Preparation for the Competition

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY II. TABLE OF CONTENTS III. EXPLANATION OF ACTIVITY IV. PREPARATION FOR THE COMPETITION

The first group meeting was to discuss the project. Each teammate expressed their ideas. These ideas were criticized and were very helpful in the coming Origami production project. The topics covered in this meeting were the following:

Costs:

1) There were two ways of buying paper for the tortoise & hare origami models. The costs of buying uncut paper or precut paper were the following:

Table 1: Paper Costs. Types of papers Cost per sheet Cost per pack or pair Ten sheets uncut $4 $40 Pair uncut $6 $12 Ten sheets precut $7 $70 Pair precut $9 $18

The advantages and disadvantages of both were analyzed.

 Uncut paper was half of the cost of precut paper. Nevertheless, valuable time would be lost on the production of tortoise and hare models. There was a chance to have quality problems in the cuts that could lead into producing more errors in the tortoises and hares, and cause price reductions. Finally, disposal charges of $1 per strip would be charged after cutting more than twenty strips.

 Buying precut paper rather than uncut paper was more expensive but there was no need to worry about the quality of the cutting or the disposal charges and there would be more time to produce tortoise & hare models.

After analyzing options, the team decided to buy uncut paper. Emphasis had to rely in the quality of the cutting and quality of production in order to minimize costs and maximize profit. 2) Labor cost for each of the group members were the following:

Table 2: Labor Costs. Period of time Charge per person First 15 minutes $12 Next 5 minutes $6 Next 5 minutes $8

The team wanted to maximize production, and thought that the best way was to put every member into work for the complete period of twenty five minutes.

3) There was a charge for the cutting tools to use in the project. These prices were as follows:

Renting a pair of scissors: $2 every five minutes Prices Buying a pair of scissors: $6 Providing own cutting tools: $8

The decision was to provide own tools in order to save money. . 4) Quality errors:

There was a $5 deduction fee from the models sold for each mistake they had. Mistakes included errors such as miss folds, no symmetry, and paper being too wrinkled. Each model with enough mistakes to decrease its value to half was not accepted. Tortoises could not be have more than three mistakes, and hares no more than two.

The team decided it was important to emphasize quality of production other than just speed.

5) Disposal fees:

There was a $1 disposal fee for every tortoise or hare not bought because of unacceptable quality

Revenue:

The selling price was $20 for every hare and $30 for every tortoise.

Each team member decided originally to do just tortoises. After practicing with the models two of the members realized it was very difficult for them to do the tortoise. Thus, everybody agreed to divide production into both models, leaving half of the team working on tortoises and the other half working on hares. Final decision:

After carefully reviewing the costs and revenues of the origami production, final decisions were made. The team chose to buy uncut paper, put the complete group into work and provide our own cutting tools. One person was to be in charge of cutting the papers and as soon as he finished that task he would begin producing hares, another member would do just hares, and the remaining two members were compromised to make tortoises. Each member timed himself prior the competition in order to calculate how many models they could produce per amount of time, and how much paper was going to be bought. It was calculated that buying sixty sheets of paper was the perfect amount for the twenty five minutes of labor that would be the project. The members concluded the objective to be to produce good quality models, no matter how much time it took. Everyone wanted to have a perfect production, and together calculated estimates shown in this table:

Table 3: Costs, Benefits and Profit Estimates. Costs Revenue Profit 30 Tortoises 120$ 900$ 780$ 30 Hares 120$ 600$ 480$ Cutting tools 8$ 0$ 0$ Disposal fees 40$ 0$ 0$ Labor 104$ 0$ 0$ Total 392$ 1500$ 1108$

V. ORIGAMI COMPETITION RELATED TO CONCEPTS

Bill of Materials:

During this project the team had to keep in mind estimate costs of manufacturing. In order to do this, the members developed an estimate of all material costs.

Table 4: Material Costs Materials Costs Ten sheets uncut $40 Two sheets uncut $12 Ten sheets precut $70 Two sheets precut $18 Rent Scissors $10 Buy Scissors $6 Provide cutting tools $8 Process flows:

In this project we could illustrate a process flow of our manufacturing technique.

Figure 1: Process Flow Diagram.

Uncut Squares Paper Cuttin g Sheets Perso n Tortoise Hare Models Models

Fold Fold and Cut

Inspect

Layout:

The layout for this project consisted in planning an effective rate of origami models that could achieve efficient production. Each member prepared to make origami models in a time period. After revising the manufacturing speeds of each member, the number of models estimated to complete in twenty five minutes was calculated to be approximately sixty. Thus, everybody agreed to buy sixty sheets of paper. Furthermore, the group decided to put only one person in charge of cutting the sheets.

