done in our group was for us to have a
pizza break. Just knowing that we all cared about each other enough to
include time for the mind to rest was wonderful for the group feel. We
loosened up and became tighter freinds which led to better
communication. Thus, up goes team moral and team attitude and the positive
trainn starts rolling. Its wonderful, I see it on the soccer feild every
day.
Three lessons learned from the manufacturing operations game:
The most profound lesson which this game taught me was how difficult it is
to maintain order between a relatively large 'board'. Twelve people all
with varying opinions of how problems should be resolved are bound to
disagree, but I had not expected that every detail, no matter how trivial,
would be examined. The group did learn to respect and take into account the
opinions of the other divisions, and therefore began to reach decisions more
rapidly as the simulation progressed.
It is definitely important for all members of the board, regardless of
division, to be familiar with the project at hand. My background is in
Material Science and I knew much of the terminology presented in the
handouts for this project as well as in the actual simulation. However,
many of the members of my group had never heard of terms such as
'photoresist' (aside from the brief descriptions in the handouts) when a
problem arose during the simulation. This realization made me aware of how
important it is for all members of upper-level management to understand all
aspects of the process, since they are the ones who are responsible for
making educated decisions to solve line-related problems.
A general, yet important, lesson which the manufacturing game taught me was
just how much work goes into running a manufacturing line. The group was in
charge of virtually every aspect that a real board would be in charge of,
from implementing new technologies to compensating for sick employees.
Realistic solutions were presented in the simulation and the group had to
come to conclusions together on how to deal with the problems. This 'game'
was my first encounter with the functioning of a manufacturing line, so I
found this particular project very interesting.
Three lessons learned from the Manufacturing Operations Game:
The first lesson I learned is that working in a large team can be
frustrating. Each person in the team had different ideas about how the game
should be played and what choices should be made. The team was comprised
of groups of three or four people for each division (operations,
manufacturing, engineering, and management). If was difficult to find
agreement in the division, and it was even more difficult to find agreement
within the team. Many of the people in the team were at different levels of
understanding about manufacturing, so keeping everyone up to speed was hard.
For example, one guy had no idea what WIP stood for, so the group had to
slow down and explain each step.
The next lesson I learned from this game is that every group needs to have
an input in order to make suitable decision for the problems that arose.
The team aspect of the game was realistic because in an actual plant, the
management would be foolish to make a decision without consulting with the
various groups. Although there was a common team goal (to meet the demand
at the end of the period), each division had internal goals to fulfill (ie.
Keep up the yield, etc.). Each group had to be constantly reminded of the
goal of the game, and that each division must work together.
The final lesson I learned in this game is that the management has the most
difficult task of all of the departments. Each division knew how their
department was supposed to be run, but the management had to oversee each
division, and make the final decision in the end. It was the management's
responsibility to make sure that each group is doing their share, and that
they are doing it in a timely fashion. All of the final decisions must be
made by the management, so they had to have a broad knowledge of all of the
departments.
Three ways to improve the experience:
THREE LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS GAME:
The Operations Research game was a valuable learning
experience because it gave me an idea of the types of problems that arise
and dealt with in a manufacturing environment. More specifically, the game
taught us that we need to clearly identify our goals, we need to define our
roles, and the events that go into production scheduling.
In any decision making environment it is important to clearly
define goals. In this case, our goal was to maximize yield. Once we
realized this, we did not have to be as wary when situations arose
involving costs. It is important to stay focused on your objectiveso you
do not waste time on situations that are not really relevant to the goal at
hand.
The decision making process is much easier when people realize
how their roles contribute to the decisions. In the beginning of the game,
everybody was giving input to every decision that needed to be made. Once
we started dividing up the tasks and calculations to be made between the
departments, our decisions were easier and faster. We put each department
in control of different functions and they proceeded to make
recommendations based on their information. Effective communication was
very important to the timlieness of this exercise.
This exercise gave us a taste of what factors need to be
considered when running a process-oriented manufacturing line. We had to
realize how far off schedule we were and the steps that need to be taken to
fix those inconsistencies. We had to decide the number of starts,
overtime, shifts, etc. we needed in the line. We had to consider what
parts of the line our decisions effected.
The Manufacturing Operations Game gave us an unique experience
that cannot be gained by reading any textbook on the manufacturing
industry.
THREE WAYS TO IMPROVE THE EXPERIENCE:
Lessons Learned
Throughout the operations scheme experience there were many lessons
learned. First, in a real working environment, there must be a detailed
business plan to oversee and keep track of the amount of product produced
each day, the work in process, and the yield produced (overall and per
sector). There must be ample research prior to running any operation of
this type The work must be realistic and obtainable. However, a second
lesson learned is that while a plan is crucial to any company, problems
arise and it is necessary for different groups within the company to work
together to compensate for them. It would be a good idea for companies to
have back up plans for some of the more common problems encountered. For
example, if a worker is ill, temporary employees should be easily
obtainable. Furthermore, if there is a problem in obtaining initial
inventory, another source should be readily available. These problems do
not necessarily indicate the need for new plans, perhaps only the need for
the original plan to be altered to get back on schedule. Teams must work
together to accomplish these tasks in maintaining the schedule in a real
environment where deadlines matter and problems do arise. This highlights
the third lesson learned which is the importance of teamwork. Groups must
make decisions based on their direct responsibility and must be able to
support their decisions with actual data calculations. It is important for
groups to respect each other even if they differ on matters. If a wrong
decision is made, all teams must work together to resolve subsequent
problems whether or not they supported the initial decision.
Ways to Improve
While this experience was quite educational, there are a few ways
it can be improved. One way to make the experience more educational would
be to factor in the costs of decisions made. For example, when an extra
shift was added its extra cost was not factored into the problem. While
adding the extra shift may have brought us closer to production target in
the experiment, this may have cost more than the cost incurred had we not
added the extra shift to meet production demand. Another place where cost
was ignored was when there was excess WIP throughout the month. In reality
a large WIP leads to large inventory costs. Factoring in cost provides a
more accurate representation of a real world situation. A second way to
improve would be to address the human factor in determining the capacity
per sector. On certain days of the week, for example Friday afternoon,
workers may actually produce less due to upcoming weekend relaxation
compared to any other weekday. In addition to this added variable to the
experiment, another should be incorporated to allow for rectification of
such human factors. Perhaps management will have the availability to
perform some form of incentive to the workers to compensate for there idle
workmanship. Finally, a third improvement would be to allow smaller teams
functioning within the experiment. Smaller groups of students would enable
each to be more active in the decision making process.
Three Lessons Learned from the Manufacturing Operations Game:
It is not advantages to have a lot of brains working on a single problem.
It is difficult to progress and solve a problem when there are so many ideas
thrown out and so much debating on each idea. Very slow progress is made in
this manner because of the excessive confusion. Separate divisions are
necessary to avoid this chaos. It works much more efficiently if each
division of a smaller group of people think together and concentrate on a
solution.
Decipline is a necessity in organization. Different divisions cannot be
constantly debating on the types of decisions to be made. This just causes
chaos and confusion as well as being very time consuming. Management must
take charge. Each division should be given the opportunity to propose a
solution based on their expertise area but not constantly fight with
management to sell their ideas.
Careful calculations should be made before decisions are made. Instincts
and speculation can be very deceiving. Planning ahead can reduce errors in
production analysis that would otherwise occur. Adjustments in planning can
be made as situations change. Relying on speculation and instincts however
could produce suprising and inauspicious results that could have been very
easily avoided.
The experience and knowledge gained by utilizing the Operations Game was
notable. Although there were many lessons learned, the three most
noteworthy insights were the applicability of the Daily Report as it related
to key decisions, the importance of all departments to keep each other fully
appraised concerning projects and likewise the necessity of management to
consult all departments prior to implementing decisions, and the effect of
numerous distractions that a production line may encounter.
The daily report was the key tool that the Green Team used for ensuring our
decisions had positive impact on our output. The relationships between Work
In Progress, Yield, and Throughput became very obvious as the team tackled
problems. The ability to review the one page report, and have a firm grasp
on the line, showed its value as a decision making tool.
Each team decision was made with the consensus of the manufacturing,
engineering, operations, and management teams. This was essential as it
ensured that no one department had information which would have effected the
efficiency of a decision. One example of an avoided pitfall was when
engineering recommended implementing a process to recover lost products.
The idea was relatively risk free, but manufacturing and operation's input
was that production was on schedule and the technique, with the limited
risk, would be better off attempted after the end of this cycle. Management
made the right decision to defer the change.
The numerous situations that arose during the 20 day cycle gave an excellent
indication of the susceptibility that a production line has to changes in
labor, supply, or processes. The Green Team, prior to commencing the
exercise, agreed upon a rough strategy to meet production: add overtime
early, and have all bugs worked out prior to day 15. It was soon clear it
would not be that easy. Due to the experience we gained in the first few
days of the simulation, we were able to predict the effects of situations on
the throughput of the line. The need for flexibility to offset the myriad
of situations was a valuable insight gained during the game.
The organization and implementation of the game was outstanding. Several
possible ways to improve the game are briefing the team up front and then
holding the team to time constraints to make decisions, create more
distractions at the end of themonth, and have the CEO come in at day 20 for
a full report - from one member of management.
The information gained during halftime (Tuesday's class between the two Friday
recitations) would have been very valuable prior to the beginning of the
exercise. With each team having a better understanding of the Daily Report
and production line, the TAs could have created an artificial clock for each
team to brief production for the next day, or for each team to make and
implement quick decisions to offset crisis's requiring immediate attention.
The Green Team took 10-15 minutes to decide to keep the line running when we
had a faulty gauge.
There should be additional distractions at the end of the month. The Green
Team made all critical decisions prior to day 15, and just coasted in from
there. This taught some that they not need store additional inventory. A
casualty at day 18, without any buildup of safety stock, would have done us
in. I would have found it very interesting to suffer a casualty on day 17,
and have to make adjustments for the last 3 days of production to meet the
production goal.
I recommend that the CEO of Chip Line semiconductors visit the line on day
20 for a brief by management. One of the many lessons learned is the
importance of management to have a working knowledge of each department's
issues. In this short exercise, there was no requirement for management to
keep fully abreast of the line, as many decisions were made at a lower
level. If the handouts were provided only to the operations, engineering,
and manufacturing teams, there would have been more of a requirement for
briefings and presentations to management. The CEO visit could judge the
dynamics of the team, determining how well they communicated.
The manufacturing operations game was a useful exercise for the following
reasons:
First, the importance of teamwork for today's successful production
organization became evident very early in the game. Clearly, management
can not take an authoritarian role because there are specialty areas,
e.g., manufacturing, engineering, marketing, accounting etc., that it
simply does not know enough about at the detailed level. Hence, the role of
management is to synthesize the advice of the different functional
departments into useful decisions, and then implement these decisions in
an effective manner.
Second, the game provides the student with the true meaning of concepts
such as bottlenecks, work in process (WIP) inventory, production
lead/process times, and other related terminology, in a very practical
sense. Familiarity with and extensive usage of this production 'lingo'
certainly helps in understanding the concepts it represents at a more
fundamental level than is possible from a text book.
Finally, the game highlights the fact that high pressure situations can
bring a group of trained people together at a very synergistic level,
enabling them to work more productively as a group than if they weren't
pressed so hard for a result. For example, near the end of the game on
day 17, our group realized that although we had a high score, we had to
proceed very carefully for the next three days, and make judicious
choices, if we were to maintain that score. Hence, much careful planning
and creative group dynamics were involved in those final production
decisions.
The production simulation was too complex for one person, or even a small
group, to make informed decisions. We each had to take responsibility
for decisions falling in the scope of our positions and trust that the
other departments would make wise choices as well. Each department had
to act as a unit, soliciting input from all members and standing behind
the recommendations of the group even when we didn't agree with them
personally. This was, perhaps, the most difficult part of the simulation
as it is often hard to support recommendations in which we are not
confident; but this is what teamwork is all about.
A second lesson learned was delegation. For the first few days
of production we attempted to make decisions as one large group with
individuals voicing comments and concerns. Our planning process became
much more efficient as management assigned projects to the individual
departments. At the same time, management learned to respect the choices
of its staff; delegation becomes ineffective when the leadership
overrules recommendations made by members of the team.
Our group also learned how to run a meeting, keep to an agenda
and take breaks. After taking an hour to make our first day's production
decision we started limiting the amount of time spent discussing any one
issue. We occasionaly fell behind schedule when department decisions
related to overtime and additional shifts conflicted with each other, but
that is a normal part of "real-world" meetings. By taking a mid-section
pizza break during our second meeting we gave ourselves needed rest and
tension relief, making the last half of our meeting more productive than
it otherwise may have been. The food and caffeine gave us all an added
energy boost to make it through the late afternoon hours. This is
something that is very important in the "real world". During a summer
internship I sat through three and four hour meetings in which no one
suggested even a minute break to stand up and stretch. By the last hour
of the meetings, we were often talking in circles and straying from our
goals and agendas. Occasional breaks, as Team Orange proved, are necessary
for effective and productive meetings.
One of the lessons I learned in the Manufacturing Options Game
almost from the very outset is that it is inherently very difficult to run
a manufacturing operation in a large group setting. By comparison to an
real life manufacturing operation, our group was actually quite small, but
even with 9 or 10 people in different departments, it was difficult to
transcend personalities and biases that each individual possessed. There
were times when one group or the other didn't quite pull its weight. There
were other times when communication within groups as well as across groups
was not very smooth. At times the special concerns or interests of people
responsible for one function or another seemed to drive their decisions, as
opposed to them paying attention to the larger goals of the company.
Sometimes, because of our sheer numbers, it took us a very long time to
come to decisions that should have been made much more rapidly.
Another thing that I learned is that multi-item multi-stage serial
production can become very complex and at times can be very dangerous. The
effect of something bad going on at one particular stage of the production
process can have a rippling effect an show up many times worse down the
line. Being able to methodically diagnose problems in the line and trace
them back to their sources can become very important to the smooth running
of the operation. Also when producing more than one product, it can become
difficult to decide which product to give priority to in an emergency
situation. It was hard enough with just two products, and I imagine that
it must be even more challenging when several products are being produced
in the same plant. I always hesitated to give one product priority, because
I feared the other would suffer, and that my efforts may not necessarily
help the product in trouble.
A third thing I learned is that in many respects, manufacturing is
a science. Diagnosis and treatment of many problems in the line can be
generated through the use of basic manufacturing rules and calculations.
There were times when it seemed that the answer to a particular problem was
obvious, or that we had a gut feeling of what to do to make things work.
Sometimes this was true, but other times, some number crunching was
necessary. One actual instance of this occured near the end of the game
when we had to figure out how many starts to put into the system under the
given conditions to catch up with our targeted production goals. Although
I felt like I could guess the correct nubmer, I was greatful that we
(operations) actually went through and did the correct calculations to
arrive at the correct figure. This helped us out in the end of the game.
