A systems study on the production department of Rusca Manufacturing
Rusca Manufacturing emerged from Manhattan Novelty Co., Inc. in 2006 after the death of one of the latter company's five owners which lead to its division into two smaller companies, Rusca Manufacturing and Manhattan Novelty Co. It produces garters, cords and yarns mostly for Manhattan Novelty...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Animo Repository
2008
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/2221 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | De La Salle University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Rusca Manufacturing emerged from Manhattan Novelty Co., Inc. in 2006 after the death of one of the latter company's five owners which lead to its division into two smaller companies, Rusca Manufacturing and Manhattan Novelty Co. It produces garters, cords and yarns mostly for Manhattan Novelty Company and Everson Modiste.
The area of concern of this study is the garter production of Rusca Manufacturing with company's data from August 2006 to July 2007. With the use of the WOT-SURG Analysis, it was found out that the main problem of the system was its non-compliance with the 3% minimum reject limit stipulated by the company. It was found out that the system's reject rate is 4.92% during the said time period, which resulted in lost sales of P 252,203.19.
In the absence of company's records regarding the reject data, a sampling method was made to identify the major causes of the problem. With the use of Cause and Effect and Pareto Analysis, six major causes were identified. These are garter guide breakage reject due to broken spring (21.62%), dirty garter reject due to unclean hands of workers (18.79%), reject due to lack of warped yarns (17.98%), reject due to rejected rubber raw material (9.79%), dirty garter reject due to dirty workplace (9.24%) and loose rubber reject due to lack of rubber (6.83%).
The root causes were address with the implementation of several solutions which include change of springs every four hours, adoption of a routine machine cleaning schedule, creation of log-in cards for machines, adoption of a double sampling plan inspection for incoming raw materials, good housekeeping policy and cutting the area with the loose rubber only. Using a Cost-Benefit Analysis, an annual savings of P 108,867.30 with a payback period of 6 months were computed. The new system can be implemented within 3 months. |
|---|