| |
FEATURED BLOG
Update
Submitted By: Q
8/6/2009 8:28:27 PM
Not much new, found some new tools to lower costs.....
Automated die design has come a long way.. sort of on hold right now in lieu of putting some time in on other projects, but it is up and running....
Patriot tooling systems is the latest project.... allows a low cost tool to be built with more rigidity than older methods, and 10-13% price reduction... finding more things we can do with it too... it helps enable ...(more)
|
 |
|
| Update |
| Submitted By: Q on 8/6/2009 8:28:27 PM |
|
|
Not much new, found some new tools to lower costs.....
Automated die design has come a long way.. sort of on hold right now in lieu of putting some time in on other projects, but it is up and running....
Patriot tooling systems is the latest project.... allows a low cost tool to be built with more rigidity than older methods, and 10-13% price reduction... finding more things we can do with it too... it helps enable quick die change and makes quick die change cheaper.... might have another potential $2k per die savings. Can't release how on that one, I think I'll keap that one under my hat for now.
Cheers! |
|
|
|
| Low Cost Tooling Initiative Jan 2009 update |
| Submitted By: Q on 1/29/2009 7:10:12 PM |
|
|
Hi to everyone and Happy New Year!
Just a quick update on the Low Cost Tooling Initiative….
If you recall, in my last update I made what I considered to be a bold prediction:
Here is the bold prediction: Most of the intelligence of the die design, that requires human intervention, is done at the strip layout stage. (For now). My belief is that once this strip layout is done, a die should be able to be completely designed within 2 hours, i.e. designed, detailed, bill of materials created, the whole thing.
And this is where the project stood at the time:
Here is what I have so far, and this is what prompted me to post an update. Based on a basic strip layout, outlining just the punch shapes, in there proper station locations. I have been able to create the "intelligent automation" to completely draw all the "Dayton" punches, top and side views, complete with correct part numbers, and automatically create all the upper retainers for the entire tool, in less than 45 seconds. Yes, I did say that correctly. So I don't think the 2 hours is a big stretch of the imagination. Maybe 2 hours is too long??? I thought about posting an avi file showing a demonstration of this, but I am not sure if I can as there may be some patent issues and I must be cautious as to how much to reveal.
At this point the automated die design system, now coined "Die Synthesizer" is capable of completing, as above, the punches, and retainers.
In addition it will now:
• Complete all the lower die details, complete with proper die clearance in the trim areas, edm start holes screw holes etc.
• Completely draw a stripper pad, with clearances, edm start holes, properly configured spool locations, and size/length including a proper pocket in the upper die shoe.
• Draw spools as per above in top and side views, complete with part numbers attached and integrated into the design.
• Completely draws the die shoe, complete with slug clearance. It calculates proper pin/bushing size and location and records proper part numbers.
• Draw pins and bushings and ball cages in top and front views as per above again complete with part numbers attached and integrated into the design.
• Calculate and draw stop blocks of proper size, and includes text information on the stop block as to material thickness and proper lead reading for that thickness.
• Draw parallels to proper create proper shut height for the die. Both footed and standard parallels are created on proper t-slot centers according to press specifications.
At this point based on the simple 32" die I am using as a test piece, the entire process is about 35 seconds.
My thoughts are wavering; I think the "2 hour" prediction may be off. That is, it might be too long!
Until next time, Good luck to all! And hang in there!
Best regards,
-Q
|
|
|
|
| Low Cost Tooling Coordinated Manufacturing Initiative update Thanksgiving 2008 |
| Submitted By: Bob Quinn on 11/27/2008 7:15:00 AM |
|
|
Hi to everyone and Happy Thanksgiving!
I just want to give you everyone an update as to the status of the Low Cost Tooling Initiative Coordinated Manufacturing Initiative.
All is well, or at least as good as can be given the current state of things here in Michigan. I have not posted anything new in a while as we have been busy, and I was not able to make much progress on anything in quite a while. I am "back into it" and things are progressing nicely.