The manufacturing operations game is a very precious experience in
learning how to work as a team. I learn some mathematical techniques to
solve those operations problems from my group members; but the more
important thing is that I understand more about the different tasks carried
by different positions. Moreover, I learn about the communication skills
and the difficulties while working in a team.
Before I play the game, I have a wrong impression that a management
group only concerns how much profits can be made from the operations or it
only deals with the business on the non-technical side. However, the
experience in playing the game tells me that the management group plays a
very important role in a technical manufacturing plant. In a team of
twelve people, it is very natural to happen that a lot of different ideas
and opinions can come up when the team tries to tackle a problem. In this
case, the management group is in a critical position to organize all these
various suggestions and pick the best solution. Therefore, the management
group must have a strong technical knowledge background to examine the
operations in order to make the right decisions.
It is very hard to make all the twelve people get involved into the
discussion. Sometimes, people may not feel free to speak up their ideas if
the management group is too desperate in getting its own goal. On the
other hand, when every one is very enthusiastic in talking about his own
suggestions, other members in the group may not even have a chance to bring
up their own ideas; which will eliminate their opportunities to make
contributions to the group. Therefore, one of the main roles of the
management group is to balance the participation of every member in the
team. Moreover, the management group should be open-minded and have a
positive attitude to listen to and consider suggestions from everyone.
Time-controlling is one of the important skills in group
discussion. It is easy to run overtime by analyzing a number of different
proposals. Moreover, it takes a while for everyone to understand those
more complicated problems. Therefore, it is hard to keep pace with
everyone in a group discussion. Again, the management group should make
sure that every body is offered a chance to express his own ideas; but at
the same time, the team does not spend too much time on solving one
particular problem. In other words, the management group should improve
the efficiency of the whole team on drawing conclusions for solving the
problems.
Three lessons learned from the Manufacturing Game
First of all, I noticed the importance of information exchange among
various department in order to make appropriate decision for occurring
problems. Because in the present production system each department
individually has certain information related to the issue broken out in the
process and all production systems in a continuous process are connected
closely each other, we need to deeply examine all possible solutions at the
meeting where all production related departments gather and choose the most
appropriate and effective solution that might be chosen by decision makers.
By discussing closely, we could find better solutions than any other
alternatives.
Second, we have to have good presentation skills; in other words,
when we propose an idea or solution, we have to persuade other people who
concern the issue to be solved. Even if we propose objectively the best idea
among alternatives, others' would be accepted due to the fact that it sounds
attractive for decision makers. They are usually busy and do not have enough
time to examine each proposed alternative in detail, so presentation is
great importance. In order to make our presentation effective, "numbers"
would be the most powerful tool. In the most of the manufacturing
environment, "numbers" are the most crucial issue (for instance, production
rate, yield rate, etc.). With concrete "numbers", our proposal would be more
effective and persuasive.
Third, it is helpful to prepare contingency plans for just in case.
As we saw in the Game, many happening occur in the production line. Some are
internally and others are externally caused. As engineers, we need to assume
many situations where production activity is interrupted. By examining those
situations, we could find out what are crucial for smooth production
activities and make or put in mind contingency plans for such cases. In
addition, through examining the situations, we could see what kind of area
in our process should be improved to avoid production activities interrupted.
One lesson I learned while playing the operations game was that it
is easier to make group decisions when all sub-groups shared their
information. My group often read aloud, or passed around, the information
sheats that were originally handed to one subgroup. This avoided time
consuming individual questions that were answered in the handout. It also
allowed all members of the group to discuss problems easier, because they
knew exactly what information other members had.
Another lesson I learned was how important personal
frustration-management techniques are. I found that disagreements were
handled a lot more smoothly and quickly when I took a deep breath, listened
closely to the other person, and presented my case slowly, clearly and
quietly. I also realized that, although I may not convince the other person
of my point, I should still maintain my position because my point may end up
being quite significant. Specifically, another subgroup member and I were
doing a calculation two different ways and therefore were making conflicting
recommendations to the group. It took a few repeated attempts to convince
the other person that my calculation was correct, but calm discussions
allowed agreement before the conflict negaticvely affected our group
performance.
A third lesson was that it is beneficial to work slowly because
there are other people for whom English is a foreign language. It is also
important to take time to make explainations and to answer questions because
another person may have a very ipmortant or insightful point, or the process
itself may help you to see any flaws in your own logic.
The Manufacturing Operations Game was a very interesting and
educational team building activity. I really enjoyed participating in this
game because it exposed me to the realities of a manufacturing plant and
the daily decisions that need to be made on the manufacturing floor. I've
never worked in a manufacturing plant, therefore entering into this
activity I was very ignorant to what actually occurs daily at a
manufacturing plant, since most of the ORIE manufacturing classes I have
taken deal with very theoretical environments where everything is running
smoothly. I never really learned how to handle the various problems that
arise at a plant.
Obviously an activity of this sort is always going to be a learning
experience, however the three main lessons that I learned through this game
were: the various roles that each division plays in the manufacturing
process, especially the role of management; the importance of
communication between the various functions; and the importance of
production planning.
Although this was a short activity and many of us shared similar
skills, I was able to get a better feel of the distinction of each function
in the manufacturing process: Engineering, Management, Manufacturing and
Operations each with its own set of skills. I learned that involving every
function in every decision is not a productive method of operating. Our
decision making process in the beginning of the game was very inefficient,
because we attempted to make decisions through consensus of all functions
for every decision made, however, towards the end of the game we realized
that we would never finish the game unless the work was allocated with each
function making all the decisions for a particular area, e.g. manufacturing
was given the responsibility of making overtime decisions. This eliminated
a great deal of inefficiency. I also learned the importance of management
in making final decisions and coordinating activities of the group. It is
vital for them to take a leadership role in the decision making process,
since time is limited, especially in the case of an emergency, where a
hesitation would lead to losing an entire batch of products.
Another lesson that I learned through this game is the importance
of communication between the functions. This is important at any company.
Information sharing is critical in making the best decisions, since
different functions hold different information that could be important in
making a decision. Every single worker who has worked in a particular
area or on a particular machine has insight to share with others, therefore
communication is vital. Many times engineering or operations would hold a
piece of information that other functions were unaware of which would have
led to a different decision if not available.
The last main lesson that I learned was to plan ahead. With
certain deadlines, production goals, yields, and lines to balance it is
very important to plan ahead so that managers can better understand the
plant's capacity limits and develop better strategies to reach these goals.
Ten days into our game we paused to plan out our production plan for the
last ten days in order to reach our goals, since many of the decisions we
needed to make entailed either long term consequences or needed a certain
time period to implement, e.g. implementing two shifts, which involved an 5
day execution period. To expand upon the amount of planning involved in
implementing the extra shift, below is a list of things we had to consider:
-How much input to place into the process each day to be able to build up
enough WIP so that the double shifts will be running at capacity.
-How long to run the extra shift and in what sectors.
-How much more to produce due to the yield lost caused by the
implementation of the second shift.
-How much overtime to implement in the other sectors to stay within
capacity limits.
along with other problems that may arise.
Operations Game Essay: Three Lessons Learned
The three lessons I learned from the manufacturing operations game are:
1) How to work with others.
2) Expressing my ideas in an organized way.
3) How to make timely decisions.
This experience has taught me how to work in a large group environment.
I've learned that its much easier to work in a smaller group. In the
smaller, individual groups, ideas get around and decisions are agreed on a
lot faster. However, sometimes things are over looked. Its hard to get all
15 people to agree on the same answer. There is always some uncertainty.
If every department could come up with a suggestion to the management and
its reason for the recommendation, it would be a lot easier for the
management to make a decision. One can also see from the first 15 to 20
minutes who the active participants are in the exercise.
In a large group, it is also important to be able to express an idea in a
clear and concise way where it can be understood easily and quickly.
Sometimes I would have a thought and try to make a point before I think it
through. This caused confusion which extended the time needed to make the
decision. It is also important to write down the ideas, facts, data that
are important on the board for everyone to see. Its hard to constantly ask
people for data or information that are relevant. A clear presentation of
data, facts, and ideas make decision making a lot faster. Writing down the
objective or goal of the project also helps in keeping everyone on track as
to what is trying to be accomplished.
This exercise simulated decision making in a real manufacturing environment.
Sometimes managers will have to make decisions without all the information
present. It taught me that not only do we have to relieve that current
problem, but we also have to consider the long term side effects of the
decision. Another important thing is that not every decision we make is
going to be the right one or the best one. What matter is how we adapt and
deal with those situation that separates good managers from the bad. Having
a good balanced managerial team from different departments is key to
successful decision making.
Part 1)
I learned a couple of things: Performance measures are by definition used to
measure performance over a longer period of time. You have to take the long
view in planning your moves and be prepared to accept sub-optimal
performance in the short run to achieve your long-term goals. This is
especially true in multi-item multi-stage production modeling. The effects
of small disruption at the beginning stages can be made much worse by
overhasty corrections with only a one or teo production cycles in mind. The
very nature of multi-stage serial production makes the system to prone to
exhibit chaotic, i.e. unpredictable, behavior in the long run, since small
changes in initial conditions very quickly make the system behave in
unpredictable ways.
Operational Decisions should be based on quantitative analysis, and not on
gut feeling. The Manufactoring Operating System gives a good overview over
the relevant factor and input paramaters; an especially valuable tool is the
What-if scenario you can view. However, excellent tools are one thing, but
you got to know what input parameters to vary. Inexperienced players may
very well be able to rationalize their decision by pointing out the increase
of performance measures, but the reason they chose to vary certain
parameters remains obscure and is all too often simply a lucky guess.
Rigorous analysis can be supplemented by intuition, but should not supersede
it, at least not when one is on the beginning of the learning curve. Certain
people do not react too kindly when faced with other people who just look at
the screen and blurt out some course of action whithout being able to
rationalize it. These intuitive types might be geniuses, but they still got
to explain themselves. I found it excruciantingly difficult to deal with
those people. Groups of over 5 people do not work well, I find - too many
egos clash, too many opinions to be heard within a limited time frame.
Part 2)
1) Solving problems in a group accomplishes more than individual work.
My team worked well together on a lot of problems. We would each read the
question and think about it for a while. Usually, at the beginning,
everyone had a different decision on how to solve the problem. We would
talk the problem out until everyone agreed to one decision. It would have
been interesting to see what would have happened if everyone did the
project on their own. Sometimes, if you are on the wrong track, it only
takes one word to put you back on track. That is the major advantage of
talking through each p0roblem before coming to a decision.
2) If time is an issue, it is better to splitup responsibility and "trust"
co-teammates.
A good example of this is deciding how much material to release. It seemed
that we spent a lot of time on this subject, and we were always making a
qualitative guess. We should have followed the systematic way of deciding
how much material to release, and left one group of people in charge of
that decision.
This lesson can be applied to the real world where companies must
make thousands of decisions every day. If those decisions had to pass
through every level of the heirarchy, nothing would get accomplished. This
may be why some companies are flattening their heirarchy.
3) The minority is often right.
In some decisions we made, almost the whole group agreed on one
choice, except for one or two people. I learned that it is important to
keep an open mind, and really listen to what everyone is saying, even if
they seem to be diverging form the group. On the other side, if you know
that you are right, you should be persistent by quantitatively pointing out
the benefits of your decision, and the flaws of the alternatives.
Three Lessons Learned
Perhaps the most important lesson I learned during the course of the game
is that it is extraordinarily difficult to work in a team of twelve. Group
dynamics might not have been too bad if we had truly represented four
different groups with four separate interests; unfortunately, the exercise
provided no incentive to focus on the specifics of our assigned tasks. As
a result, our team interactions approached a state of bedlam, with twelve
people trying to impose their individual opinions on the other eleven. In
the beginning of the game, each decision was a time consuming group vote;
toward the end, an aggressive faction led the team through to the game's
conclusion.
We attempted to create a sense of order during the week-long break between
labs. By organizing a plan for decision making and attempting to limit the
amount of time available to discuss issues, we hoped to fix the ills of the
first week. However, management was unable to enforce its plan; our job
descriptions soon became irrelevant, as everyone attempted to influence all
segments of our business. Those who finally placed themselves in charge
did do a fantastic job, but that seemed to violate the spirit of the game.
Beyond the perils of group dynamics, I also learned how difficult it can be
to manage multi-stage serial production - the pre-planning involved is as
intricate as in chess. It is simply not enough to be aware of current
production, WIP's, and the like; one must attempt to avoid future
bottlenecks and shortages with a balanced plan of attack for all stages of
the process.
Our solution for solving the production shortage was to dump a high volume
into the system, and then manage the wave with a series of double shifts -
my engineering group's greatest legacy. This proved far more difficult
than we had thought, and we were forced to compensate for calculation
errors with various overtime shifts for the remainder of the game. One
interesting thing I noticed during game play was that no one had bothered
to concern themselves with the WIP score until it was almost too late; we
were barely able to recover from that oversight.
My third lesson involved an error I commonly make: I tend to assume that
ideal conditions will exist throughout a project. It is very easy to
assume the conditions we have at the start of day one would continue
through the month, even when we all know better. Whenever we would plan
production, we would forget to consider the consequences of an absent
worker or a down machine. Rather than plan a slight surplus to balance the
load throughout the month, we would fall behind every time something
unexpected would occur, and then try to catch up. Our planning did work
out well in the end, but it did not seem to be the best way to operate.
3 Lessons learned from the Manufacturing Operations Game
The Manufacturing Operations Game was a great experience. This
past summer I worked in a manufacturing plant, and the plant was divided
into the same four teams: management, manufacturing, operations, and
engineering. I never really understood what each of them did, or how they
put all their work together. The operations game showed me a couple of
things that are crucial for running a manufacturing plant.
First, it made me realize the importance of teamwork and good
communication in an organization. Without a good teamwork and clear and
effective communication, there was no way that we were going to be able to
have the product manufactured by the time constraint (20 days). Like a
real life organization, we were thrown into sub-groups without a choice.
Next thing we know, we have to make decisions and convince the other
sub-groups that our decision is right by explaining it to them and by
backing it up with facts and data. Good discussions aroused from the
decision-making processes, and the main point of these were to make the
most efficient and effective decision possible, which would result in a
productivity and yield increase.
Another lesson I learned was that, in order to make decisions, even
within the sub-groups (or departments), you have to be well-prepared. You
need to know what's going on, and when and where (in what sector) is it
happening. By understanding the product's process, and the line layout,
you are more receptive of little details that might affect the production
positively or negatively. Each of the sub-groups was given some extra data
that was relevant to their decisions. All this data and information was a
valuable resource, and by using it properly, it could help your team make
an optimal decision. In order to do this each of the members of the
sub-group had to understand the data thoroughly. Different information is
delivered to different departments. Therefore, each of these departments
have to take the information into consideration when making a decision.
Also, each department has to consider the fact that some of the information
they receive may be valuable to another department in one of their
decisions. That is why it is important to understand the data you get from
the process and the needs and problems of the other departments, without
undermining you own department's needs. At the same time, you have to know
what kind of information you can acquire from the other departments that
will aid in your quest for an answer. You have to exploit all the
resources possible before engaging in a decision that can turn out into a
success or a catastrophe.
