Overall Unit Effectiveness (OUE) for performance measurement and distribution of tasks analysis

Thèmes abordés

Overall Unit Effectiveness, performance measurement , tasks analysis

Résumé du document

Nowadays, business organizations are confronted with a competitive environment, which forces manufacturers to improve their quality, price and delivery time in order to improve their advantage over competitors, which depends on availability and productivity of their production facilities (Fleisher et al., 2006). Therefore, to attain higher prosperity, a management system is required to identify and eliminate production losses. One of the management systems commonly used is total preventive maintenance (TPM). However, a management system necessarily requires an appropriate information system to evaluate operating performance.

One of the important and widely used metrics of performance in manufacturing is overall equipment effectiveness (OEE): OEE is a tool that helps management to unleash hidden capacity and therefore reduce overtime expenditure and allow deferral of major capital investment (Muchiri and Pintelon 2006). Furthermore, it is not only as an operational measure, but also as an indicator of process improvement activities (Dal et al. 2000). Hansen (2002) mentioned that using OEE metrics and establishing an equipment performance reporting system will help to focus on the parameters critical to success, and analyzing OEE categories can reveal the greatest limits to success.

Extraits

[...] Scott and Pisa (1998) pointed out that it is necessary to focus one's attention beyond the performance of individual tools towards the performance of the whole factory. The ultimate objective is a highly efficient integrated system, not brilliant individual tools or processes. They coined the term ‘overall factory effectiveness (OFE)', which is about combining activities and relationships between different machines and processes, and integrating information, decisions, and actions across many independent systems and subsystems. A proposal of this study is to expand the use of those manufacturing tools to the case of a factory using both critical material resources and human resources within complex processes of interaction around one line of production. [...]

[...] Without any doubts, OEE has become one of the most common performance indicator for the industry, leading to major improvements on individual industrial equipment. Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, OEE focuses only on individual equipment and suffers from a lack of global performance perspective. More important, OEE and others OEE-like indicators do not take into account the Human Resource dimension and favors equipment analysis, as they are key to the performance in the industry. Therefore, OEE approach does not apply to processes in which the human resources are at the heart of the efficiency problematic. [...]

[...] Derived indicators of Overall Equipment Efficiency Planned Equipment Effectiveness, PEE, was defined by Raouf in 1994 and is similar to OEE. The difference is the introduction of coefficients which weight the different factors of the OEE. It means that quality should have a different importance from performance and different from availability. In the original OEE, these three factors were indeed weighted with a coefficient which implied they had the same importance. For discrete production operation, PEE is therefore calculated as follows: Where A is availability rate; E is performance efficiency and Q quality efficiency. [...]

[...] OEE Literature Review Overall equipment efficiency a worldwide used industrial performance indicator The Overall Equipment Efficiency (OEE) was fist defined by Seiichi Nakajima in 1988 as a performance indicator for individual equipment in the industry. The purpose of the OEE is to identify and reduce production losses in order to reduce production costs. OEE is based on 6 different types of losses. The following description and figure are an excerpt from P.Murinchi and L.Pintelon (2008) with examples from a palletizing plant in a brewery from Pintelon and al. [...]

[...] In the Clinic where this process was already implemented and where we performed our measurements, before the implementation of the fast-track equipment, the ambulatory service operated on average 450 patients a month. Since the fast-track was implemented, this figure increased to 750 without an increase in capacity or new staff appointments. Yet, beyond the tensions this organization can induce on planning (less flexibility of staff due to a higher loading rate, chronic overcrowding in waiting and locker rooms), this increase in the number of operations is less impressive if we consider that the supplementary interventions are quick, short operations allowing a high rotation rate (between 12 and 20 cataract surgeries can be performed on a half-day vacation). [...]