We recently started calling meetings with some of the people interested in pushing forward the LCTI concept and are developing a game plan to bring in new members and develop a structure for others to participate and reap benefits from the system. Anyone that would like to have input, or is interested in being involved on more than just an e-mail basis, please contact me, and we can talk.
On the technical side of things, the fully automated grind / edm system is up and running and making details! I am not saying there aren't a few things I don't want to tweak yet, but all in all it's pretty cool.
Another technical note and a BOLD prediction:
I believe I mentioned in the last newsletter, the potential for developing an automated design system (for progressive dies).
I spent a good deal of time on that in February and March, but was unable to continue until recently. During the initial phases I was concentrating on a "hybrid" 2d / 3d environment and was able to make good progress. The system was basically able to take the standard 2d profiles that would normally be in the plan view of the die, and automatically extrude them, using proper z level elevations and create the 3d model. At the same time, being a die designer stuck on convention to a degree, I also developed into the package the automation required to create side views of all the stations automatically. This was pretty slick but I honestly got a little hung up on the 3d solid model part of it, as the version of Autocad I am using is 2004DX and while the solid modeling capabilities are o.k. in this package, they are not anywhere close to the capabilities of the new Autocad 2009. I discovered this mid-summer while watching a "what's new" webinar from Autodesk. Based on what I saw, I realized that any code I write for 3d would more than likely require a complete overhaul when I get the opportunity to upgrade to a newer version. As there are many 3d changes in 2009, it may be best to wait for 2010 to come out to allow them time to "smooth" out any operational anomalies (i.e. bugs).
However, for you 3d fans, do not despair, the work I have put into setting up the system to automatically create the 3d will not be lost, and as I develop the system I am taking into the consideration the need to do so, and maintaining the structure required to easily pick up on that track again when the time is right.
The new piece of the pie, now that the structure of the system has been developed, has been focusing on "intelligent automation" -
Forget Parametrics! I say that not to be crass, or stubborn, but from what I have found most parametrics have been a poor attempt at automation.
Here is an example: Why would I want to drop a screw hole into a detail at a random location and then go back and tell it, by applying and adding parameters, to move the screw hole to some dimension off the edge of the part? To people normally involved in this type of design mechanism, this will sound normal, and they may say "Yeh, but that way it's tied to this edge and if the edge moves it screw hole moves also." etc. etc.
O.K. So the difference is "intelligent automation" is going to put the stuff where you need it, the first time, with little need for change. I know it is difficult to grasp what the difference might be. Another way to look at is parametrics can be called "intelligent automation Light". In other words there is some "thinking" going on by the computer but it is basically "this dimension stays constant to this anchor point, and this one is (insert short math equation) relative to this point etc. So the parametric system while they do have significant advantages, in some cases, over non-parametric system, they are basically objects with a very small amount of programming built in.
So what does this mean? Here is the bold prediction: Most of the intelligence of the die design, that requires human intervention, is done at the strip layout stage. (for now). My belief is that once this strip layout is done, a die should be able to be completely designed within 2 hours, i.e. designed, detailed, bill of materials created, the whole thing.
Yes, of coarse that all depend on the die, but I would say that should apply for a small 10 station 30-40 inch die with some trim and a couple bends. Larger, and more complex will still take a little longer.
Here is what I have so far, and this is what prompted me to post an update. Based on a basic strip layout, outlining just the punch shapes, in there proper station locations. I have been able to create the "intelligent automation" to completely draw all the "Dayton" punches, top and side views, complete with correct part numbers, and automatically create all the upper retainers for the entire tool, in less than 45 seconds. Yes, I did say that correctly. So I don't think the 2 hours is a big stretch of the imagination. Maybe 2 hours is too long??? I thought about posting an avi file showing a demonstration of this, but I am not sure if I can as there may be some patent issues and I must be cautious as to how much to reveal.
So anyways, that’s my big news, hope you all have a safe and happy Turkey Day.