Last, but not least, I learned the importance of focusing your
attention into what you are supposed to. Often during the game, one
department had to make a decision and other departments got so carried away
that they forgot to keep working on their own problem, thus creating delays
with decisions that made the whole group (all departments) fall "behind
schedule." By focusing on your sub-group's problem, you can detect
failures and prevent shortcomings from happening. But most important, you
can make decisions more assertively, and in less time. At the beginning of
the game, all departments took part in making a sub-group's decision.
Afterwards, we realized that we needed to hurry up in order to meet the
time constraint. Right then we all started focusing on our own department.
The teamwork was divided into two parts. Each sub-group worked together
to reach a decision, and when this was made, it was exposed to the other
departments in order to say the final word. This strategy resulted in
cutting our decision-making time tremendously.
I belonged to the Management Team in the Operations Game. I have learned
several things through this game and the following are the three most
important lessons that I have learnt.
I observed the importance of division of labour in the game. Each team -
management, manufacturing, engineering, and operations has its own function.
People in each team should concentrate on their own responsibilities first
before crossing over to tasks being worked on by other teams. If there were
too many people working on the same thing, for example the same calculation,
it would means redundancy in the process and loss of efficiency in decision
making, leading to over time. Also, there were times that one team had the
information that other teams did not have, and it would be hard for other
teams to come up with the best answer without that piece of information.
Therefore, teams should place taking care of their own functions in the
first priority.
Another lesson that I have learnt is the importance of communication. If
one team had an exclusive source of information, it was important to inform
other teams at the right time. Otherwise, wrong or bias decisions would
result. It was also important for each participant to voice out their
opinion and listen to and consider any rebut before making a decision. This
would harmonise the atmosphere of the whole group. The group could thus be
an integrated whole as the game moved along. Communication was especially
important with the Operations Team or else they would proceed the simulation
too fast before everyone agreed on the decisions made.
The existence of calculated risk is another lesson. There would always be
unexpected things happening in the real world, as in the simulation game.
We must learn to be comfortable with making decision based on some
calculations and predictions, since it would be impossible to be absolutely
certain on any data. We should not be worrying too much if we had some
calculations done before proceeding on the game.
The Manufacturing Operations Game definitely offered insights to managing a
high technology process line. As a player of the game and a member of
management, I learned several key principles important to effectively and
efficiently run the manufacturing line. The three most important ones are
the need for information systems, effective communication and division of
duties.
Effective use of data is vital to decision making. It reveals processes
whose performance has dropped or gone out of control and/ or are in need of
additional resources. In most cases abnormality in data can tell management
of machines that are not working up to standards. Analysis data can also
reveal areas management can work with to improve the entire process. In the
case of our manufacturing game, the data can tell us whether to hire
additional workers on a particular sector or even whether a new and improved
machinery should be implemented. Thus information systems are invaluable
to the performance of the manufacturing line.
In a setting such as this one where Operations is divided into different
task assigned to separate divisions, teamwork and effective communication
are a necessity. Since each department of the manufacturing operations
acquires different information that may pertain to other departments, poor
communication will hinder operations. We saw in the game how a decision to
increase Starts by Operations will affect yields that are managed by
Engineering and on whether or not to implement overtime which is manage by
Manufacturing.
Another lesson I learned is the importance of dividing the task. Since so
much information is conveyed in such a short time it is almost impossible to
not divide the work. As a member of management I saw the need to assign
task in the interest of coming up with a decision in a reasonable amount of
time. Even within each department work can be further divided. For instance
dividing the assignment into GA or GD.
The Operations Management game was a good learning experience for any
engineer who will one day venture out into the business world. Three things
which I learned especially about were: the idea of group decision making,
the various branches of a manufacturing company, and the tradeoff that must
be taken into consideration when making a decision.
One of the most important lessons learned from the game is the idea of
group or team decision making. Since most important decisions are made in
boardrooms among groups of people, it is important that everyone be familiar
with the situation. It is important to not how difficult it can be for
members of a group to agree on an action or a decision. It is likewise
important to see how difficult it is for management to make decisions when
they are not properly informed, and those who are informed do not agree with
each other. Overall the group experience forces members to interact with
one another, and come to agreement on decisions to be made.
The second lesson learned from the game is the actual branches involved in
a manufacturing company. Although every company may not have the same exact
branches as the game, each of the four branches of expertise must be
represented in any decision making process. It was interesting to see how
someone in Operations could be given a chance to voice their opinion on a
decision made by engineering. The game teaches how the different aspects of
the company are broken up, and how decisions are made collectively by
representatives of each branch.
The third lesson taught by the Operations game is the lesson of tradeoffs.
In any large corporate environment, there will be tradeoffs for any
decisions made in the boardroom. Since those in the boardroom are separate
from those who are actually on the factory floor, they may be unaware as to
some of the factors involved in their decisions. More often than not,
executives must make decisions to alleviate problems that have arisen. It
is here where they must weigh each option, its strengths and weaknesses, and
then come to a consensus on a decision.
The Operations Game was a beneficial experience to all who participated.
Although it didn't simulate a real world environment exactly, it did bring
forward some attributes which do occur in actual industry. By experiencing
and learning about these situations now, students will be better prepared to
enter the business world.
There are at least three lessons that I learned from the manufacturing game:
First, use the board. I realized that working with 15 people in four
different departments trying to reach a consensus is not easy. In the
beginning, it took us so much time and effort to decide which alternative we
were going to take. The reason is that everyone has at least one thing to
say; and not until his/her opinion has been recognized that he/she can be in
peace. As a result, the management team kept asking around the table for
people's opinions repeatedly without coming into a decision. Later on,
Prof. Jackson suggested a more effective way. He told us that we should
write down on the board every person's opinion in purpose of recognizing
everyone's point of view in the first time around. We tried his suggestion
and turned out to be very effective.
The second thing that I learned is that we should not be too rush in making
decision, but rather analyze the root of the problem in greater depth. For
example, the first problem that we encountered was the oven problem. Without
much analysis, I decided to fix the oven. But then, when we analyzed the
problem further, we found out that the problem was not with the oven, but
instead with the monitor. Therefore, we should not jump to a conclusion
without much analysis or studies about the real problem. We should not find
the easy solution, rather the right one.
Third, I learned that when we make decision, we should consider not only the
short-term effect, but also the long-term effect. For example, when we were
given the choice of using the new material. If we view the effect of using
this new material from the short-term perspective, we might think that it is
a bad thing to do because of the delay due to the trial and the uncertainty
caused by the new material. However, if we view it from the long-term
perspective, it might be a very wise thing to do. We could shorten our
processing time, and as a result raise the capacity which we needed badly.
Three ways of improvement for this manufacturing game:
The Manufacturing Operations Game served as a good learning tool
not only about how companys operate, but also how groups work together in a
stressful environment. There were several things that I observed while
participating in this game.
*Performance Measurement: Although keeping all constraints in mind
when making decisions is important, the aspect on which your performance is
measured is usually what guides the final decision. In this case,
productivity and yield were what we were graded on, so this is what we
focused on when we made our decisions. Cost, although an important real
life consideration, made no difference in this game and therefore never
came into the discussions of our choices.
*Multi-Item, Multi-Stage Production: The depth of this factory
made it much more difficult to design a production schedule. In all other
class projects that I have done in the past, we have only had to focus on
one product or one stage. Having two products forced us to take into
account the time and steps necessary to make both products, especially
since they did not have exactly the same process and demand.
*Operational Decisions: The main thing I learned about operational
decisions is the importance of using past information. The data gathered
and given to us, if analyzed correctly, could rule out several of our
options, making our decision much easier. Although we will normally have
more than four options in real life, the lesson still holds true.
*Analysis vs. Intuition: In our group, we started off by basing
our decisions mostly on intuition, resulting in drop in yield early on.
Our instructor then led us in the direction of looking at the pure numbers
and ruling out choices before we jumped to a decision. This caused our
numbers to increase again. This taught us that although intuition is good
to follow in life, in business the numbers are what make you money.
(Although analysis is important, people must not ignore their intuition).
*Group Dynamics: The most important lesson of the whole game was
that without effective communication and teamwork, the company would sink.
It was important that each group talked our their ideas and shared them
with the other groups. Giving other groups all the information that you
have will also make their decisions easier and more informed.
Understanding how the whole process works, and what each group has to
contribute and deal with is also crucial to good communication and
therefore success.
The Manufacturing Operations Game taught me many lessons. First
and foremost, it showed me what it is like to be a part of a large group
that must make many decisions each day. The effective communication
between members is essential to discovering the issues and factors needed
to be addressed in making each decision. Often decisions were made without
full knowledge of the situation because members could not effectively
communicate their concerns, and more importantly the information, that they
possessed. The efficient functioning of a group also requires a leader who
can always move the discussion forward while getting the necessary
information, calculations, and input needed from each member.
Unfortunately, our group lacked an adequate leader. We wasted too much
time and collected too much information on some decisions and took too
little time in making other decisions. Our discussions were also
fragmented because our group lacked an effective moderator.
The game also taught me that analysis can only tell you so much.
Intuition is also needed to augment the analysis. Frequently we were asked
to make decisions without having the time or facts to completely analyze
the different possible actions. Once we were asked to make a decision
without any facts but to trust our intuition completely. Good intuition
was essential to making the best decision possible.
I also realized that no matter how good manufacturing information
systems are they can never be relied upon exclusively to make decisions.
There are parts of the systems that are not adequately taken into account
in these sytems, most important of those being the most variable part of
the system, the workers. If Joe Worker is ahving a bad day, looking at
throughput and yeild will only give you a clue. It cannot replace
inspecting the system personally to look for the variables that are not
adequately represented by the manufacturing information system.
I.Three Lessons Learned From The Manufacturing Option Game
I.1.Importance of the bottlenecks
In the case of the production system used in the game, where each
workshop is dependent from the former, it is easy to realize the importance
of bottlenecks : obviously, the total throughput of the "factory" is
determined by the troughput of the bottleneck.
Consequently, to have a smooth and highvolume-production, it is important to :
First detect them because then can often disappear, appear or move with
changes of input, capacities (due to overtime), priorities between products
etc...
Then deal with them by
-Suppressing them by increasing their capacity ( by overtime or second shifts).
-Adapting the troughput of the workshops which precedes the bottlenecks (if
their throughput is too important, that is to say, superior at the
bottleneck capacity , inventory is accumulating before the bottleneck; on
the opposite case, the bottleneck does not operate at full capacity so the
bottleneck is even more narrow).
At least, each workshop which remains a bottleneck must be used at its full
capacity to have a correct productivity.
I.2.The inertia of the production cycle
It is an important feature of the assembly line : each change, for
example at the level of the inputs or the capacities, is not immediately
followed by a change at the output of the assembly lines (the product needs
the time to came through the line).
Consequently, it is necessary to anticipate constantly the evolution of the
final throughput compared to the objectives to react early enough to keep
deviations from the objective under control.
I.3.Different behaviors inside the group
When data are to numerous and consenquently difficult to analyse
quickly ( this is the case in the Manufacturing Information System ),
people seem reluctant to analyse them and usually prefer to look at them
globally and draw a conclusion from it, using intuition instead of taking
the time to rationnally analyze them with the team.
Furthermore, it is worth noticing that, with the same data, people reacts
very differently. In our case, we had accumulated a strong delay compared
to the production plan, however a lot of "conservative" people didn't want
to increase the overtime or the input by more than 5% (what was far from
sufficient to come up for the delay) fearing that "it could disturb the
system"whereas, on the opposite, other wanted to implement second shift to
quickly come up this delay.
Three Lessons Learned from the Manufacturing Operations Game
1. The main thing I learned from this lab exercize is that running a
Manufacturing Operation is all about trade-offs. No matter what problem,
failure, or situation we encountered there was always a trade-off to be
made. For example, I was part of the Manufacturing Team, which focused on
production. Whenever we wanted to increase or decrease production and/or
overtime, we would have to clear our plans with Operations and Engineering
first. And usually we would have to come to an agreement, thereby
conceding somewhat, before we could go ahead. Of course this situation was
compounded by the fact that we had fallen so far behind in our production
schedule (which I would not recommend doing) we had to repeatedly choose
between using more and more overtime or adding a second shift.
Unfortunately, for our score's sake, we never added that second shift
(instead we thought we could catch up by running at 20% OT) and finished
with our actual production far behind what we had planned (especially in
Ga).
2. Another major lesson I learned was how important teamwork was to the
Manufacturing Operations process. Even though I was in the Manufacturing
Team and not the Management, everyone involved still to a certain degree
had to act as a manager. Because to get your ideas heard and considered
seriously you had to momentarily take control of the entire team and their
undivided attention; thus, exerting authority. And you had to come to a
logical, practical decision in order to be taken seriously as well as
contribute positively to the task at hand.
3. The last but far from least thing I took home with me from this whole
experience was when dealing with and participating in a group like that,
you must pay attention at all times. At one point I got sidetracked off on
a tangent, and missed out on some of the current discussion and was "out of
the loop" so to speak until we moved to the start of the next day when
there was a "clean slate" and I could once again get back into the swing of
things and the decision-making process.
The operations game was one the most interesting, and certainly one
of the most helpful laboratory exercises I've ever participated in at
Cornell. Although the 20 day simulation was computer operated, it gave an
interesting look into the logistics of an actual factory or company. The
similarities between how I felt a company operated, and how we acted were
astounding. First of all, it seemed that the groups trusted themselves
more so than the other groups, even though we were supposedly all on the
same team. It seems that in the real world, this is also true. Different
groups within a company always assume they are superior to others in the
same corporation. Another similarity between the simulation and the real
world was that as we reached our deadline, we became antsy and tried to
hurry our work. We would rather sacrifice quality, than run past our
allotted time. Although unfortunate, the same happens in the real world.
One stark difference, was our treatment of management. Since management
was our peers, we didn't respect them or fear them as we would in a
professional situation. Also, knowing it was there job, we expected them
to make the final decision on their own. In the real workplace management
commands advice then acts appropriately.
This exercise taught me a variety of lessons. First of all, it is
impossible to oversee all aspects of an operation by one's self. The
sooner you learn this and learn to trust the other departments, the better
of you will be. You must trust that management hired people equally
qualified as yourself to do the other aspects that you can't possible
monitor. It is important to be able to take what someone else gives you
and be confident that it is accurate enough for you to use in your
assessment.
Secondly, I learned it is important to convey any information you
may have been given to the other groups, because you might not understand
its importance to the other sections.
The third lesson I learned pertained to my individual group within
the entire exercise. No matter how much you trust somebody else's
calculations and judgment, you must never underestimate you own thoughts.
Somebody who is right almost all the time will be wrong eventually,
therefore you mustn't assume anything. Argue or question any conflicting
logic because ultimately, you will be equally responsible.