Line balancing and assembly methods:

One of the assembly methods that best illustrated this competition was assembly-line work. Assembly-line work is a manufacturing procedure in which many workers successively perform an operation or task while the item under production is moved along a conveyor system timed to move in accordance with the time allotted for each distinct function to be performed. Source: http://broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/business/sdlc/terms.html This assembly-line procedure consisted in two steps in for the team. By the time one of the members cut a sheet of paper, another member would start folding the paper into origami model. This assembly-line procedure is obviously more complicated and complex in industries. Because of the relatively simple nature of the project the assembly-line consisted of only two steps.

Work Design:

In order to make our Origami models we had to learn how to fold the tortoise and hares. To achieve this task we accessed the web page www.paperfolding.com. The following images are examples of the final models:

Figure 2: Tortoise Model. Source: http://www.origamimuseum.com/ Figure 3: Hare model. Source: http://www.origamimuseum.com/

Total Quality Management and Quality Control:

Each of the teammates was encouraged to do their best in the competition. It was estimated that out of the 60 sheets bought, 60 origami models would be produced. This was a precise estimation, since 59 models were completed. Emphasis was placed in the quality of the models, as planned. If the team had finished the 60 models before the 25 minutes period, there would have been time to start looking for details and correcting models. Even though there was no time for inspection at the end of the working period of the competition, each member kept in mind quality and tried to inspect models as they were being folded. Thus, the only process missing was a second inspection.

Jigs, Fixtures and Special Tools:

To provide a more accurate and time efficient way of cutting paper, a paper-cutting jig was constructed. The jig was made of a cardboard box base and a ruler positioned a specific distance away from the edge of the base. Paper was put under the ruler and cut by a razor along the ruler’s edge. This method proved useful in production and produced accurate, timely cuts comparable to those made by a store-bought paper cutter. A possible problem with the jig was that it was inadvertently designed to fit a left-handed operator. This problem did not significantly hinder the production of cut paper; however it would need to be addressed if the jig were to be used for a larger scale operation. The production of this jig demonstrated the value of ingenuity in the production line, as well as the importance of quality control.

Design for Manufacturability:

The production line was organized to make the product flow go as smoothly as possible. The group used two tables side by side to allow workers proper space, and there were areas designated for holding the finished product separate from the work areas.

Product Rework:

Maintaining quality control of the finished product sometimes involved doing touch-up work. In the case of the hares, workers were given razors to trim down any faultily overlapping ears. Workers repaired the turtles by periodically re-creasing the main dorsal fold and sharpening the point of the head by hand. This attention to detail paid off in only allowing one completely defective product out of fifty-nine to pass through to the customer. This also showed the financial importance of a product rework department in real production facilities.

Product Mix:

To determine product mix for the project, each group member calculated the length of time it took to fold each product. Then, based on faster times and personal comfort, each member selected one model on which to focus their efforts. The result had two people folding turtles and two people folding hares. The workers folding turtles were fast enough to make it worth the extra time it took to make the more complicated model. The choice of product mix was crucial, and can possibly be named as a reason why some groups were much more profitable than this group.

Learning/Startup Effect:

The times that were calculated to make each model were mostly underestimates, and in actual production it took longer than anticipated to make finished models. The product line overall was uniform in productivity from start to finish. This can be attributed to the preparation each group member underwent prior to the competition. Members spent time learning how to fold the products and practiced the flow of the assembly line ahead of time so the actual production would go smoothly.

Regular Time versus Overtime Production:

The group made full use of the overtime working periods, letting all four workers work for the entire time. This was financially smart because the selling price of a single product would exceed the overtime wages paid to the worker who constructed it.

Inventory:

The flow of inventory resembled some of the strategies of warehousing. At one end of the table were the raw paper and the cutter. The cut squares were placed in the center of the table, within reach of the workers. And the finished products were stacked at the far end. The stacking of finished products made use of vertical space, much like in a real warehouse.

Cost Accounting:

Accounting for all costs to optimize the production method proved more challenging than initially anticipated. The system that the group settled on using was likely not the most cost-efficient method of production. Choice of product mix was a weak point in deciding on a cost-effective strategy.