Best regards,
-Q
|
|
|
|
| Blog Blogs and more Blogs...... |
| Submitted By: Bob Quinn on 10/3/2008 8:02:00 PM |
|
|
To those that are new to this site, I pose a question: I have long wanted to find a forum, a place where tool & die machinists, designers and business owners could collaborate and quiz each other for tips and general tool & die type topics. I have not found this sort of site. I found one at one time that was EDM.com dealing strictly with EDM machining and it proved quite useful, until a bunch of yahoos goofed up and started slamming different edm makes causing the site owner to tire of policing it. So it was shut down.
I have seen other sites dedicated to the tool & die industry but none ever seemed to take hold and generate enough interest to draw people back.
So my question is this: Are there others out there that would like such a site? And if so do any of you have any suggestions for a format?
Please direct any comments to my personal e-mail address bob@rcmtool.com
Thanks for your help!
Also, check out the new Tool and Die Authority column sponsored by PMA...... (I have been blessed with being chosen to be one of the contributing authors)
http://www.metalformingmagazine.com/toolanddie/ |
|
|
|
| Tool & Die Authority newsletter |
| Submitted By: Bob Quinn on 9/7/2008 8:49:00 AM |
|
|
Tool & Die Authority
www.metalformingmagazine.com/toolanddie
Those that subscribe receive a 75-percent discount rate for Pete Ulintz’s webinar, Performance Based Die Engineering Strategies, December 9 at 2:00 EST. In fact, here is what I wrote in my last newsletter—you can use some or all of it in your promotions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New E-Newsletter Promises Tool and Die Expertise
MetalForming magazine and the Precision Metalforming Association (PMA) proudly announce the planned launch of a new e-newsletter called Tool & Die Authority, with the tag line:
Exclusive technical information and timely news by industry experts for tool and die professionals.
Tool & Die Authority is an electronic-only publication delivered to the e-mail inbox of paid subscribers each and every month. It will carry no advertising—only page after page, article after article of hard-core tool and die knowledge and insight. In addition, we’ll include an industry-specific job-listing service, where metalformers and tool and die shops can post their job openings.
Meet our lineup of expert columnists:
Joe Brown, creator of the blog, Will the Tool & Die Industry Ever Recover? Joe’s column in Tool & Die Authority will deliver timely, insightful news of the tool and die industry that you won’t find anywhere else.
Pete Ulintz, a 30-year veteran of the tool and die trade with an impressive background that includes tool and die making, tool engineering, engineering management, advance process planning and product development. Pete has been speaking at PMA seminars, roundtables and METALFORM symposiums since 1996, focusing on topics such as transfer and automation systems, tool and die design, deep-draw technology, metalforming simulation, and problem solving in the press shop.
Danny Schaeffler, president of Engineering Quality Solutions. Danny brings to Tool & Die Authority expertise in material properties of new sheet steels and other metal alloys. His column also will address the practical application of forming-limit diagrams and circle-grid analysis, and topics such as tooling buyoff and cost-reduction strategies.
Bob Quinn, president of RCM Inc., a tool and die shop with expertise in progressive and compound dies, fourslide tooling, detail machining, surface grinding and wire-EDM, as well as CAM-system development. Bob’s monthly insights will help tool and die makers develop and implement advanced methods and technologies to improve die-build efficiencies.
Sign up (www.metalformingmagazine.com/toolanddie) today to receive Tool & Die Authority and we’ll thank you with a 75-percent discount on Pete Ulintz’s next scheduled webinar, “Performance-Based Die Engineering Strategies.”
|
|
|
|
| Low Cost Tooling Initiative - the original e-mails |
| Submitted By: Bob Quinn on 7/17/2008 7:19:00 AM |
|
|
The following is a copy of all the original e-mails broadcast to those interested in the Low Cost Tooling Initiative.
As more e-mails are generated, I will add them also to this blog.
Thanks again for your support!
Hi to everyone and Happy New Year!
I hope all is well, below you will find a compilation of all previous e-mails regarding the Low Cost Tooling Coordinated Manufacturing Initiative.