The Manufacturing Operations Game taught me several lessons. Some of the
most important include: considering all relevant resources, planning ahead,
and organizing teams.
Considering all Relevant Resources
We should have used all of the relevant resources available. Many times we
just forgot that we had certain options. We became so absorbed in
conquering a new problem that we failed to consider recurring problems. If
we would have had a simple checklist to go over each day, we would probably
not have ignored so many problems. Sometimes we left overtime options on
for a few days simply because we forgot to check that area. We could have
easily avoided this with a checklist. Using the charts and options
available in the game could have given us a better measure of our performance.
Using the projection button more frequently might have helped. As long as
the use is unlimited, why not see the outcomes of all of our decisions?
This seems to be much more efficient than guessing at the outcomes of our
decisions. We also spent most of our time on GA and by doing so, ignored
GD. We should have paid more attention to the big picture instead of
concentrating our efforts on just one problem.
Sometimes our feeling of the situation seemed to influence our decisions
more than our analysis. For instance, when the monitor broke, we all felt
that we should have kept the system running even if we didn't know what
would happen next. We didn't spend much time analyzing each outcome of the
situation. Fortunately our choice was correct.
Organizing Teams
We should have organized our team meetings better. Much of the time we
spent in class was wasted because of our lack of organization. I am glad
that the class was structured such that we only had two days in which to do
the assignment. This forced us to form some kind of organization.
Even though our groups were not perfectly organized, we still distributed
the work fairly evenly. Defining what each group's duties were would have
helped tremendously. Many times, we had everyone doing the same
calculations. I think if we would have spent much more time defining roles,
it would have paid off in the long run.
Planning Ahead
Several times during the game, our team wished we could go back just a few
days to correct or prevent a problem. For example, we requested our double
shift much later than we should have. At other times, we wished we would
have started more units into the system. Unfortunately, we were so
concerned with the problem of the moment that we ignored other potential
problems.
It takes time to make adjustments in the system. To work more effectively,
we should have looked for problems down the line before they grew to be too
large. Since it takes a few days to fix most problems, detecting them early
should be held important.
The game consisted of simulating the flow of a product built on a
process line made up of several sectors. Through this game I received
experience in the dynamics of controlling a process-oriented manufacturing
line. More importantly, I was exposed to the issues related to multi-stage
serial production.
I learned that multi-stage serial production has the problem of
bottlenecks. Since the flow of product through the plant is serial, the
slowest stage will ultimately create a bottleneck unless the starts into
the system are reduced in order to relieve the input load into that
particular stage. These bottlenecks also increase work-in-process and tie
up money. If the reduction of starts is implemented to relieve the
bottleneck, the full capacity of other stages may not be fully utilized.
This is where overtime and extra shifts can come into play. I have learned
that in a serial production line, the flow of material is limited by the
slowest, or "weakest", stage in the system.
When another item is introduced into the serial production system
the level of complexity greatly increases due to the sharing of stages and
the different requirements and cycle times of each product. With two
products traveling through each stage, the effect and influence each one has
on the other has to be considered carefully. A production decision in one
stage that might be good for one product may not be good for the other.
I already felt that information systems were valuable, but after
this simulation I realized how valuable they really were. Manufacturing
information systems are very valuable and can provide valuable information
of what is going on in the plant. The only catch here is you must know how
to interpret the data that the information system is giving you, otherwise
it is not effective and no useful data can be interpreted to make effective
decisions. If not properly trained, the data that the information system
provides could be, and does seem, overwhelming.
The group dynamics I noticed were ones of open cooperation. Even
though each group was to have a specific task and duty and report to the
proper chain of command, our group seemed to evolve, or dis-evolve, into one
large group that worked on problems and made decisions. In the beginning,
as a part of "management", I found out how managers in the work place could
become quickly removed from the details of plant operation and conditions.
At first, management was relying on other groups to provide information and
recommendations and I felt that, as a manager, I was starting to loose touch
with what was going on and was starting to loose sight of how and why
recommendations were being made. I learned that the more I had to manage,
and not actually do most of the calculations, the further removed I became
from the rest of the group and the more I relied on their inputs rather than
my personal knowledge. I now can understand how some managers could be out
of touch with plant operations.
Bare intuition might seem like the correct way to answer and
approach some of the problems faced in a manufacturing environment, but
instead can lead to very complicated and unforeseen results. Analysis is a
very important tool in the manufacturing environment. If one understands
how to apply the proper analysis techniques, the solutions and the
understanding of problems are much more systematic and easier to grasp.
During the game, when I thought of possible solutions based upon my
intuition, I came up with different answers when I worked them out using
the proper analysis techniques. The solutions based upon proper analysis
techniques were usually "correct" most of the time.
I observed that the performance measurement used to rate our
"success" was weighted towards production. This makes sense since the
ultimate goal of any manufacturing organization is to produce products.
Overall, the manufacturing operations game was a very good one. I
have learned a lot, even though it was frustrating and very confusing at
times. I found that if I did not have a good view of what the entire
operations and activities of the entire plant was, I was put at a great
disadvantage and confusion set in quickly. I have experienced many
different issues and worked as part of a group whose aim was to solve many
different types of problems and situations. This game provided me with
valuable experience as to the real day-to-day operations of a manufacturing
plant and the actions needed to make the appropriate decisions to correct
problems and keep the plant running smoothly.
One of the lessons I learned during the Operations Game was how to
work like a team with a group of people, some of whom I had never worked
with. Although it took us some time before we started working like an
actual team, once we narrowed the group to a couple of "leaders," it seemed
like we moved faster. The leaders would voice their opinions, and if their
opinions differed, then we would have a quick discussion about it, and in
time, everyone would feel comfortable about a certain decision. If all of
the leaders agreed, it seemed like everyone else agreed as well, and we
would make a decision right away.
Another lesson I learned was what kind of people I deal well with
and the kind of people who I don't deal well with. This was very easy to
find in a situation like the Operations game, when I am put with a whole
spectrum of personalities. Being a very impatient person, I found it
frustrating working with people who nit-picked every detail, some of which I
thought were unimportant. I found that I like people who make a quick,
though not blind, decision.
The third lesson I learned was what it felt like to be in a
management group and to actually have to make decisions that would affect
the whole company. In our first decision, we made the wrong choice and
after that, we became very cautious about all the decisions we had to make.
You have to llok at all of the aspects and think of the consequences of each
decision before you can finally make a final decision, instead of just
picking the decision which sounds the best, and that was a learning experience.
Page 1 : Three Lessons Learned from the Manufacturing Operations Game
Operations management is crucial to the success of all organization.
The person in charge of the operation should understand and help to shape
the
overall strategies of organization. He/she must also obtain the ability
to
schedule work assignments, to plan inventory levels, and to make many
decisions
regarding the various issues and concerns of respective projects.
The following are essential key features.
1: An effective process must pinpoint and control day-to-day important
problem such as assuring adequate supplies of the resources that are most
limited. One should also think ahead, production flow to acquire and use
resources and coordinate the implementation of the plan. The day-to-day
operations are based on the planning which includes decisions on
production
quantities, work force schedule, and material ordering.
2 : Take four interrelated elements: goals, timing, resources and
environment into consideration for important decision. The goal of a
construction project might be on-time completion at minimum cost. The
timing
elements include deadlines, lead times to procure resources, and schedules
of equipment operations. Identifying key resources is important which
include personnel, equipment, and materials. Coordinating their use
through
time can be difficult because of conflicting schedules and the sequence
requirements. The environment depends upon both the physical environment
( such as workers' physical and mental conditions ) and characteristics of
the organization ( such as worker strike ).
3 : Work-force and production plans should made on an overall,
or aggregate, basis for the entire operation. This process begins by
comparing anticipated demand with production capacity through time.
A detailed study of production and work-force is carried out by cost
trade-off of the various alternatives, such as work-force changes.
The Manufacturing Operation Game consists of simulating the flow of
product
on a process line which made up of multiple and parallel process sectors.
At each sector, some key elements, such as yield and production, are used
to
evaluate the efficiency of the process line. Problems will occur
throughout
the operation which will require a response or decision to process the
production line. The decision will result in the different levels of
effect
on the future productivity. Effective management to both work-force and
resources flow rescheduling will be the keys to solve the overlooked
problems.
The following is my opinion to the experience at this game.
1. At real manufacturing production line, an unexpected situation can
happen any moment. Timing resources will be crucial in which quick, clear
decisions have to be made for subsequent production steps not to be
damaged
or lost.
2. The responsibility for each position should be distinctly assigned.
Overlaps of responsibility will cause the delay of decision making.
Engineers in each department should understand all production stages which
will allow them to make constructive suggestions from the view of their
position. Final decision should be made by the management group after
having
investigating all the available suggestions.
3. Forecasts should be used in supporting decision making. At a
production
line, many factors can cause the decrease of productivity. At this
simulation, the lack of experience to handle the situation caused many
lost
at productivity. Because the current production line cannot satisfy the
daily output plan, all the operations were aimed in catching up the demand
without any safety margin to avoid the potential situation. Slowing down
a
production process won't cause more loss than increasing overtime or
extra
shifts works. Predict for bottleneck, advance scheduling will help to
improve the effectiveness of the production line.
The simulation game was the first time I have worked in a group of
over five people. Working in small groups of five or less allows for
discussion of all aspects of the project with all members present. In the
Manufacturing Game 15 people were separated into four groups with different
objectives and knowledge. This forced me, in the management group, to
coordinate information and ideas into a decision making process. This
required skills not often used in an academic environment where individual
work is the norm. I learned the importance of good speaking ability along
the ability to communicate ideas clearly and concisely. It became obvious
that the person who spoke the clearest and who made the most sense, often
determined the outcome of the discussion. Though this person was not always
correct in his/her opinion, their ability to convey an idea made them
captivating.
At first, it was quite difficult to take one groups opinion into the truth
without challenging how an idea was arrived at. At Cornell many students
believe that they are always correct. If someone else has a different
opinion there is often a disruption, especially when a working in a group
which receives one encompassing grade. As part of the management group I
had to try to accommodate both sides of the opinion, listen to what they had
to say, and with my group, come to a decision about the correct course of
action. It was not always possible to make both sides happy with the
decision, but it is always possible to listen to both sides of an argument
and use the knowledge provided to make an educated decision.
One of the major problems in the group dynamics was planning for the
future. It often seemed that we would react to what was going on in the
simulation and try to correct for it, but in the beginning, did not make
plans for a course of action for the duration of the project. When a
machine would breakdown or a worker would not show up for work, we would try
to correct for these variations in the planned production schedule, but then
not make corrective action for the future that would allow us to be ready
for such variations. For example, until the very end of the project
simulation, our group was far behind on total production. We did not have a
planned schedule that would allow us to reach the pre-set plan for the
month. This was partly due to our reliance on intuition and not analysis.
We should have analyze the production rates and yield outcomes earlier in
the simulation. This is something that we learned latter down the line and
corrected for in the last 10 days of the simulation. All in all, I leaned
much from the Manufacturing Operation Game and would enjoy another similar
simulation to work on.
1.) Three Lessons Learned :
The manufacturing operations game was a very interesting
experience. It was fun and it taught me a few things. The first lesson
was in performance measurement. The game was set up in such a way that
various teams were pitted against each other to obtain a higher overall
score. This was our performance measurement. This became the driving goal
and focus of our group's attention. Decisions that were made were geared
towards making improvements in those areas where the score was low
(production, WIP, or yield) and priority given to those scores that had the
highest weighting factors. This may at times have caused decisions to be
made contrary to the overall good of the "plant". For example, the WIP
score was based on how close actual WIP was to planned WIP. It was not
based on how much WIP was in the pipeline. Thus WIP levels did not become
a priority in terms of the team's overall objective to get a good score.
In real situations, companies are driven by performance measurements and so
are their employees. We have to be careful how those measurements are set
up. Sometimes those measurements can produce the wrong kind of results and
in those cases, produce actions that are counter-productive to the success
of the company.
A second lesson is in the area of manufacturing information
systems. Sufficient information and timely feedback were essential for
management decisions, corrective action and control of plant processes.
Lack of information tended to lead to decisions made by group intuition
rather than analysis. Our particular team did a lot of analysis with the
numbers presented to us by the production summary report, but often times
we found that due to uncertain variables, we had to fall back on the "best
guess" approach. A good understanding of what the PSR was telling us and a
good flow of information between the "departments" regarding simulated
situations helped immensely in our team decision making.
The third lesson was in the area of multi-item, multi-stage serial
production. Seeing the trends of falling yield rates as one progressed
through the pipe line was informative. We learned how to detect
bottlenecks by tracking the build-up of WIP at different stations. We
gained experience in compensating for these problems by increasing capacity
at these stations with overtime and 2nd shifts as needed. We also learned
when to increase the flow of material in and when to shut it off.
Group dynamics for our team was good. Some people were more
outspoken than others on the first day, but by the 2nd lab, everyone in our
group was working well together.
The Manufacturing Operations Game was an excellent learning
experience for me as this was the first time I had the chance to work
closely with a group of 14 fellow students in a simulation game.
We were divided into four different departments, namely, Management,
Operations, Manufacturing and Engineering. I was assigned into the
Manufacturing department.
The performance measurement that was used in the Manufacturing
Operations Games seemed to suggest that meeting the production
requirements was the single most important factor. This seemed
reasonable since in any manufacturing facility, you would want the
production to meet the demand. The scoring also factored in the WIP
and yield percentage. This scoring methodology focused my attention
in these three important areas in any manufacturing facility. I also
understood that sometimes you might have to sacrifice one or more areas
to improve the results of other areas. The fact was that in real life,
I had to compromise and determine what was more important for the team
and implement it even though it might not be popular.
The multi-state serial production had cycle time of five days
did not seem to sink into the team till almost halfway through the
exercise. It was important because any decision made to increase the
output at Sector 6 would only take effect five days later. Therefore,
in order to increase the production at Sector 6, we would need to plan
5 days ahead to see the results. Besides, there was the capacity limit
which would limit the amount of materials I could put into it without
creating too much WIP in the process. Moreover, since there were two
products, GA and GD, sharing essentially the same processes except
for Sector 4 meant that the amount of material to be processed by
a particular sector was the sum of GA and GD from the preceding sector.
It was easy to overlook this and forget about the capacity limit,
especially in Sector 2 and Sector 5.
The Manufacturing Information Systems was useful in providing
the team in assessing the results of past actions quickly and
effectively, provided the data was analyzed correctly. It also
allowed us to project our actions a few days into the future.
This feature was discovered pretty late by our team. However, it
later proved to be invaluable, as we could experiment with different
decisions and determine which was the best.
Although I had experience working with working in a team of
comparable size, but this experience was different since everybody
here is a student and has almost the same technical knowledge as you
do.Hence, everybody is just as qualified as making a calculated decision
as myself. Nobody in this exercise can claim to have superior technical
knowledge. Hence, the task of convincing the other team members that
my judgment was correct, I had to substantiate them with calculations
and sound reasoning. However, it was not sufficient to be able to
come out with calculations and some complex theories of my own;
I discovered that the ability to communicate my ideas to the
other team members were vital.
