This project aims to improve planning, scheduling, and on-time delivery for key accounts at Plant 123. The project will use SCOR methodology and lean tools to identify gaps in the order-to-cash process that cause delays. Specifically, it will review front-end planning/scheduling and shop floor execution to boost on-time-in-full delivery rates. Four key areas (Xs) were identified as impacting on-time delivery: 1) production order planning, 2) scheduling and implementation, 3) throughput of constrained work centers, and 4) raw material availability. The project will measure and improve these areas over multiple phases to close gaps and meet on-time delivery goals of 98% for Account A and 95%

1. Andrew Si
Email: Andrew.sile@gmail.com
1
Note:
1. All rights reserved. This presentation or any portion of it may not be reproduced or used in any manner
without the express written permission of the author.
2. The author has made every effort to remove the company specific information. If you notice any company
specific or any type of sensitive information in the document, please advise the author.

2. 2

3. 3
Project Charter
Project Title:
Improve the Planning & Scheduling Process to Achieve OTIF Requirements for Key Account A, B, C at Plant
123
Expected Customer BenefitsImproved On-Time-In-Full customer delivery contributes to the goal to position Company as the "supplier of
choice" to our customers. Higher customer service level also adds value to the integrated supply chain (ISC) of
the main customers.
Business Case:
Plant 123 received complains from key accounts on the order delivery performance. Improving customer service
level will enhance the customer loyalty, and generate more revenue in the future.
Opportunity Statement: There are disconnections in the order-to-cash process that caused delivery delays to the customer. This project
will use SCOR methodology and Lean tools to identify the Gaps that caused the disconnections and take
actions to bridge the gaps. Specifically in Plant 123, the project will review both the front end
planning/scheduling processes and follow through on the shop floor execution, to improve the scheduling
adherence and OTIF. Meanwhile, the excessive inventory for production orders that are not required in the short
term will be reduced and the shortage of production orders that might cause poor customer service level will be
minimized. The capacity utilization will be more effective as the priority will be given to the production orders
that are really needed. The direct savings will come from right-sizing the WIP & capacity utilization based on
customer demands.
Scope:
The scope of this project is the material part numbers for the four customers. The process starts from receiving
customer orders/forecasts and ends with customer receiving the products.
Metrics METRICS BASELINE CURRENT GOAL UNITS
External
OTIF
Key Acct A: 95%;
Key Acct B: 90%;
Key Acct A: 95%;
Key Acct B: 90%;
Key Acct A: 98%;
Key Acct B: 95%;
PRIMARY METRIC
Internal
OTIF
Key Acct A: 43.8%;
Key Acct B: 77.7%;
Key Acct A: 74.8%;
Key Acct B: 78.3%;
Key Acct A: 90%;
Key Acct B: 90%;
SECONDARY
METRIC
Scheduling
Adherence
SECONDARY
METRIC

4. 4
Project Methodology

5. X1 Production Order Planning Process
 Demand and Supply Evaluation for New Production Order Creation
 Quality/Engineering Review for the Production Order Release
X2 Production Scheduling & Implementation
X3 Throughput/Capacity/Productivity of the Constraint Work Centers
X4 Raw Material ATP
5
Sub-Projects Portfolio
Y: OTIF = F(X1, X2, X3, X4)

6. 6
Production Order Planning Process
Demand and Supply Evaluation for New Production Order Creation
– Business Issue:
• Current process for production order requirement calculation (MRP process) is not well defined, especially
for the Min/Max products. We need to have a systematic and scientific way to evaluate the production order
situation (both shortage and over production), and cut new production orders for shortages only.
– Measure/Analyze/Improve:
• Before: Production order for production shortage: 55%; After: over 85%
– Progress:
• Open production order analysis T1
• Develop production order planning process for Min/Max materials T2
• ABC based production order planning process for MRP parameters setting in SAP T3
Quality/Engineering Review for the Production Order Release
– Business Issue:
• Current capacity for quality review is 10 product part numbers/day, and there are over 1000 product part
numbers in the “review list”. We need to increase the quality review capacity and make sure the list for
review is prioritized according to the most current requirements.
– Measure/Analysis/Improve:
• Before: Quality review for production orders: 8 orders/day; After: 15 orders/day
– Progress:
• Re-prioritize the list of materials for quality review T1
• Establish the inter-departmental procedure on quality review process T2
• Current wait time for Quality/Engineering review is 11 days T3
• To have a Kaizen event to reduce the wait time into 2-3 days T4
X1: Production Order
Planning Process

7. 7
X1: Production Order
Planning Process

8. Plant Min/Max Delivery Performance to Key Acct B
8
X1: Production Order
Planning Process
Plant Min/Max Delivery Performance to Key Acct A
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
75.00%
80.00%
85.00%
90.00%
95.00%
100.00%
OTIF Above 80% Max
OTIF Trendline Above 80% Max Trendline
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
90.00%
91.00%
92.00%
93.00%
94.00%
95.00%
96.00%
97.00%
98.00%
99.00%
100.00%
OTIF Above 80% Max
Delivery Performance for Min/Max
(Represents customers measure):
# of Materials Above or Equal Min
# of Materials in MinMax Scope

9. 9
Production Order Scheduling & Implementation
– Business Issue:
• Shop floor has no visibility beyond the current “hot orders”. Even if there is capacity left after all the “hot
orders” for the day are completed. We need a master schedule to prioritize production orders.
– Measure/Analyze/Improve:
• The Excel Macro that helps us to prioritize the production orders and create production schedule has been
reviewed and rewrote. 2010 Q4
• 7 Day finite schedule was produced and pilot run 2010 Q4
• Color code production orders to set priorities categorically, but not specify the exact sequence. Daily
production order sequence is made on the shop floor. 2011 Q1
– Discussion:
• The best level of granularity of shop floor scheduling
• The routing/duration discussion for SAP master data (post Aug 1st)
X2 Production Order Scheduling
Finite Schedule (Form)
by ProdOrd by Day/Shift
Radom
Schedule
“Hot List”
Schedule
Categorical Schedule
by Priority Level
7 Day Schedule but Allow
Daily Re-sequence

10. 10
X2 Production Order Scheduling
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
Plant 123 Scheduling Adherence

11. 11
Increase the Capacity/Productivity/Throughput of the Constraint Work Centers
– Business Issue:
• The overall production rate of plant123 is determined by the pace of the slowest work center(s). We need to
improve the productivity/throughput of the constraint work center(s) to complete the past due orders, to
increase customer inventory to Max, and to prepare for future demands.
– Measure/Analyze/Improve:
• Bottleneck Identification: Pickle & Hot Press
• Throughput Improvement
– Progress:
• Productivity of pickle work center improved by 22.8% 2010 Q4
• Over production cycle time reduced by 50% 2011 Q2
X3: Throughput/Capacity/Productivity
of the Constraints

12. 12
X3: Throughput/Capacity/Productivity
of the Constraints
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Avg Days Late vs Sch Inferred Actual LT
3 per. Mov. Avg. (Avg Days Late vs Sch) 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Inferred Actual LT)
Actual Lead Time/Lateness of ProdOrd Completion
New Average
In-house Prod
Time:
56days.

13. 13
Ensure Raw Material ATP
– Business Issue:
• The current process to evaluate the raw material requirement is not based on a systematic analysis of the
demand and supply situation of the raw material inventory. On top of that, focus on reduce the inventory
level slowed the reaction to the current demand on raw materials. We need to establish a process to
evaluate the raw material requirement in a more systematic and scientific way
– Progress:
• First round of Raw Material supply and demand analysis 2010 Q4
• First batch of purchase orders of Raw Materials that below the critical level of inventory 2010 Q4
• Establish procedure for raw material requirement review process 2011 Q2
– Discussion:
• Use SAP to drive raw material replenishment
X4: Raw Material ATP

14. 14
X4: Raw Material ATP
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Apr May Jun 7/12 7/18 7/25
2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011
FG 396 443 426 443 374 522 467 910 1,843 2,204 2,312 2612 3083 3189 3401 3976 4069 3950
WIP 3,993 3,005 2,918 2,529 2,227 1,915 1,718 1,435 2,422 2,373 2658 3164 3735 3514 2792 2579 2404 2345
RM 5,825 5,646 5,024 4,786 4,676 4,088 4,142 3,505 3,430 3,442 3,143 5324 6079 5776 6230 5843 6031 6005
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
RM WIP FG
INVENTORY

15. 15
Solution Matrix Review: Are the Xs’
Correctly Identified & Addressed?
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
90.00%
92.00%
94.00%
96.00%
98.00%
100.00%
Min/Max Delivery Performance to Key Acct
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
Scheduling Adherence
-50
0
50
100
150
Avg Days Late vs Sch
Actual Lead Time/Lateness of ProdOrd Completion
Phase 1Phase 2Phase 3
Planning (X1) ↑ ↓ ↑
Scheduling (X2) - ↑ ↑
Throughput (X3) - - ↑
Raw Mat (X4) ↑ ↑ ↑
OTIF ↑ ↓ ↑

16. Phase Summary
Phase I Phase II
Team SCM, CI, Site Mgmt Include IT
Tools
SCOR Level3 Lean, 6
Sigma, TOC
Add VSM, SCOR Level
4 (with Info Flow)
Design
High Level Review for
Disconnections; Good
Priority of Xs
A more Thourough
Review for
Disconnections
Measure
Corp Metric + Cust
Metric
SAP Generated Metric
& Rpt
Analyze
/Improve
Excel/Access Based
Tools Plus System
Solution
System Based
Solution
Control SAP MRP
SAP Rpt on Plant &
Cus Inv

17. 17