I have compiled this information together in one email because there have been a few more people that we found interested in the cause, and I thought this would be a good way to get them caught up to what we are about/trying to accomplish.
I think I may use this format for further correspondence as well, kind of a floating blog sort of thing.
Good News!! Metal Forming magazine editor Brad Kuvin will be visiting our company at the end of January.
He saw some of the initial e-mails and asked to do an article in the magazine about what we are doing!
This is great news and should give us some tremendous exposure.
We were thinking the day Brad comes out might be a good day to invite others out to see the shop as we will be showing Brad around as well.
So if any of you have not been to our shop, and would like a tour, please feel free to contact me.
So far as progress on the automated system goes, we have re-initiated our efforts in completing the automated grinding, and getting that portion of the system fully integrated and on line.
We are also beginning programming on the "automated die design" end of the system.
After much research into some of the automated design systems available and talking with many users of the automated design systems, we have decided that we will have better performance gains by developing a system here. We may however, at some point use one of the other systems to do part unfolding.
This particular project is one I have been wanting to undertake for a long time, and has been a long time coming.
It is however a large project, and very daunting at least. The jury is still out as to weather or not I have the right combination of
CAD software to enable the automation of the process, as I am at the very beginning stages of the project. Unfortunately, I will not have a solid answer to this question until I have several hundred hours of coding in place to attempt this level of automation.
And furthermore, the initial stages will really be doing nothing more than duplicating most of the features of the existing die design packages that already exist. But on the bright side, the initial results look promising.
Just as a side note, aside from the inherent advantages of developing the system on our own versus attempting an integration of an outside die design package, most of the people I talked with that use the existing die design packages will tell you that they save time on larger dies, but the time they spend designing smaller dies i.e. 50" and under is a wash… Because most of what we do is 60" and under, it looks to be no advantage to move to the pre-existing packages that are available.
Furthermore, one of the key features that I will be incorporating into this die design package will be a concept in which standard 2d drawing practices will allow the automated creation of the 3d Model. This will greatly reduce the learning curve to, well, almost zero learning curve. Furthermore it will use the 3d model to reverse create as much 2d geometry as possible….
Yeh I know this sounds weird…… And I have a hard time explaining it….. But it will be COOL
If I have any significant break throughs in this area, I will be sure to let you know.
Again, your comments, thoughts, and suggestions are welcome any time!
Thank you for your support! -Q
***** 1st email 11/4/2007 *****
***** 1st email 11/4/2007 *****
***** 1st email 11/4/2007 *****
***** 1st email 11/4/2007 *****
***** 1st email 11/4/2007 *****
******1st email 11/4/2007 Low Cost Tooling Coordinated Manufacturing Initiative, Sent to PMA members of the Tooling, Stamping and Small lot stamping lists.... *******
I would like to know if you consider tooling costs or delivery times a major stumbling block when trying to get work?
My company is planning a Low Cost Tooling Coordinated Manufacturing Initiative.
We are looking for companies interested in saving money on tool build costs, with out going overseas.
The concept is very simple:
We have been fooled into thinking that low costs can only be achieved through overseas purchases.
The fact is:
Through the proper use of technology and good old fashioned American innovation, tooling prices can be had at incredible prices here.
The good news is that we have most of the technology developed.
If anyone is interested in learning more, e-mail me, or if there is enough interest, I can post a more thorough explanation to the groups here also.
Thank you for your time!
-Q
Robert Quinn
President RCM,Inc., Revcam, LLC, Heliforming Technologies
Tel: 586-336-1237
Fax: 586-336-1287
***** 2nd email 11/11/2007*****
***** 2nd email 11/11/2007*****
***** 2nd email 11/11/2007*****
***** 2nd email 11/11/2007*****
***** 2nd email 11/11/2007*****
******2nd email 11/11/2007Low Cost Tooling Coordinated Manufacturing Initiative, Sent to PMA members of the Tooling, Stamping and Small lot stamping lists.... *******
O.K. I promised I would send more information on the Low Cost Tooling Initiative. Here it is.