Everybody seemed eager to cooperate with one another and was
patient in listening to the ideas of other people. Listening was just as
important as telling others your ideas. I learn to listen without
filtering out information that I did not want to hear. I try my
best to understand the view points of other people and adjust
my own judgments in the process if other opinions were more reasonable.
In our group, the Management did a good job in the sense that
they gave a chance for every group to view their opinions before
making the final decision. I felt this was important because no group
will be felt left out and many times somebody would point out certain
things that others might have overlooked. Members of a department
would usually discuss among themselves before presenting the
department's decision to the whole team.
At times, I could notice some wall building among the
different departments. This was especially true when there was a
crisis and all the decisions available would help the results of one
department but hit the other departments hard. For example, the
implementation of new technology by the Engineering department often
create adverse effects in the production figures in the short run.
The Manufacturing department sometimes displayed certain animosity
towards these introductions by the engineers.
One of the most important things that I learnt from the
game was that randomness of events that could occur in a factory.
On some days, the machine would just breakdown without any prior
warning or the people would take sick leave and these events
would affect the production plan seriously if you did not have a
sound back up plan. However, I also learnt that certain things such
as stock outs could be prevented with good material and production
planning. Because of all the randomness in the system, the daily
production plan may have to be changed in response to circumstances.
The time constraint that our group had to operate within
seemed to make many team members unhappy that certain decisions took
lots of time to decide. Especially at the second week, many decisions
were rushed through based on intuition, without proper analytical
calculations to their effects. People also began to show signs of
impatience as they were reluctant to stay after the designated class
hours to complete the exercise. The management became unusually quiet
near the end of the game and most of the decisions were made
by the consensus of other departments not by the management.
1. Three lessons learned from the Manufacturing Operations Game are as follows.
The first is the importance of information systems in the manufacturing
operations. In this game we proceed with our works using much data processed
by the computer. We could not analyze or discuss the problems without these
data. That is, even if we introduce a great manufacturing operations system,
we can not make the best use of the system without the information system
which can grasp the conditions of the manufacturing system properly. At the
same time, I can say that constructing the great information system leads to
strengthening the manufacturing operations system which has already existed.
The second are the importance of the establishment of each group role and
the importance of communication among groups. From my eight years experience
in business, I think one of the most important work is to negotiate with
many departments not only in this game but also in the real business. This
game gave us the information about which department should have the
responsibility for each problem. Besides our management department accepted
other departments' suggestions and made final decisions, therefore our group
could communicate each other relatively well. I think that good
communication is necessary for workers of each department to keep having a
motivation. In the real business, it will be required to have more
complicated negotiations, but I could renew my understanding of the
importance of the basic communication from this game.
The third is the importance of the preparations for various factors. There
were various events which caused operations delays, such as machine troubles
and absence of workers, in the game. We solved those problems when they
happened in this game, but in the real business situations, we must consider
measures against those factors to act immediately when they happen. Let me
show my experience worked for the telecommunication company. Whenever we
design the private networks for our customers, we consider the reliability
of the system, such as backup lines, duplicate circuit boards and emergency
batteries. From this game and my experience, I can say that preparation for
emergency situations is one of the most important factors which must
consider well when we design the system.
The manufacturing operations game was my first chance to see the
interaction of all the different divisions involved in the control of
manufacturing operations. The simulation served to emphasize three
important points concerning this interaction. The three points are the
affects of performance evaluation on decision-making, the value of analysis
as opposed to intuition, and the importance of communication and group
dynamics to the productivity of a team..
Performance evaluation seems to play a large role in manufacturing
decisions of different divisions. In the simulation each different division
was held accountable for different a element of the manufacturing process.
This accountability seemed to show in the manufacturing decisions made by
the divisions. Each division strived to make the best decisions that would
also benefit the status of the manufacturing element they were responsible
for. These hidden agendas make sense since the division is being evaluated
against the status of their manufacturing element . In business it is
important to recognize these special interests and ensure that they do not
affect the decisions making process.
The value of solving manufacturing problems through analysis as opposed to
intuition was drastically demonstrated in the manufacturing operations game.
Analysis showed that the solutions obtained by intuition were unable to
effectively consider the multiple variables and subtleties involved in
manufacturing problems. However, the ability to make more informed
decisions through analysis took a great deal of time and slowed the entire
group. In business it is important to recognize manufacturing problems that
require analysis and those that can be solved by intuition in order to make
correct decisions in a reasonable amount of time.
The manufacturing operations game displayed the importance of group
dynamics and group communication. The simulation showed the importance of
establishing rules for group communication, the ability to express ideas
clearly, and the ability to relate ideas to people concerned with different
aspects of the manufacturing process. In business it is important to master
all of these skills to be a effective team participant.
Three Lessons learned
The first lesson I learned from the game that with a large group of people
it is very hard to reach a consensus quickly. Every decision had to be
thoroughly discussed and voted on before it could be approved. Since there
were always at least one person who disaproved of the decision, there would
be debate until finally every one was convinced or just tired. The second
lesson I learned was that usually the decision of the most effective speaker
was chosen. If a person gave his opinion in a calm, firm voice and used
facts to back it up he was better accepted by the group. It seemed that the
best speaker was able to get his point across to the group better than other
people. The opinions of people who spoke poorly and had no facts to back
them up were usually not considered as much as those of the good speakers.
This happened with our Engineering department. There did no seem to a
single person in that group who could speak well. The rest of the team by
the end was practically ignoring all the ideas that Engineering was
recommending. This was probably a bad move since some of their ideas were
probably worthy of being implemented. The final lesson I learned was that
people like a friendly environment. In order to try to speed up the game, I
(being a manager) imposed a time limit between days and made all final
decisions. I figured as a manager it was my job to make sure we finished on
time. After two days of this the group rebelled saying that I was being too
much of a dictator and I shouldn't be making the decisions for everyone. I
learned that if I had not been such a tyrant and had tried a friendlier
approach, I probably would have gotten better morale and efficiency.
I thought that the Operations Game was an interesting way to learn about
management and about manufacturing processes. There were several things
that I learned and observed. One of the lessons that I learned is that
making decisions takes much longer is the absence of strong
management/leadership. I would have thought that in a room full of bright
people, someone would have been able to come up with the right answers with
good leadership or without. I didn't think that people needed leadership to
solve problems. I think that obviously part of my experience has to do with
the dynamics of my particular group. There weren't really any strong
leaders, everyone was very passive. As it turned out I sort of assumed the
leadership role. I am a great fan of consensus and therefore decisions took
so long to make because I wanted everyone to be in agreement. Therefore, a
personal lesson that I learned was that when faced with a leadership role
such as this one, I need to be more aggressive and more decisive. Part of
my hesitation had to do with the fact that I like to have all relevant
information before making a decision. I like the decisions I make to be
fully supported with hard evidence. In this kind of scenario it's
impossible to know everything that one would have liked to know. I'm not
sure how true to life this may be, but it seems in the real world one would
have had access to more information and might have therefore been able to
make better decisions.
The other interesting behavior that I observed was the way we sometimes made
decisions that had nothing to do with efficiency or quality. Sometimes we
made decisions based solely on the fact that it would raise our score. You
would think that something like that wouldn't happen in the "real world" but
after thinking about it I'm sure that it does. People will do whatever
gives them the highest performance review. For instance, if you're paid
solely on how much you produce, you might work as fast as you can and pay
little or no attention to the quality of the product. I have even heard of
top management giving less than satisfactory performance reviews to
employees to avoid having to pay them more. I think that in an ideal world
we would make decisions that were fair not because we want a higher score or
we want to avoid extra costs associated with giving an employee a good
review. However, the world we live in is far from ideal and I'm sure in
some company there is some manager saying, "Speed up the line, we haven't
made quota, we'll sacrafice a little quality."
I guess I got a taste of what it was like to be on a project team as well as
a feel for the general process. I found that I much preferred making
decisions based on some sort of analysis, rather than intuition. I also got
to see what types of operational decisions manufacturing companies make and
what types of setbacks they might encounter. I also learned the
importance of good leadership, of a set system of decision making and group
dynamics, in general.
1. The importance of effective communication
Since each team was constituted by four departments, operations,
manufacturing, management, engineering, communication became the most
important issue in this game. Good communication can reduce conflict as well
as help the team achieve their goal.
2. The leading function of management department
A management department with good leading function can easily achieve in
motivating subordinate, directing others, selecting the most effective
communication channels, resolving conflict and making the final decision. So
if the team has a management with good leading function, the team may
increase the chance of success.
3. Forecasting effectiveness
Forecasting is most accurate when the process is static. The more dynamic
the environment, the more likely management to develop inaccurate forecasts.
The means that the more factors we vary in the manufacturing process, the
more difficulties we would meet in predicting the final performance measurement.
The Game was very instructive. There were many lessons and observations
made, addressing the following issues:
Operational Decisions
Manufacturing/Management Information Systems
Contributions of Intuition in the decision making process
Group Dynamics
Multi-Item, Multi-Stage Production
Obviously, all the above items are linked, and so I am going to describe
the relationships, in an attempt to demonstrate the lessons learned.
Decisions about the operations of a manufacturing plant are not immediately
effective, because of lead times and processing times. This requires
experience to make the right choices, although a good MIS system can help
correct the deficiency of a non-experienced manager. In our Game, we had
very limited information, and past production decisions, yields, and other
data were only visible in percentage summations. This makes experience all
the more valuable, of which we had none. Being familiar with the processes
are essential, as we had to repeatedly ask what the Photo Resist Machine
did.
Because of the limited MIS system (an export facility to Excel, or imbedded
graphic capabilities would have been nice, as well as a log of each day's
data), each department had to rely more on intuition, which made the group
dynamics more difficult. Management was forced to make a decision based on
recommendations made from groups with out data, and frequently the more
vocal or more "pushy" recommendations were taken. While this worked out OK
for our group, each decision should be backed up with data. Once we began
to get the hang of the system, we began to develop an Excel spreadsheet to
allow us (the engineering dept.) to make what if analysis of our yields and
throughput, when we were given proposed changes (overtime, new machine,
etc.). This allowed us to make recommendations based on fact, and so we
were adamant when we needed to be, because we had the data to back us up.
Of course, the multi-item, multi-state nature of our game presented many
difficulties as we tried to balance demand needs, production planning
goals, and differing yields and processing times for each of the two
products. However, it also gave us more options in allocating resources.
Computer modeling and data analysis are essential in these decisions, and
when the manufacturing group began to do calculations for many decisions,
the "correctness" of these decisions increased. This again points out the
necessity of data analysis and a MIS system.
Using a point system with weighting helped us understand how the different
priorities interact. Sometimes yield wasn't as important as throughput.
This reflects competing priorities in a real system.
One last observations concerns group dynamics: they stink in a such a large
group. At that point, it became less management by team and more
management by committee. You cannot manage by committee. Enough said?
This game helps to drive home the necessity of a MIS system, proper data,
and proper analysis combined with an intuitive understanding of the system
in order to make a proper decision.
The three main things I have learned from this exercise are the
importance of team work, the dynamics of a manufacturing system, and how to
solve all the immediate problems to the process.
Team work is an important factor to a successful system. How well
the team work with each other is crucial to decision making. For the game,
we have about 12 people in the group. The more people there are on the
decision board the harder it is to reach a consensus. However, with
representatives from different divisions of the company , it enhances the
understanding of the problem the company faces. People from different
discipline can give suggestions to a problem with different perspectives.
This is beneficial since it gives a more complete consideration of all
aspects to an issue. Thus, the groups have to be very organized and must
make a suggestion as a group to the rest. In the beginning, it takes
longer to decide on an issue since we are all unfamiliar to each other. In
the second section, the decision making process was more smooth and
consensus are reached quicker since we are more familiar with the role of
each group. We know when to challenge a proposed solution and when to
accept the suggestion. It is very interesting to imagine such problems
solving in the real life situation.
The game certainly made me realize how dynamic a real system will
be. There are critical problems that happens now and then and solution to
the problems must be reached as soon as possible. There are really so many
things that can go wrong with a large manufacturing system. We have
experienced equipment failure, technical support problems, and human
resource problem in our operations game. Everything is a key factor to
maintain a smooth production day. Correct decisions must be made everyday
to maintain the on schedule with it's production and of course to make
profit. The game was very fun and exciting to play since it really felt
like a real plant, and any decision we make will effect the outcome and
such outcome is not reversible.
I have learned a lot from the problem solving process of the game.
Some problems were hard to solve since the data given to us were very
limited, thus we had to assume a lot of things. I have learned how to
predict the future production, how to calculate over times and additional
shifts, using the capacity of a particular sector, cycle time, and WIP of
the day. I also learned that it is very important to meet the planned
production, WIP of each sector, and the percent yield. It was very
exciting at the last few days of the game when we had to plan how much
overtime and additional shift to put in for each day, and also how much
'Starts' to put in for each day so to catch up some of the production lag
and WIP.
I think the game was very fun and educational. It gave a fairly
good idea of what type of decision making a person has to make if he/she
works in the manufacturing field.
Three Lessons Learned from the Operations Game:
I have learned more than three lessons from the operations game,=20
however I feel that the most important three are: the importance of good=
communications skills in a meeting, the difference between increasing=20
starts and using overtime, and how to calculate backwards - using yields=20
and capacities, to find the optimal run-level.
=09The first of these lessons, good communications skills, is=20
probably the most important. In our group, it often seemed that two=20
people were making all of the decisions. At first, it would have been=20
easy to just let them run the entire plant. However, as time went on, I=20
realized that I must voice my opinions or I would have no bearing on the=20
outcome of the game. I also learned the importance of speaking louder=20
and projecting my voice if my thoughts were going to be heard by the rest=
=20
of the group.
=09Secondly, I learned the different effects on the system between=20
increasing the number of starts and using overtime. At first, overtime=20
was viewed as a way to increase production on a line. However, as time=20
went on, I realized that overtime will only increase your capacity to=20
make those products. If you don=D5t have the raw materials or WIP already=
=20
in the system, adding overtime will be of no use to you, actually it will=
=20
be a waste, because you will have workers standing around with no work. =20
Instead, if you increase your number of starts, you will increase the=20
number produced, and as a result, you will need to review your capacity=20
and make overtime decisions.
=09Finally, I learned that calculating backwards to find the optimal=20
start number is a very important tool. I realized afterwards that taking=
=20
into account the yields on the WIP is also a very important tool to=20
learn. I learned that although this may be a very long and boring=20
exercise, it really is necessary in order to find out the optimal start=20
number.
While participating in the Operations game lab, I learned a great
deal about integrating the different functional components of a
manufacturing organization to produce a quality product in order to meet
customer demand. The simulation brought up several types of situations and
problems that I may encounter in the real world, and gave me a chance to
learn how to respond quickly.
Three things in specific that I learned in playing the operations
game were how to analyze data to make a more informed decision, how
different stages of production can effect the entire operation, and how to
work with a large group to solve problems.
