assembly line

What’s In Your Bag?

Posted on by nathanl301s12

 

Golf, one of the greatest games ever invented; enjoyed by millions of people across the world. With advancements in technology and designs, golf clubs have evolved into complex equipment that was completely unimaginable in just a few decades ago. Twenty years ago golfers would go to the store and purchase a set of clubs that feels good to them. These clubs were put together on an assembly line through the use of a product focus strategy that yielded high volume and low variety. As the game evolves over the past couple of decades so have the taste of golfers and the production process of golf clubs manufacturers.

 

Got Ping!

Founded in 1959, Ping Golf has become a powerhouse in the golf industry. They are well recognized by their innovation in custom club making. When Ping introduced their fitting system 10 years ago, they offered golfers with custom made clubs based on their physique and swing type. This was made possible by utilizing a repetitive focus strategy in their production process. Ping would make different clubheads with various lie angle and offset, shaft with different length and flexibility, and grips of different diameters. By measuring a golfer’s physique and analysis his swing, Ping is able to use the data to create a unique set of clubs by combining various components already manufactured. Ping’s production process is similar to that of Harley Davidson, where modules are combined to form many output options. Although Ping’s production process costs more than the traditional continuous flow process, it gives them a competitive advantage that is well worth.

Click here for more information on Ping’s fitting system: http://www.ping.com/fitting/5steps.aspx

 

Is not your daddy’s old club!

As other manufacturers try to gain competitive advantage in customization, a new evolution in club making has begun. TaylorMade just launched their new R-series driver, which embodies full customization while maintaining a low cost continuous flow production process. The R11S Driver offers loft, clubface, and center of gravity adjustments by having tuning devices build within the clubhead. This innovated design allows golfers to adjust the club to a specification suitable for them, and changes to previously set specification can be made again at any time. In terms of production process, TaylorMade only has to manufacture one type of clubhead, which greatly reduce production cost. Of course, the production of such elaborate clubhead requires additional research and development, and the cost of each clubhead is more than the traditional non-adjustable clubhead. But in the long-run, utilizing a continuous flow process will be less expensive in meeting market demand of customization.

Click here for more information on TaylorMade R11 Series Driver: http://taylormadegolf.com/taylormade/R11S-Driver/DW-JN721,default,pd.html?start=1&cgid=taylormade-drivers-r11s

 

The R11 series by TaylorMade is a great example of achieving customization while maintaining a low cost continuous flow production process. Do you know any products that can also do that?

 

 

Works Cited

Ping. (2012, 07 09). Custom Fitting. Retrieved from Ping Golf: http://www.ping.com/fitting/default.aspx

TaylorMade. (2012, 07 09). R11S Driver. Retrieved from TaylorMade Golf: http://taylormadegolf.com/taylormade/R11S-Driver/DW-JN721,default,pd.html?start=1&cgid=taylormade-drivers-r11s

 

Project Managers vs Workers

Posted on by Ali Almahdi

During our first class, we got to do our first exercise. This exercise was making the paper puppets. Though I was not involved with the workers or even the timer guys. I was observing the whole operation. The teacher acted like the project manager, and 5 class colleagues were doing the assembly line workers job.

During this exercise, each worker was given a task to be done. The teacher was putting pressure on them as she was acting like the project manager. As a result, they were trying hard to finish as much paper puppets as possible. I was observing the behavior of each worker, since the last three workers were sitting idle until the second worker finishes her job. Her task was a longer task than the rest, thus she was a bottleneck. The class was fun and we have learned a lot.

Some of what we have learned from this class was:

  • The way you layout the operations space, is going to influence the production and product quality, it even influences the communication between the workers. During our exercise, though they were close to each other, each worker was only talking to the one right next to him/her.
  • During the exercise, the first worker tried to optimize the way he worked but the project manager which is the teacher told him to follow the process. This teaches us that if we ever want to  re-engineer a process, we need to talk to the workers. They see the obstacles, they most probably know how to optimize their work.
  • During the exercise, the workers found defected paper, but due to the pressure, they passed it on just to finish the process. What we could learn from this, when project managers or management puts so much pressure on workers, workers will have ethical issues and lead to high rate of defected products.
  • After we were done with the exercise, the teacher asked the workers how did they feel about their work load. Some said they were doing so much work, others said they didn’t have to do much. It is probably one of most faced issue with operation workers. Work isn’t divided equally among workers.
  • We also have discussed what we could have done to help our second worker which she had more complicated work to do, we have came with so many solutions which seemed to help, like hiring one more worker with her. Or distributing the work among other workers too.
Here are some pictures that I took during class while we were doing the exercise: (Note: Some faces are blurred because they asked me to blur their faces). Edit: One more colleague asked for her picture to be blurred., so I re-uploaded the images.