Please keep in mind, some of this is at the beginning stages of planning. I welcome feed back, criticism and generally any arguments you can throw at me. It is through playing the devils advocate that all the bugs can be worked out of a theory.
This should be fun.
I mentioned the concept that automation and innovation can lower the cost of tooling here in the U.S.
To understand this we have to alter our perception of the tooling industry a little bit, and kind of erase our memory of how everything is done. -Sounds bad right?
This is why: The general evolution of the tool & die industry started from making things by hand. Probably literally with files and hammers. Because tooling has never been made in quantities, it has been regarded as a one off, custom product. I.e. I need one detail that does this, and looks like this, and two that look like this. So therefore the entire industry "grew up" with the general acceptance that tooling is this custom solution to a problem and change has been slow or non-existent except in times of dire need.
Well these are times of dire need.
So first, throw out the entire concept that tooling is custom anything. Yeh, throw it out. (Argument no. 1 starts here......
How and why I say this: We perceive tooling and details to be custom because each detail is of a different size, shape, different number of holes, and different position of holes. However, if we remove a few variables from the equation, everything begins to be consistent.
For example, remove the fact that the details are of a different size. Now we just have details with different hole locations and different internal shapes. Now remove the fact that the hole location are in different places, and now we have details with just different holes and different number of holes. Remove the different number of holes, and now we just have details with holes.
So if we have details with holes, doesn't that sound like a production part?
We perceive these things as one off items, because of the way they are traditionally processed through a shop.
Here is how to effect the required change: Let a computer look at the block and decide what to do about the overall block size being different. Let the computer decide what to do about the different shapes in the part. Let the computer decide what to do about the different hole locations. Let the computer decide what to do about the different hole types.
This is exactly what I have done with the cam system we developed- Revcam. By sorting out all the things we would normally consider custom and breaking them down into there elementary components, we essentially can turn details into production items.
That is step 1.
The next big piece of the pie is to automate the process. This is something our shop is in the process of doing and have made a great deal of progress toward doing. We have automated the programming process i.e. to program a typical die detail (well at least a typical detail in the dies we build) it takes only about 30 seconds. The setup is minimal as we use all pre-set up tooling etc.
So this process needs to be carried out through the entire shop.
To facilitate this, we have built a gantry style robotics system that is used to load machines. I currently loads pallets holding details into one of our wire edm machines. It is also set up to load details mounted in pallets into an automatic grinder. This system required putting cnc controls on the grinder so as to enable it to be "programmed" via our cam system and automatically grind/check parts.
This may not initially trigger thoughts of extreme labor savings, but let me tell you what it has done for us:
This is what we used to do: Grind 6 sides of a block. Put in wire edm and do edm work.
This required literally 6 separate setups at the grinder, and at least one more at the edm machines. If we are to just count set ups, that's 7 total. Now we have not done that in our shop for 10 years. The next step in the process was to eliminate as much grinding as possible. To do this we started pre-doweling die shoes and therefore the need to "but" details together in the tooling was reduced. At that point we only needed top and bottom of details to be ground, and one edge. The one edge was such that the detail would clamp into our edm vises easily. So that is the most recent state of the system, basically 3 sides ground i.e. 3 setups, and 1 setup at the edm for a total of 4 setups. I think it is pretty easy to associate that setups = manual labor cost.
So now consider the grinder being incorporated into this automatic process. Here is the kicker: The detail comes back from heat treat and gets set up into a pallet. i.e. 1 setup. The pallet with the detail get loaded into this automated system. The system grinds the detail, checks the detail. (It grinds both top and bottom by the way) It then moves on (automatically) to the wire edm machine where the block is completed. Note: now that the detail is pre-set up from the grinder, that is does not need to be set up again.
Net net net 10 years ago: 7 setups for grind/edm
Most recently: 4 setups for grind/edm
With automation: 1 setup.
And the beauty of it is the setup no longer requires a person with nearly the skill it used to, and the setup is literally "lock and load".
The details have locating features that are automatically milled into them that allow them self locate into the pallet.