After watching the first few days of production and realizing that
we were not meeting our demand, we began to look at the data. We needed to
figure out why we weren't getting what we wanted out of the system. We
began to figure out the actual yields of each stage, as well as the total
yield and realized that we should be figuring out how much to start based on
these calculations. After applying the weighted yields to the production
and WIP, we could figure out how much we really had in the system. We then
used this measurement to figure out how much to start. We had much better
results than when group members were making intuitive decisions. I realized
that not only could you get a better answer for how much to start, but using
the analysis methods, you could really see what was going on in the system
and where all of the parts were.
After we figured out where all of the product was, we could see
exactly which stages were causing the problems. If one stage's capacity was
lower than another's, there was bound to be problems getting products out of
the system. Just because we were starting so much, didn't mean that all of
the stages could handle that much product. I learned how putting overtime
on one shift could imbalance another, or balance the line because the other
stages may or may not be able to handle what the one sector's capacity was
increased to. I learned to look at the whole picture instead of focusing on
the one area that looked like it was the problem.
Finally, I learned how to interact with a group of people that came
from different backgrounds and different cultures. Not everyone had the
same thoughts on all the problems that arose. We learned how to effectively
organize ourselves and make sure that everyone had the same information. It
was much easier to come to a group decision when everyone knew everything
that was going on. I also learned that some people had different motives.
There was arguments about how much to start and if we should project near
the end of the game. Some people were shooting for a perfect score, while
others just wanted to leave. But as a group, we learned to use our
differences to our advantage and work together (resulting in a score of 99.1).
As a result of playing the operations game I learned that what gets
measured gets done. When we would start analyzing data and comparing it
to future events or past events we could plan and take action to correct
any problems. Eyeballing problems started to give us problems and only
was corrected when management gave areas to be measured by the different
groups. However as we progressed our intuition did get better and would
have progressed along a learning curve until we could see numbers and
tell what they meant without running them through a calculator, however
measurements would still have to be taken to explain decisions. It also
became evident that management had to take charge from a couple of loud
people in the group so that the quieter voices could be heard. This was
a fairly simple system and we still had problems with collecting and
analyzing data. Every person has to have a clearly defined job from the
beginning. An information system would have aided in the problem as
distinct queries and cut down on user time.
Three lessons from the Manufacturing Game
First, it is not possible to have teamwork when noone thinks about trying to
figure out if everyone follows. Our group was split in two. Four persons
clearly understood the links between all the numbers and did the whole job.
The rest of the group was just sitting there, trying to understand what they
were saying. I was one of those. I really felt upset about it, belittled. I
just could not contribute in anything! Everything was going too fast -
probably because of the language - and noone from the the group of "wise
guys" felt the need to pause, come up to the board and explain the important
numbers and relationships between these numbers.
Second, and it follows the first idea, it needs a good management and a
strong organization to split the work and coordinate everyone. The "wise
guys" should have switched with the management team, and, since they had a
broader view of the game, should have assigned a work to everyone, and
waited for the answers instead of giving them. I am glad they had fun. I had
not!
Of course I realize all I am saying is according to the objective of
teamwork. With the objective of winning the game as fast as possible the
brainstorming of the four "wise guys" was the best solution - "we" had a
99.1% score after all - and a team of twelve persons is more difficult to
manage then a team of four. But what is the real challenge?...
Last, in order to find a solution about the fact we could not understand
what all these numbers were saying, we should have had graphical results. I
used the week between the two labs to build a cumulative flow plot of the
plant. I found out that I just had to translate the curves down to take into
account the yield loss, etc. And I came up with a good picture of what we
had done during the first five days. Unfortunately it would have taken too
much time during the game to update it. But with a computer doing the job we
would have had a very good tool to all understand what "we" were doing. On
top of this, graphics force people to stand up and go to the board to
explain what they are talking about.
I guess all this has to deal with management information system.
In brief, with such a tool, we would have switched the challenge: it would
have been easy to solve the problem so we could have focused on teamwork.
Since I am not too found of manufacturing, I was first intimidated by this
operations simulations game. Everything went very fast and everyone else
seemed to know what they were talking about. I was fist at Management and
then I transferred to Operations since we lacked members in the Operations.
The last time I took a class in manufacturing was a year ago, but as the
game progressed, I started to remember the manufacturing terminology and to
contribute to the game.
The most interesting thing I found during this simulation was that more
than the number of WIP or the productivity level, everyone including myself
were greatly concerned at the performance level of our factory. In this
case, the score for the team showed the performance level instead of the
customer reactions nor demand as in real situations. Thus, every time our
team made a decision, we always checked out score to make sure that we did
the right thing. Therefore, we were confused sometime during the game
because the production did increase in number but the score went down or
stayed the same due to the yield. At the same time, I realized how
important receiving information was to progress in making decisions (in this
case the score).
Another thing I have learned through this exercise is concept of whether to
make operational decisions based on analysis or intuition. People in my
team were very analytical. Maybe too analytical.. At almost every decision
making part, we calculated the yield, WIP, and the production level. I
think that it is important to do analysis but I think that we could have
based some of our decision more on intuition. Since we calculated every
single thing to be calculated, out team progressed very slowly. Also, since
we had two products in a serial production, it was difficult to manage since
our group tend to focus on one item more (in this case GA) since GA had more
problems in its production.
And finally, I observed an interesting group dynamics. In every division,
except Operations, we had one dominating person. There were one speaker in
every division and the others in that division acted as supporters by
crunching numbers for the speakers. Since we were a project team, I thought
that everyone should have contributed equally, not just one dominating
person per division. Our team had talented individuals, yet since we had
lots of dominating people, we occasionally had quarrels and disputes. The
dominating people turned off the quiet ones in the team. Also since we
tried to crunch numbers all the time, we went very slowly. Near the end,
since everyone got so fed up with the game (we went TOO slowly), we just
based decision on the projected score instead of thinking each consequences.
I wished that the dominating players in our team would take some time to
listen to others as well. Other than these problems, each players in team
fulfilled their positions and role in their divisions.
Since I was in the Operations, when I was not doing the
calculations nor moving the mouse, I was able to look at my team
objectively. And I have couple suggestions to improve the experience.
During the last two Friday afternoons, as an engineering member of the=20
yellow team, I tried to contribute to my team=D5s performance in the=20
Manufacturing Operations Game. Our final score was 98.7% and we finished=
=20
almost one hour behind schedule.
In the course of dealing with daily manufacturing struggles, I learned=20
several things about operating a manufacturing line. Since the=20
simulation was based on a traditional company, performance measurements=20
were relative to the production plan. Any deviation, positive or=20
negative, resulted in a decrease in our score. The main score consisted=20
of a cumulative production score, a WIP score and a yield score - each=20
weighted differently. One of the first things we were told was that=20
large deviations in cumulative production and WIP were possible correct;=20
however, decreases in the yield score were permanent. Accordingly all of=
=20
our decisions were based on maintaining a high yield while developing=20
long term plans to make up for the deficiencies in production and in=20
WIP. Towards the end of the game we had to sacrifice some yield by=20
putting ample amounts of overtime in order to bring the WIP to a=20
steady-state and to meet our production goals. This balance worked out=20
fine for us.
While trying to forecast production under different scenarios, I=20
discovered that it is quite complicated to predict the performance of a=20
multi-item multi-stage serial production. To solve this problem I used=20
the technique of converting individual WIP discrepancies to a total=20
finished product number to be able to calculate the extra amount that=20
needs to be introduced to the system. One detail that I overlooked while=
=20
making these calculations was that the efficiencies of individual work=20
stations will be 1-2% less than average since both the introduction of=20
overtime and a second shift costs in terms of yield. However, this did=20
not turn out to be a significant error.
Throughout the game, several sudden situations were introduced that=20
required an immediate response. With limited information, each of the=20
involved parties calculated the outcomes of different decisions. When=20
all these findings were brought together, a few of the options were=20
automatically eliminated. The remaining options required a significant=20
amount of group discussion, but at the end almost all of our decisions=20
were reached by consensus. Although costly, such a methodical and=20
thorough investigation of the choices seems to be the best way.
Halfway through the game we discovered the forecast function of the=20
program and began to use it heavily. Towards the end, long term trends=20
that were revealed by this function were instrumental in making some key=20
decisions. It was also very useful in managing the WIP wave through the=20
system.
During the earlier stages of the game, we relied on analysis heavily. =20
After a few analyses that revealed the key effects of certain changes, we=
=20
began to rely on our intuition. Especially when combined with the=20
forecast function, it proved to be quite powerful. Since we knew the=20
general patterns, we could make the appropriate alteration and then use=20
the forecast function to verify that choice.
We lacked a strong management with a vision and a thorough understanding=20
of the system. In several instances when the discussions just kept=20
dragging on, management should have stepped in and made a decision. I=20
believe that a strong management is necessary for effective group=20
dynamics. Also some of the technical people were not competent enough to=
=20
accomplish their duties. I know that this was a game designed for=20
learning, but if the goals and responsibilities were clearly defined at=20
start, the whole group would have functioned more effectively. =20
The Manufacturing Operations Game provided insight into working in a group
situation under constrained and sometimes uncertain conditions. Although
I've had the opportunity to work in a 4 person group within a manufacturing
context, this situation was completely different. So, after walking out of
the "war zone" last Thursday I came away with some important managerial and
communication concepts. The major lessons learned were:
1) Work as a team, not individual groups, by breaking down silos
2) Work systematically (write on board, follow specific game plan)
3) Always keep cool and remain open-minded (don't cause stress)
During the first work session, our group worked well together. Whenever a
decision was required, the separate divisions agreed upon a course of
action and then their opinion was presented to the whole group. If there
was disagreement, management broken down the decision process into its
separate components. In doing so, management was able to get the "buy-in"
of each team member after the discussion was completed. This process was
tedious but kept us all pointing in the same direction. In addition,
either a member of management or manufacturing wrote out the issues and the
scenarios on the board so that discussions went forward and didn't circle
endlessly. This helped the team members focus on the issues at hand and
kept everyone "on the same page". By the end of day 5 (the last day we
completed during the 1st session) our score exceeded 97.
The team effort quickly deteriorated after we returned the following week.
First of all, the divisions didn't work together. The engineering group
held private conferences and didn't take part in the group conversation.
The manufacturing group was relied upon to make decisions regarding
overtime. This could have been a group effort but instead was assigned to
the division. Management didn't assume the same controlling roll as in the
previous session so the decision making process was unordered and out of
control. By starting out in this manner, our group was destined to fail.
Decisions during the second work session were by majority instead of
unanimous agreement. Some of the group members conceded their position
just to keep the process moving. The board was used only once to convey
information. Best/worst case scenarios weren't explored for most of the
decisions. As the days progressed and our production moved farther away
from planned, overtime became necessary. Unfortunately, the manufacturing
group (which I was a part of) used a "shoot by the hip" method of adjusting
the overtime. We didn't have a set methodology for analytically
calculating the required throughput for each of the areas. The result was
unbalanced production from different areas.
However, besides the lack of group synergy and no real calculations on
throughput the most obvious problem was a high stress level that was
present in the room. This stress level became noticeable after I
specifically yelled at the entire engineering group. The group was huddled
and talking amongst themselves while the remainder of the project team was
trying to solve a problem. After I chastised the engineering team and told
them to rejoin our discussion, the whole atmosphere of the room changed.
Members of management also got frustrated. After a while, everyone was
just trying to get the project done and get out of the room.
Three Lessons Learned from the Manufacturing Option Game are:
1. First is not the technical issue. The discussion and decision making
process was not set at the beginning week so it caused us more time for
discussion without any good conclusion. Next we moved the computer screen
too fast with rush at the end of the day causing us to overlooked some
important data reflecting in minor misunderstanding of the situation.
2. We had not yet clarified our goal as a team causing some conflict
between each group. Each group was trying to protect thier goal such as
yield, production,... To bring everyone into the concensus used so much
time and the decision might not satisfied all group since we didn't look
at the whole scale of as team. But we found out the feeling that the
choice to best suit the team is normally the end result.
3. Sometimes, the descision was based on only one or two person. For
example, the calculation of the WIP, Production and Material Added were
doing by only one people in manufacturing group. If he did a mistake
without any cross check by other people. We can screw up the whole
production plan. I found that the time is so constraint causing less time
to recheck the number. Management want to go further in the game as quick
as they can. So data that need to look at before hand such as second
shift need more carefully thought with some data support.
Three Lessons Learned
1) The lab gave us the chance of working in a group. We learned how to
listen to other people before taking a final decision. It was a really
good experienc in which we learned from other people. In my group we
experimented with different processes of taking a desicion. First we
tried to discuss in between the whole group, this process wasted to much
time and proved to be inefficient. Then we tried to discuss in between
smaller subgroups and achieve consensus, this also failed although it
worked better. Later we decided to give more weight to the subgroup(s)
with more responsiblity over the decision being taken.For example if ti
was related to overtime, manufacturing had more weight.
2) The simulation also forced us to deal with time constraints. At first
the discussions were long and every option was examined in full detail.
By the seccond day of lab descussions were short and many options were
elimenated at once.
3)The lab also taught us that the easiest way to handle a process is to
distribute the production over time in an even way. It is not a good
idea to fall behind and trying to recuperate in a short time with a large
production. Consistency pays. We had the experience of throwing a large
bubble into the production line in which we inflated the production of
one days worth of stage one, it became a headache.
Lessons Learned: There are three important lessons that I learned through
the operations game. The first lesson I learned was the role of uncertainty
involved in the manufacturing setting. When our team began the month we
really had no idea what to expect. I personally did not expect to run up
against some of the challenging decisions that we faced. Risk analysis is
essential is maintaining a productive manufacturing environment. Our team
became very good at focusing on analyzing and controlling the risk when
problems arose. I personally now have a much better understanding of the
uncertainty involved in the manufacturing setting. Swift and calculated
solutions must be made when such problems arise.
The second lesson that I learned through the manufacturing game was the
importance of projections. On day ten our group was informed that a new
function had been added to the system that would allow us to project our
current decisions into the future. While our team did not take the time to
understand the methods behind making the projections, but our team did begin
to understand the manufacturing system better. Many individuals began to
see the impact of increasing starts or applying overtime. The projections
were most helpful for individuals to see the effects of pushing a bubble of
WIP through the system. The projection function turned the focus of the
team from the daily changes to the long term changes in production, WIP, and
yield.
After the fist hour that our team spent on the game we realized the
importance of organization. We realized that our team had been divided into
functional areas for a reason. Engineering was there to focus on the
development of machines to aid in the production project. Operations was
there to help the process move quickly. Manufacturing was there to analyze
the effect of WIP and changes in manpower. Most importantly we realized
that management was there to unite all the efforts of the team. For the
first hour our team just ran through the game ruthlessly. At the end of the
first hour we realized that if we divided into our functional areas and
worked as a team things would get accomplished much more efficiently. Our
team really got a good glimpse of the importance of team work within
functional areas and within the whole organization.
Three lessons that I learned from the Manufacturing Operations Game are
* Team work is especially important in making good decisions
* There are many factors to take into account when making a decision
* It's critical to concentrate on the objective or goal of the project
Good team work was critical in the Manufacturing Operations Game. Everyone
needed to work with one another to analyze the problems that arose and
brainstorm the best solution for the problems. Communication played a key
role in having good team work. Being able to convey what other people
don't know or haven't considered can very often bring new prospective onto
the problem and it's possible solutions. Listening to what other people
have to say is also important in making good managerial decisions. The
first week of the Manufacturing Operations Game went very successfully
because everyone on my team was listening to other's inputs and carefully
analyzed and considered the problems and it's possible solutions. The
entire team made each managerial decisions as a whole even if the solution
was only suppose to be advised by one group such as the Manufacturing
division. The second week, however, had much poorer results. The
Management division concentrated so much on the time factor that they
rushed through each problem without complete input and knowledge of the
team. If the problems says that the Engineering division should advise a
decision, the Management division only regarded their inputs without
consulting with the rest of the team. Due to these indiscretion, our score
of the Manufacturing Operations Game was very low.
There are many factors that are affected by each decision and you have to
consider each of them. During the first week, my team covered all the
bases such as how our decision will affect the Throughput, WIP, Yield
percentage, etc. By covering all the bases, we made judgments that we
thought would be the best trade off for the problem. During the second
week, many factors for many problems were ignored due to the "time
limitations" that the Management group put on the team and this resulted in
unexpected low scores day after day.
In the first week, our team goal was to familiarize ourselves with the
operations and make the best decision we can with what we know. In the
second week, we deviated from our original objective when Management
"changed" our goal to getting out of our conference within a time limit.
Without our original goal in sight, the decisions made were not the best
ones possible.
What I learned:
Performance Measurement:
I was somewhat surprised that we actually scored as high as we did. For
most of the game, our performance was ambiguous to us- we didn't
comprehend the figures showing our score at that point. We saw that
production was quite abit short of projections and assumed that we were
doing poorly. As a result, we worked fairly hard and slowed the pace so
that we could improve- something we might not have done if we knew that
we were really doing better than average as was the case.
This illustrates the importance of a conservative performance
measurement and in benchmarking superior companies. Overconfidence is a
bad curse in a production staff- steps should be taken to avoid this
Multi-Item Multi-Stage Serial Production:
It can get complex and hard to analyze. Our most successful technique in
decision making was to get projections based on possible decisions. I see
that simulation is a very valuable tool in both understanding the system
and determining optimal decisions.
Operational Decisions:
The worst part about these decisions is that not all relevant information
is known. Uncertainty exists, and this should be accounted for in
decision making. This is not easy to do, and many times when we thought
we had made the most prudent choice, something came up that found fault
with our reasoning.
It appears that in many cases a moderate, compromising solution to a
problem works out to be the worst choice of decisions. Bold decisions are
often necessary.
Manufacturing Information Systems:
Very important. All meaningful operational decisions will be based on
information gained from these systems. Simulation as well utilizes the
information provided by these systems extensively.
It is important to realize that such systems occassionally have errors.
Personal expert opinion as well as common sense play a big role in
realizing such errors and correcting them before faulty information leads
to harmful decision making.
Analysis vs. Intuition:
We have done well because we have used both. Yes, we have made some bad
decisions using intuition alone, and analysis without intuition resulted
in an easily correctable error being unnoticed until the end. In planning
our 2nd shift, however, we used intuition to guide analysis. Analysis was
performed by the number crunching to find required capacity and yield and
also by using projections to foresee our future position. Intuition lead
us to examine new possibilities and experiments to analyze.
Group Dynamics:
Although we were not very hierarchal, we did finally realize the benefit
of strictly dividing workload among different groups. The close proximity
of all the groups helped to greatly enhance calculations and estimations.
ways to improve the game:
For the operations game, I was part of the management team in ETC 253.
We did pretty well I thought. Anyway, from the game I learned the
following things:
I don't know if the game was programmed to have random errors, but is
seemed like the situations were planned out. But with each of the
difficult dilemmas, it seemed taking the risk scored the best in game
points. Like when there was a problem with one of the machines, but it
tuned out the problem was just with the scanner. We chose what I still
consider the best route and, after evaluating our options took a cautious
approach, having our people look at it. It turned out the best scoring
option was to do nothing. My point is, in the real world, taking the
cautious route is probably the best--in a similar real life situation any
smart thinking plant manager would have done the same--but you cant
always account for everything.
Another large issue we dealt with was not with the game, but with group
dynamics. It seemed that the person sitting in the center of our group
took control. Because they received the instructions at each situation,
they had an edge up on the other two management people. Almost like they
had resources we didn't have, and so they ended up playing a bigger or
more powerful role in the decision-making process.
My final lesson was another group dynamics issue. After awhile, people
started to be ignored. It happened when they presented bad information
on one turn, and then they were never trusted again. Also, when people
provided good information, they were the only people we paid attention
to. The rest of their group just sat there. It became a game not
between 4 groups, but instead between 4 or 5 people. People in the real
world are trusted accordingly--if you produce you become respected, but
its tough to break the mold on a slacker and get that respect.
Doing the operations game was definitely an enjoyable way of
learning about production and scheduling inventory. The simulation program
was well-made, but what really made it enjoyable and educational for me was
doing the operations game with not just 1 or 2 or 3 people, but with a team
of 10. Although the game was simple enough to do it with just a small team
or even by yourself, I think doing it with a group of 10 gave the game a
whole different meaning.
First of all, I never realized how difficult it was to make a
decision with a group of 10. I was surprised to see so many different
perspectives and opinions about an issue when most of us have the same
educational background as an OR major. When we encountered the first
problem with the broken monitor, my first opinion was to choose "A Stop the
machine and call for inspection and repair," but after discussing and
listening to the group, I easily fell into the group's idea of either
choosing B or C. Although we made the right choice of B, I think it was
pure luck that we had chosen that answer. We literally argued over the
choice of B and C for almost 30 minutes and it all depended on which group
sounded more persuasive. Since we didn't have all the information about
the situation, both groups (that stood for B and C) sounded correct with
their thoughts. However, it just happened that one guy from the "Choice C"
group was convinced that the answer was actually "B," the C group fell
apart and we all chose "B." But what I realized was that the choice could
have been either B or C in "real life situation," but in this game it just
happened that "B" was the right choice. And that in "real life," many of
the decisions are chosen in this fashion. Whether s/he was right or
wrong, the one who presented an idea in a persuasive fashion or the one who
was liked the most by others had so much power in making decisions for a
group.
I was one of the two people playing the management role. This was
difficult because it's not like I had more experience or knew more about
the manufacturing facility more than others, and yet, I was supposed to get
respect for others to listen to me and play the game in the tone of our
management method. Basically, we let the people go to just attack every
problem as a group to not really stress the divisions of "Operations" or
"Engineering" or "Manufacturing." We felt that in this situation, we're
all in the same boat, we weren't placed in our positions for our skills,
therefore, let's help each other and not get caught up in "each person's
responsibilities." And I felt this definitely worked. What I realized
from playing a management role was that a manager can have no clue about
what's going on, but a good manager should have a firm grasp on what or how
the Engineers came up with a certain decision or how Manufacturing produced
certain numbers. At one point only about 3 people understood how to do the
calculations to find how much backorder we have, and therefore, how much we
should "Start" with. Luckily, I understood where the "Start" numbers came
from (which the 3 other guys calculated), and therefore, was able to say
with confidence as a "Manager" to explain how the calculation was done to
the group so we could all be in sync. If I didn't know how the
calculations were done, and asked somebody to explain to the group as well
as myself, I think the respect that I got from people as a manager would
have disappeared and lost my position. But what I realized about a good
manager was to have the ability to think at and converse at the same level
as the other 10 people and then to have the presentation and communications
skill to be able to pull together ideas and conclusions at the SAME WAVE
LENGTH as the other 10 people. Obviously this was difficult, but I think
the reason I got respect from others as a Manager was that I presented
myself as if the other 10 guys very humbly and did not act as if I was the
one in control unless somebody gave a hint that I should in certain
situations.
By the end of the game, most of us were sick of thinking and
arguing over every little detail of the game, and the idea of having to
stay overtime made us make quick decisions unlike the first few problems.
We made decisions quicker because we got used to the game, but I also think
that it's because each person did not want to stay overtime and started
thinking "who cares if our score is not high, I learned enough." This is
when group showed each individuals true personalities. Some people started
not caring about the game, because a professor wasn't there to impress, and
their necks weren't on the line for not playing the game. Some people were
still into it hardcore because they enjoyed the game, and some people just
followed along other people. I don't think this happened just because this
is a class game or project. I think this really happens in real life. I
think when people's necks aren't on the line, they don't care as much about
the problem that faces the company as they should. I think people do
become passive after a while realizing that them giving more ideas and
input will not help them get promoted unless their boss is there to be
impressed. It's horrible, but I think it's true.
We noticed that the performance measures used to evaluate our group always
prevailed each time we were faced with choosing a solution to a particular
problem. Every decision was based on how likely the outcome would maximize
our performance score. In view of this, the people who are in control of a
manufacturing plant must think very carefully about what the performance
measures should be before implementing them. They must be aware of the
extent to which these measures will affect other operating factors in the
plant by which performance in not measured. For example, we were not
penalized if a particular strategy was too expensive to implement, which I
would expect to be the case in the real world.
It was a good exercise to have several items being produced in several
production stages, each stage not necessarily applicable to each product.
This way we could see the effects of various start combinations on WIP. We
also saw how the amount of WIP at different stages of the production process
determines the throughput of the system, and how adding extra capacity at an
identified bottleneck can improve the plant performance and help the company
reach its goals.
As I mentioned in the first paragraph, our Operational Decisions were
largely based of how likely they were to improve our score in the
performance measures that would determine our overall score at the end.
Manufacturing Information Systems played a very important role in helping us
make the right decisions during the simulation. Without accurate WIP and
yield data we would have been unable to achieve our production target with
any reasonable precision.
Intuition is a valuable resource for those who make operational decisions in
a manufacturing environment. It enables the person to act quickly and
efficiently which could give the plant a competitive advantage over others.
However, the right kind of intuition can only be obtained through long-term
exposure to and experience with the particular manufacturing system. When we
started, most of our decisions were based on quantitative analysis in order
to maximize our score, but intuition helped speed things up towards the end.
Once again, it is important for someone who relies more on intuition to
always keep the performance measures in mind.
Finally, group dynamics can either improve or hinder a group's performance.
There must be a system which gives each person a chance to understand a
given problem, think about a solution, and present it to the group so that a
concensus can be reached that best solves the problem. What tend to happen
though is that certain individuals dominate group discussion, perhaps
because they have better intuition or simply more confidence, but the group
tends to work optimally if everyone participates and contributes equally. It
is then up to those who dominate to try to help the others understand better
and actively seek their contribution.
Three lessons that I learned from the Manufacturing Operations=20
Game on 9/5 and 9/12 were:
1. GROUP DYNAMICS: This was my first experience working and cooperating=20
in a group of this size. Although we were all part of different groups,=20
we all had to work together. For example, I was part of the =D2Operations=
=D3=20
Group, with two other people. So, it was interesting for me to realize=20
how despite the fact that there was more than one person in each of the=20
following teams: Operations, Engineering, Management and Manufacturing,=20
most of the time, people stuck together and watched out for the interests=
=20
of their specific group in the whole team. Also, it was interesting to=20
see how some people immediately assumed their =D2proper=D3 position in the=
=20
whole situation. Specifically, in the Management group, there was an=20
immediate seizure of control, or so it seemed to the rest of the groups. =
=09
=09Since the decisions made were sometimes random, without=20
sufficient analysis because of our incapability to do so, the Engineering=
=20
group was frequently alienated, especially from the Management group,=20
because, somehow, they felt that they needed more time with the=20
calculations, and the Management wanted to get things done fast.=20
2. MANUFACTURING PROCESSES: I was very impressed by the game because it=20
was a very interesting and above all realistic implementation of all the=20
theories and processes that we, as industrial engineers, learn about in=20
the classroom. So, the game was very helpful in making us understand the=20
concepts involved in manufacturing like overtime, throughput, yield,=20
batch sizes, etc.. Also, since we were able to immediately see how if=20
hypothetically speaking, we were actually in the real situation, what=20
kind of direction our decisions could take.
3. MY STANDING/APTITUDE IN THE FIELD OF MANUFACTURING: By being a member=
=20
of the Operations group, by enacting out my role and watching the others=20
and comparing and analyzing the interaction between the different roles=20
gave me an idea of where I fit in the most and where I would perform the=20
best too. So, in terms of future, I was able to plan and foresee which=20
direction I want to go in.
<Three Lessons Learned from Manufacturing Operations Games>
I really enjoyed playing the manufacturing process simulation which
was well designed and organized. I understood the importance of principles
of management and how to communicate with other people explained below.
First, the important thing is to make clear our goal or target. In
this game, our goal was apparently the maximize of the score regarding
production, WIP and yield. We cannot make decisions unless we recognize our
purposes, so that each member of the group must have the same objectives to
decide our actions. In other words, we must have some objective criteria to
keep the unity of direction for decision-makings in the group. For
instance, we had many experiences that it is too difficult to find out our
mutual benefit at minimum cost among some divisions, such as engineering,
production, operation and maintenance division, because in general we have
to optimize many objectives such as cost and quality in engineering. Once
we could define our goal, we can easily arrive at an agreement.
Secondly, the strong leadership of management is very important. In
general, management must be superior to other workers. This meaning is that
he or she must know the whole processes in order to do correct
decision-making. However, no one can know everything. Nevertheless,
management must make decisions so that he or she needs a lot of
experiences, great empiricism or theories to support his or her approach.
Finally, I recognized the importance of sharing information. In
this game, we were decided into four divisions, and then each division
obtained its own information. Other groups could not know what information
other divisions had. In this case, we must communicate each other, however,
at the first stage of the game, and also real engineering projects, it is
stressful because we do not have any information or principles. In this
case the information obtained individually is very helpful and sometimes
can imply how to do next step and evaluate our actions. Therefore sharing
information is very effective. Especially in team based activities, it
leads to make our point quickly.
In conclusion, to make sure our goal, leadership of management and
sharing information are very effective way to do the team activities or do
decision-making in engineering. I have learned the importance of these
things from my work experiences. However, I always wonder whether there
would be something rigid or absolute in management affairs or
decision-making. I would like to obtain how to generate the design and
management concepts.
The Operations Game was an interesting educational experience. It was
one of my first experiences working in a larger team, and it was a good
lesson in group dynamics. One lesson I learned as part of the management
team was that the job isn't as easy as it looks. Having had no
experience in this capacity, it was sometimes difficult to process
often-conflicting input from all of the other teams and make a quick
decision. As a result, on the first day our team only processed five
days' operations. At times, the group would look to us to make a final
decision and we felt that we did not have adequate information to make a
choice we were confident in. So what is one to do ?
