Littlefield Technologies
Littlefield Simulation1
Team Synergy discussed our strategy for the Littlefield Simulation. Following is the timeline summarizing the decisions we made and the justification for those decisions.
Day 50 – Bought machine for Station 1
When we first evaluated our factory, we noticed from days 1 to 50, the bottleneck was mainly Station 1. Most days, however, we were able to make our $1000 revenue. Therefore, our team decided that buying another machine for Station 1 would help move the bottleneck and meet our 24 hour quoted time for completing and shipping receivers.
Day 97 – Changed Station 2 scheduling rule to priority step 2
From days 51 to 97, we noticed the bottleneck occurred at all stations, depending on how many new kits were coming in. As a team, we decided that we would not purchase another machine at this time, but change how Station 2 was processing its’ queue. Station 2 was set to FIFO, but we decided that by changing the scheduling rule to priority step 2, we could process all the incoming kits, giving priority to the short initial tests, which would then enable an even flow of kits to Station 3. At this time, we were in third place in the overall standings and wanted to maintain that ranking if possible.
Day 132 – Changed Station 2 scheduling rule to priority step 4
From days 98 to 132, our overall standing improved from third to first place and we were happy with our decision. At this time, however, we started seeing 100% utilization at both Stations 1 and 2. We decided we could not maintain our first place standing if we did not do something. At this point, we made the decision to move the scheduling rule at Station 2 to priority step 4, as we started to see revenues drop drastically and hoped that by prioritizing the longer final testing process, we could improve the throughput of the kits. Day 150 – Bought machine for Station
Team Synergy discussed our strategy for the Littlefield Simulation. Following is the timeline summarizing the decisions we made and the justification for those decisions.
Day 50 – Bought machine for Station 1
When we first evaluated our factory, we noticed from days 1 to 50, the bottleneck was mainly Station 1. Most days, however, we were able to make our $1000 revenue. Therefore, our team decided that buying another machine for Station 1 would help move the bottleneck and meet our 24 hour quoted time for completing and shipping receivers.
Day 97 – Changed Station 2 scheduling rule to priority step 2
From days 51 to 97, we noticed the bottleneck occurred at all stations, depending on how many new kits were coming in. As a team, we decided that we would not purchase another machine at this time, but change how Station 2 was processing its’ queue. Station 2 was set to FIFO, but we decided that by changing the scheduling rule to priority step 2, we could process all the incoming kits, giving priority to the short initial tests, which would then enable an even flow of kits to Station 3. At this time, we were in third place in the overall standings and wanted to maintain that ranking if possible.
Day 132 – Changed Station 2 scheduling rule to priority step 4
From days 98 to 132, our overall standing improved from third to first place and we were happy with our decision. At this time, however, we started seeing 100% utilization at both Stations 1 and 2. We decided we could not maintain our first place standing if we did not do something. At this point, we made the decision to move the scheduling rule at Station 2 to priority step 4, as we started to see revenues drop drastically and hoped that by prioritizing the longer final testing process, we could improve the throughput of the kits. Day 150 – Bought machine for Station