This portion of the entire automation process we have 95 percent done. In that I mean the edm pallet system we have fully operational, and have been using it for about a year. The grinder we have fully automated, but are not doing the entire grind/edm process because we have not been able to make the new pallets we need for that part of the process. We have made a couple. I.e. a couple prototype versions and a final good one, and that one we have tested and actually run details through the entire grind/edm process with only one set up.
But there is more. This same robotics system has been designed such that it will eventually be able to load details into the machining center and run unattended around the clock. This will be significant in the fact that through the automated level of programming and efficiency we have already achieved in the machining process, the average block that we do has a total cycle time of about 20 to 30 minutes. In other words, if the operator leaves at the end of the day, the milling stops. If this system were to be brought on line, the milling could continue around the clock effectively tripling or quadrupling the output of one single machining center... That is future stuff.
The next part of this whole Low Cost Tooling Initiative is tackling how to "Get the power to the people"
As you can imagine, this system is not just a toaster you pull out of the box and plug in.
This automated system or "manufacturing line" or just "line" for short is something that will be under development for quite a while.
I do not think it even feasible to attempt to sell something like this to die shops. For one thing most die shops already have equipment, and would not welcome throwing everything out and putting in an entire new line. Secondly, they would ask, "Well can't you just hook this thing up to our existing equipment?" The answer to that is no. The level of integration required to do this has required several years of planning the right equipment, with powerful/accessible/controllable controls, the correct work envelope, and the correct level of accessibility to the work area. Furthermore, the amount of engineering that goes into tying into the controls and smoothing out the process in enormous. Basically to tie to other equipment would be cost prohibitive, and more like starting over than anything.
So in an effort to figure out how to expand and capitalize on this, I have been kicking around this Coordinated Manufacturing concept.
The basic idea is that companies, most likely stamping companies, could "Buy in" or invest i.e. maybe somehow similar to a franchise scenario. In doing so, these companies would be purchasing the base equipment and robotics system to duplicate one of these manufacturing lines. The company investing may also be able to buy in on a partial line too- I will explain shortly. The line however does not go anywhere. It stays in the same shop next to the first line.
Now picture this scenario with several of these lines in one building. Lets say 5 just for kicks.
Someone (i.e. one of the members of the Coordinated Manufacturing group) needs a die built. They have normal timing, so the die gets machined on this line and they get it done in a couple weeks. Everything is great.
Now they need another die built, but they have compressed timing. So now the beauty of "Coordinated" shines through. Because the systems are identical, and any one system can process the work of the other system, spread the work out across all the systems.
So the machining gets done on 5 mills running around the clock i.e. all machining done in one day.
The details go out to heat treat, come back - call that 2 days just to be safe.
They go into grind and edm across all 5 systems, done in 1 day.
So we have 1 day for machining, 2 for heat treat, 1 for the rest of the process = 4 days total.
So by participating in this Coordinated Manufacturing System, the companies that buy in not only gain the efficiency of the automation, but also the power of a manufacturing plant. Kind of paying for one machine, getting the use of many.
Of coarse the logistics of all this requires that the other systems have time available.
Here is what I normally see in shops: Really busy, then not so busy, or just flat out dead. So machinery purchases are being paid for even when there is no work = high overhead. With Coordinated Manufacturing both machinery overhead and building overhead are reduced.
My best guess is that work performed on a companies "Main" system is performed at one rate, and if it needs to be farmed out to other systems, then it is performed at a base rate + a small fee.
An additional benefit to this scenario is that all the equipment can be contained in a Tool & Die recovery zone. Which for you people outside of Michigan, that may not mean much, but in Michigan that translates into Property Tax = near zero. This Tool & die recovery zone is not available to stampers, i.e. if the equipment were to go into a stamping plant, the stamper would pay normal property tax on it etc.
The net result of the automation coupled with the lowering of overhead, and sharing of resources should enable building tools at very economical prices.
Just as a basis for comparison, my company on many occasions has been told our prices are comparable with Chinese sources.
That of coarse has to be taken with a grain of salt, I have personally sent stuff out to quote to Chinese sources to see how we measure up and have seen prices for one tool anywhere from $30 to $45K, so its hard to use that as a guaranteed comparison.
So if we are close in price now, and can further the automation, and do the Coordinated Manufacturing thing, where will it get us?
The general order things that need to happen for the Low Cost Tooling Initiative to be a success are:
1. Finish the Automated line.
2. Seek out members.
That is all for now.
I will send this as a blind carbon copy to all that responded to the initial email, and I will also send to the PMA Stamping group.
Apparently I can not email the same thing to the Stamping group, Fourslide group etc. That apparently is a no-no.
So some of you may get it twice, I apologize.
I welcome feed back from you all, thank you for your interest.
-Q
Robert Quinn
President RCM,Inc., Revcam, LLC, Heliforming Technologies
Tel: 586-336-1237
Fax: 586-336-1287
***** 2nd email Responses from Jim at MTI forwarded to group 11/12/2007*****
***** 2nd email Responses from Jim at MTI forwarded to group 11/12/2007*****
***** 2nd email Responses from Jim at MTI forwarded to group 11/12/2007*****
***** 2nd email Responses from Jim at MTI forwarded to group 11/12/2007*****
***** 2nd email Responses from Jim at MTI forwarded to group 11/12/2007*****
******2nd email Responses 11/12/2007 Low Cost Tooling Coordinated Manufacturing Initiative, Sent to email group *******
A couple thoughts from Jim @ MTI.... I have some thoughts on both of these subjects, but I would like feed back from others first..
So to all: Your thoughts?
-Q
Bob,
My initial thoughts would be a bottleneck in the design area due to several companies needing parts designed from small terminals to medium size or larger brackets with contour. The designers at each plant would have to become familiar with your design software or translate the file like MTI does. The other concern is the workload imbalance between investors or shops. One shop may do $4,000,000 annually in tool build and the other may only do 1,500,000 and so on. It may be an easy obstacle to overcome but it is one of my initial concerns.
Talk to you soon
Bob,
One other issue that may be a problem is each of the companies “Die Standards”. I have recently ran into this due to MTI building for the outside. MTI has our own set of standards which works well in our tool room but when we are building for the outside, the work does not flow as easily. If they were all stampers that became involved in the co-op then we could get them to change their die standards based on the process you have in place at RCM.
Just a thought
***** 2nd email Reply to Jims' good points 11/15/2007*****
***** 2nd email Reply to Jims' good points 11/15/2007*****
***** 2nd email Reply to Jims' good points 11/15/2007*****
***** 2nd email Reply to Jims' good points 11/15/2007*****
***** 2nd email Reply to Jims' good points 11/15/2007*****
******2nd email Reply to Jims' good points Low Cost Tooling Coordinated Manufacturing Initiative, Sent to email list *******
Hi everyone, if your still listening, please email back that you would like to continue to receive these e-mails, I don't want to bother any of you that are not interested. Thank you.- Q
A few days ago, Jim from MTI responded with the following comments in blue, two or three valid concerns.
Please find my response in Green below.
If anyone would like to ad further comments, please do.
Bob,
My initial thoughts would be a bottleneck in the design area due to several companies needing parts designed from small terminals to medium size or larger brackets with contour. The designers at each plant would have to become familiar with your design software or translate the file like MTI does. The other concern is the workload imbalance between investors or shops. One shop may do $4,000,000 annually in tool build and the other may only do 1,500,000 and so on. It may be an easy obstacle to overcome but it is one of my initial concerns.
Talk to you soon
Design is certainly a concern, and a question. Under a Coordinated Manufacturing scenario, would it be better to have the designs take place at the Coordinated Manufacturing center, or at the "home base" of the stamper or tool & die house that is participating in the project?
There are pros and cons to both scenarios. If the designer is at the location of the Coordinated Manufacturing center, then the designer will be in a much better position to learn the system and how to properly take advantage of it. Also, due to the high level of integration between the manufacturing center and the CAD seat at which the designer is using, it could be advantageous not to have to maintain congruency between the Coordinated Manufacturing center and the remote design center. Picturing the possibility of multiple companies participating in the project i.e. 3 to 10 or who knows what it could grow to, it would be difficult to maintain a level of efficiency keeping multiple sites up to date as changes are made to both the design system and the manufacturing system. Designer's all being located at the Coordinated Manufacturing center would enable them to learn "From behind the driver's wheel" and would generally work better. There could be the added advantage in that just like the equipment could be co-op'd so could the designers, and therefore helping to eliminate the bottle neck. That being said, it could be best to actually send designers from the participating factions to work at the Coordinated Manufacturing center, and sharing could reduce cost for the participating companies as well. For example, if your company has designers, I am sure you have had times when they just were not needed, yet you "find" things for them to do i.e. extra cost. If the designers were transplanted, there is a possibility that after a few weeks or month, they could go "home" and design at base camp also.
Another possibility is that the designers be employed by the Coordinated Manufacturing center directly.
On the flip side, the designs could be done at the participated member's home company and the Coordinated Manufacturing center, just used for machining and manufacturing the die details etc. The pro of this is that the participating member would well be able to maintain control over the design process by the senior members that do those sorts of things. The con is that we really want the designers to be able to let go of old techniques and fully embrace the new methods we can present to them. This fact brings to light a very good point: In order for the system to be as efficient as possible it would be desirable, or maybe I should say necessary, to adopt a common design methodology and standards.... Boy could that start some arguments!
So net net net, it is my opinion that designers should in some fashion be located at the Coordinated Manufacturing center, sharing the workload, reducing the cost etc., at least for some period of time if not permanently.
The other point Jim brought up was the inconsistency between workload. I think this can actually be handled well. Each company that invests could be offered the opportunity to invest in one line, or more, or even just a fraction of a line. Of coarse equipment all will wear out, so at the onset, it would have to be determined what the expected life span of each piece of equipment would be, and how many hours of machining, grinding, edm'ing etc. that equates to. So in other words a $1000 investment might buy 1000 hours of machining whereas someone that does $4,000,000 a year in tooling might invest $2,000,000 and essentially buy the capacity of 8 machines for 5 years. Those are just numbers to get the idea across, I am not proposing they are in any way accurate. Then when one company needs extra capacity, they essential buy capacity from one of the other lines etc. i.e. work being within the capacity allotted might get done for $5 per hour, and work done outside the allotted capacity i.e. "Farmed out" to other members gets done at $10 an hour etc. Again these are not hard numbers, just trying to give an example.
Extra capacity could/should be sold also just as I or any other die shop sells work now, by building tooling for other companies that are not part of the Coordinated Manufacturing center. How this extra capacity is handled could even vary. I.e. Participant A might say: I don't want anyone buying capacity from our line.... etc. However I do feel a consistent policy would be much easier to administer.
Bob,
One other issue that may be a problem is each of the companies “Die Standards”. I have recently ran into this due to MTI building for the outside. MTI has our own set of standards which works well in our tool room but when we are building for the outside, the work does not flow as easily. If they were all stampers that became involved in the co-op then we could get them to change their die standards based on the process you have in place at RCM.
Just a thought
Yes, as mentioned above a commonality of standards would be an issue, the one thing I am sure we all agree on is our ability to disagree.... :) Weather the standards were super low cost or super high end, the fact that they were the same would improve efficiency.
The ability to settle on one way of doing things would be nice, but could also be a hindrance at times i.e. "Old school" says build a Sherman Tank no mater what, "New school" says build a tank when you need a tank, and build it low cost when the volume is low. My personal opinion is that somewhere in between lies a sweet spot that would be most efficient and most economical to learn/teach/administer/manage. Of coarse as the design system progresses, it may become feasible to automate the standard differences that some may desire, but that's a whole other story for another day. :)
Thanks to you all, your comments are welcome.
-Q
Robert Quinn
President RCM,Inc., