This paper analyzes the current production capacity of Beck Manufacturing across four machining operations: milling, grinding, boring, and drilling. Using per-hour output rates and reject percentages, it calculates daily production totals across two eight-hour shifts and projects output under a proposed third shift. The paper identifies potential bottlenecks created by the significantly higher output rate of the boring center relative to the other operations and proposes a revised routing strategy to balance workloads across all four production centers, maximizing throughput and minimizing idle time.
According to the manufacturer's data, Beck Manufacturing is currently producing product at the following rates across its four machining operations:
Operating two eight-hour shifts per day, Beck Manufacturing currently produces the following daily totals:
One immediate option for increasing output is to add a third eight-hour shift to the two already running each day. Under that scenario, daily production totals would rise to:
On the surface, adding a third shift appears to be a straightforward solution for scaling output. However, a closer comparison of the per-center figures reveals significant imbalances that must be addressed before this approach can be considered viable. Understanding production bottlenecks is essential when evaluating any capacity expansion plan.
There are several problems with simply adding an extra shift. The grinding and drilling operations would work reasonably well together because their output rates are relatively close. However, the milling center would run at approximately 6.5% faster than either the drilling or grinding centers could handle. More critically, the boring center would run at approximately 33% faster than the grinding and drilling centers, and approximately 27% faster than the milling center.
The potential for a bottleneck exists from the very start if it is assumed that each product must be milled first before it can be ground, bored, or drilled. In that sequential workflow, the speed advantage of the boring center cannot be exploited — faster boring output simply accumulates as work-in-progress inventory waiting for downstream operations that cannot keep pace. If the processing sequence is not rigidly fixed, however, redistributing the flow of product between centers can help create a far more balanced and efficient manufacturing operation.
Capacity planning in manufacturing resource planning requires that throughput rates across all workstations be aligned so that no single center starves or floods adjacent operations.
"Rerouting product flow to equalize throughput"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.