Job Enrichment:

Although the group did not win the competition, worker morale was always high. Each worker made sure that all other teammates knew their importance to the group. There was a high level of respect between workers, and open communication or constructive criticism was encouraged. This made production an exciting activity rather than monotonous work.

Dealing With Suppliers and Customers:

It was beneficial having close ties with the suppliers of raw materials and with the customers. We never had to worry about shortages ahead us in the supply chain, and production was simplified knowing that the customer was willing to purchase 100% of our non-defective products. The project would have been much more difficult if uncertainties in suppliers or customers had been a factor. VI. SUMMARY

The Origami Project involved many key issues that Industrial and Systems Engineers (ISE) deal with in their career, but in a much simpler scenario. The learning experiences that have been provided by the Origami Project can be split into two categories, the ones gotten from managing to work in teams, and the ones gotten from setting up the production chain itself.

Managing Team Work:

Being able to manage a group of people towards accomplishing a goal is something every ISE does in their career. An ISE has to communicate well with the people he is working with. A team must visualize the common goal and decide what approach they are going to take. The group must work around everybody’s schedule in order to set meeting times and deadlines according to a given time frame. The group also has to evenly distribute the work load between the members as evenly as possible or according to individual strengths. Furthermore, a team must be well organized and plan every stage of the task to be done. These are some of the matters from team work, which the Origami Project has shown the students, and that are related to an ISE career.

Setup of Production Chain:

An ISE deals with designing systems to efficiently produce a certain product. For the Origami Project the team had to design a system to produce origami tortoises and or hares efficiently in order to achieve maximum profit, given the factor such as material costs, labor wages, disposal fees, prices, limited time, and emphasis on quality. The project was a simple way to illustrate concepts and processes involved in manufacturing something. There has to be a deep analysis from the beginning of the project, to be able to be well organized and plan every stage of manufacturing. To do this, there has to be research and perhaps modifications of processes, then learning and practicing certain processes to be more efficient. In this specific case every team had to research how to fold the paper to create either a tortoise or a hare, keep practicing in order to learn how to do it faster, and even maybe changing a step or two in the process if it is seen to improve it. The group designed a cutting tool in addition to deciding what each member was going to be working on during the competition. The team designed a production chain according to everyone’s individual strengths in order to use time as efficiently as possible. Two members would be working on tortoises, one on hares, and the third will cut the paper and then help folding hares when he finished cutting. There has to be an analysis of costs and benefits of each stage of manufacturing in order to maximize profit. This included deciding which product to focus on or a mix of both, and calculating estimates of production capabilities to relate cost and benefits. Quality control is another big issue that has to be accounted for in every stage of manufacturing and then inspection. Finally the groups dealt with the professors who were judging the models and purchasing them, as the customers or consumers, like an ISE would have in real life.

VII. EVALUATION OF COMPETITION

The competition was a valuable experience for all the ISE students, because it was a way to illustrate some of the concepts involved in the career, in a simple matter. The groups were randomly assigned, and therefore they distributed fairly. The grading spreadsheet was an efficient way to calculate each group’s profit, but there was some confusion as to what the students had to do with it for the competition. It was a good idea not to perform the activity in the regular class room but in the room in the Reitz Union, since the tables were better to do this. It was helpful that there were two more people other than just Leah Goldman, to help Professor Stanfill and Professor Francis in the grading process. The only thing that could have been controversial was when people from other groups not only went around to look at the other stations, but tried to influence the grading process, even if they were just kidding. In addition, many teams felt that it was not fair to be graded by different instructors, since one may had been stricter than the other, and that may had influenced results. Also, it seemed to be that teams that bought already cut paper or that chose to produce just one type of figure were able to complete a lot more models and gain the most profit, but there were groups that had a mix of both figures and did not produce as many because of emphasis on quality, that did just as well.

VIII. SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE COMPETITION

To organize better, the instructors should have asked the teams what mix of the models they would be doing, in order to split the room up in to three areas, one where there were teams folding only hares, another folding only tortoises, and a another a mix of both. This would help make the grading process faster and organized, since in a couple occasions during the competition when everybody thought it was done, there still was a group with part of its work not evaluated. Another interesting thing that could probably help even out the competition and see the creativity of the teams is to allow only scissors and blades to be standard cutting tools, and not allow a tool such as a paper cutter. Instead, allow all the groups the option to design their own cutter, as one of the teams did. This is another thing similar to what ISEs do since many times they must design a machine to perform a certain process. IX. INFORMATION SOURCE