Another issue that became apparent as we moved into the second week was
participation. The success of any meeting or exercise of this type
depends directly on the participants. I am acquainted with many of the
people on our team from other classes, and a lot of them tend to be very
quiet people. The first week, everyone was unsure of what they were
doing and were especially reluctant to speak up. Prof. Muckstadt had to
play a major role in our operations the first week, coaching and giving
suggestions to the different teams. By the second week, people felt more
sure of themselves and had a better idea of what was going on. With more
participation, we were able to move faster, and develop a plan for the
last half of the production period. In a group activity, it helps most
to have some "risk-takers" in the group who aren't afraid to speak up.
The third lesson involves group dynamics. In speaking with my friends in
other teams, I learned that some groups did not get along as well as
ours. We made some decisions in the beginning which were not the best
ones, but no blame was ever placed. By the end, the various
"departments" were working well together, exchanging information and
getting together to make decisions. It was important not to get too
involved in the exercise (it is after all only a game) and keep people
from getting bored, tired and snappy. The best thing our group did was
to get together and order a couple of pizzas to sustain us as our session
ran almost until 6 pm. The snack break we took allowed a rest for people
to regroup, and start fresh again. In my opinion this was one of the
best management decisions we made the entire time.
The manufacturing operations game was an exercise of managing a
multistage production environment. The objective was to meet production
targets while keeping work in process inventory at a minimum. The main
lessons learned were optimal production planning, using engineering
judgment, and group dynamics.
The function of production planning is to coordinate manufacturing
activities and to align manpower to meet the production schedule. The
performance measurements we had were production quantity, work in process
inventory, and process yield. We used these measurements to determine our
production rate. In order to increase the production quantity, we usually
changed the starts. The only constraint was that we had a capacity
limitations. Capacity problems created bottlenecks in the multistage
production process. To change capacity, we could use overtime or add
another shift. Engineering also contributed with technical improvements.
Another lesson was how to use engineering judgment. The information
system was the most important tool for decision making. Throughout the
game, we were exposed to some decisions like whether to implement the new
stapler system earlier than usual or to reduce the percentage of parts
inspected. We learned that when presented with various choices, the best
approach is to do a decision matrix were we can evaluate all the options and
then pick the best one. Other decisions were very close call such as the
one about the faulty temperature meter. This problem showed us that it is
better to be patient than to jump immediately implementing a change without
knowing what's going on.
The last lesson was in group dynamics. In a group like this ours,
we observed that the stronger voices in our group greatly influenced the
decision making process. Other people were more analytically minded,
because they were better in making calculations than in voicing their
opinion every time. Other members did not contribute much to the
discussion. I felt that management should have taken a more active role of
insuring a balanced participation in the decision making process.
The Manufacturing Operations Game was a good learning experience in several ways. The most important was with regard to group dynamics. Dealing with the different situations that arose, it became clear that an effective decision could not be made until
everyone had all the information available. Each department would receive the relevant information, discuss it among the department, and then make a short presentation to the rest of the group. While this may have cost us some time along the way, it mad
e our decisions better. Another important aspect was having a long-term goal. At first, our group was thinking on a day-to-day basis, not considering the long-term effects of our actions. This was fine, up to a point. When we had to start making decis
ions that would only come into play in the future (like adding a second shift in 5 days), we had to step back and reevaluate our position. We decided to meet between sections and to formulate some sort of plan. Once we sto!
pped and considered what our long-
term goal was, and how best to reach that goal, our operation ran smoother and more efficiently. Another major point was that everyone needs to be involved. There were some people who did not participate much the first week, and when they had something
to say the second week, others did not really want to listen. In fact, our group had someone who did not come the first week, only the second. While he had a lot of new ideas and insight into the problems of the factory, some people just thought that h
e didn't know what was going on and would have ignored his ideas if others had not stepped in. Group interaction is probably the most important lesson from the operations game. The balance of power and authority was very shaky, and while someone needed
to take charge of the operations, we had to be careful not to let them run the entire thing.
>>During the Manufacturing Operations Game, team of 12-15 people were assigned
>>to manage a high-tech process line with the help of computer simulation.
>>Each team consisted of engineering, operations, manufacturing, and
>>management divisions. Throughout the game, students were exposed to almost
>>real-life situations such as operational decisions, measuring performance,
>>and maintaining group dynamics. The main three lessons I learned from this
>>experience are the following:
>>
>> - 15 people per team is a very large number and prevents efficient exchange
>>of ideas and problem solving skills.
>> - Manufacturing information systems are very crucial , especially during
>>problem solving and desicion making processes. Information systems should be
>>designed with high technology and according to the structure of the flow
>>process. This would enable in better management of data gathered from the
>>production line. In addition, it would enable more effective
>>inter-departmental communication process.
>> -The presence of a good management department determines the future and the
>>output of the factory. Management is responsible for creating and keeping
>>group dynamics, encouraging smooth exchange of ideas, and supervising all
>>departments. They are the bridge between different departments. They have to
>>make sure that the action decided upon is the optimum for all the
>>departments. In addition, they have to consider the consequences of all
>>probable actions that could affect the future.
>>
>>In order to improve the Manufacturing Operations Game, first of all, the
>>number of team members should be decreased. This would eliminate the
>>possibility of disregarding or ignoring some member's ideas. Also, it would
>>enable better communication, and therefore, better desicions.
>>
>>Second, the problems which occur during the process of the game shoiuld be
>>projected to the rest of the team members via better information systems.
>>Only the concerned group had the details on the problem, whereas the whole
>>team should have been fully informed. The details should be communicated
>>throughly for best understanding of the situation before making any desicions.
>>
>>Lastly, The simulation screen should be redesigned. The current data screen
>>is full of listed numbers, which is very hard to read and follow. Also, when
>>a problem screen pops up, it was a pain to go forward and backward inorder
>>to keep track of the data.
>>
>>Overall, I have learned and enjoyed managing a multi-item multi-stage serial
>>production process. It was a good opportunity to see interactions between
>>desicion-making groups and teamwork. This situation perfectly applies to our
>>future career, especially as industrial engineers.
I) Three lessons learned from the Manufacturing Operations Game:
Although the game seemed a bit simplistic at first look, after attending
and struggling through the first portion I discovered that the seemingly
trivial tasks were not only relatively complicated (In that there were a
great deal of interconnections, and decisions made had to factor them in)
but they also contained a great deal of educational value. Of course, the
most obvious aspect of the Operations Game was the formation of several
responsibility circles within the work team. Another revelation was the
importance of the subjects being treated namely inventory, throughput,
wip, and the bottleneck effect. Before attending the first session of the
game, these areas were known to me but their importance was not. The
third beneficial lesson learned from the exercise, would be the necessity
of cross functional interaction. I will expand on these three ideas below.
Form the onset of the game, it was made clear by the instructor that the
essence of this course will be comprehended and the desired goals
achieved through a group effort. This concept translated from its
rhetorical abstract form into practical realization as soon as we entered
our labroom. First, we were placed into specialty teams within the
encompassing framework of the total group. This first action made me
reflect on my coop work which included similar divisions of intellectual
labor, and realize that what we were about to start was a simulation of a
real production situation and that the game was not really a game but a
serious and challenging experience. Previously I was only exposed to my
immediate colleagues and did not really have much interaction with the
rest of the departments. In this setting, I slowly as the game progressed
became aware of the dynamic of other departments within the same overall
group, and how their decisions influence the behavior and the
decisions of others. Within the engineering team( The one to which I was
assigned) I was able to experiment closely with deliberations and the
ultimate drive towards a consensus.
The substance of the game as opposed to its form, was by far the most
intellectually stimulating part of the whole exercise. The wealth of
information provided in the short time allowed, was excellent. First I
became more aware of several issues that face today's production
engineer. For example I learned for the first time that contrary to what
one might think, keeping a high level of inventory is not good. this idea
was communicated to us by the assignment of part of the total group grade
to the Wip. this simply meant that as a team (Or a production system in
the real world we will be penalized quite severely for running a high
level of work in progress. I also became more familiar with yield. For
instance, before the completion of this game I was not aware that second
shifts and overtime would result in higher yields. Finally I was quite
surprised to see that twelve engineering students had a hard time
reaching the planned levels of production. This was a sure presage of
what might be awaiting us manufacturing engineers in a real environment.
The last important aspect of the game that I felt served as a lesson was
the encouragement by our monitor
to cross team boundaries and share ides and suggestions with the other
specialty circles within our group. The Manufacturing Operations Game was
a rewarding experience. However I do think that improvements can be made.
Group Dynamics
Initially, the group operated around a loose democratic structure;
decisions were made after weighing various views and concluded with
democratic voting. There would be much discussion and deliberation every
step of the way and all the different departments were involved in
analyzing the problem holistically. However, as time became a limiting
and more pressing consideration, management began to push the process
along. They increased the pressure and pace at which a decision should
be made. This increased the decision making pace at the expense of
input, analysis and communication. At one juncture, the management
pushed for the next factory day whilst overtime computations were still
being done. Eventually, a faster decision making process eventually
evolved. During the second session, the team were more focused on their
roles and decision making was done within the group level (manufacturing
group, management group, etc.), then voiced as a team viewpoint to the
entire team. After short analysis facilitated by an written outline of
the expected impact of each possible course of action, dominated options
would be eliminated and a decision would be obtained by group voting.
Although the focus of each group was more fine tuned towards their
specific areas of responsibility, there was still much consideration for
the trade-offs that would be incurred by the other groups.
Towards the end of the project, when balancing the line and catching up
on production became an issue, the entire team centered is efforts on
computing the required WIP as well as material release requirements to
hit the planned target production. This speeded up the work, however,
this narrow focus that resulted in the last few days of production also
resulted in a few people calling the shots over what was to be done.
Basically, there were several people performing the computations to
obtain projections on production and they called the shots in the last
ten days of production.
The decision process was more hasty and several people became less
involved in it, probably due to the time of day as well as the wait for
computations to be done. Nevertheless, decisions were not arrived
autocratically, the management looked at the figures and asked key
questions about possible course of actions and the rationale of the
recommended decisions. Furthermore, computations were verified by having
more than one person assigned to a computational task. In a nutshell,
the effective decision making in the team had shifted to a fraction of
the original team members. This was an effective decision strategy for
the situation due to the time constraints and the numerical and
computationally intensive nature of the decisional analysis.
Lessons in Production Control
Throughout the game play, the most useful tool was information. The
teams did well by communicating the information privy to them to the
whole group. What had to be dealt with was decided between choices that
were logical and did not dominate one another. This matter was further
complicated by a need to deal with uncertainty in decision making. It
took a while before the management team was comfortable at sticking their
necks out and making a decision under a deadlock or lack of consensus.
The team was very natural at using intuition when uncertainty plagued the
choices after analysis was done. The groups spelt out their support for
a decision as well as the rationale for their choice. This resulted in
easier consensus building. This method however took perhaps extended the
time spent to arrive at the decision.
There were no personality conflicts and team members behaved in a
professional manner throughout the play of the game. There were lessons
learnt in computing WIP and estimating production. However, more
valuable lessons were obtained from learning how to make decisions that
did not yield immediate results and feedback. The level of variability
in the production process, the unexpected events, the lack of readily
available computer generated charts and process predictions, and the lack
of an apparent optimal solution gave many valuable lessons on good
decision making and follow-up.
This process was solved somewhat when we realized we could use the
projection key to project the production and state of the line into the
future. It was a time-saving and helpful tool in situational analysis as
well as decision making. It definitely highlighted the important of
effective and user friendly management information systems.
Team Performance & Efficiency
Overall, the team performed in a rather effective and rational manner.
The process, albeit slow at times, was thorough and logical. As a
results, the decisions were largely well made and no unnecessary or
uncalculated risks were taken.
However, the teams could have reached a decision more effectively had
they made more use of visual methods of analysis. Without the use of
computers to generate graphs for projected production, it was harder to
make comparisons between over time and second shift production
consequences.
Whislt management did a good job overall, it took a while before they
organized an effective decision making process. The team lacked
effective facilitation in the early stages of the game. This led to a
communication breakdown at one stage that resulted in a jump the gun
decision.
The management group performed well managing time and did a good job
getting the groups to come to a decision. This was very important in an
environment where there was no single right answer and several viable
options.
Although, it took time for the team to get into gear and function like a
well-oiled machine, the adjustment phase was inevitable for the group and
overall, the team did evolve in the right direction.
I will try to make this essay as precise and informal as possible. No
beating around a point to fill lines.
Though I believe I learnt more than three things from the Operations
Game, I am listing my top three lessons.
1) A fundamental understanding (though at a very high level) of
how a process line is run in a factory and what are some of the
real-world issues that assembly line workers and managers have to face. I
got a taste of what factors are to be monitored, what processes to be
adjusted and what decisions to be made regarding running an efficient
assembly line. I also learnt what is the order of importance of
performance criteria for supervisors/managers e.g. throughput is
more important than wip and so forth.
2) Another important thing I learnt is how different departments
should interact with each other to reach a decision on a problem. Team
interaction is undoubtedly one of the most important skills required in
today's dynamic job environment. Related to team interaction is
people's skills. I learnt how it is probably easier to reach a decision
than to convince the rest of the department on why your decision is the
most feasible one.
3) Another important thing that this game helped me in was to do
a self-analysis. This was a good opportunity to reflect on what are my
strong points and what are my weak points as far as learning a process,
interacting with team members and making decisions is concerned. For
example, I discovered that I was able to do a thorough analysis of a
problem faced by our department. However, I tended to be a little pushy
when trying to explain why my decision was the right decision. It was
more like I was trying to force a decision on to them rather than present
a good argument and convince them. However, through the game I was able
to rectify my habit and thus make myself a better team player.
Three things that I believe were lacking and can be improved in this game
are as follows:
Three Lessons Learned from the Manufacturing Operations Game:
1.) The necessity of effective communications between divisions in a
corporation. This communication between departments is essential because
each department will have different information on the same problem or
scenario. Thus, unless everyone is aware of all of the information and
the total picture, a truly complete and thorough solution can not be
achieved. Also, effective communication and discussion of this
information must take place so that each department may relate their
expert opinon on how the data affects the overall solution and scenario
being discussed.
2.) I learned how to calculate the expected number of "Good" units
in the system. Due to process yields, the amount of WIP in the system at
a certain step will not all completely matriculate through that step.
Instead, some of this inventory will need to be scrapped due to yield.
Thus, the number of "Good" units in the system is not merely the amount
of WIP in the system.
3.) I was able to develop skills and methods for solving problems. That
is, I learned the importance and necessity of following a series of steps
to solve a problem. These steps include fully comprehending the problem
being faced, gathering information and data which relates to the
scenario, analyzing the data which has been compiled, evaluating
alternatives based on our findings from the data analysis, discussing the
proposed solution with all members to determine the benefits and
possible present and future effects of the solution, and finally,
reanalyzing or reiterating the process if necessary.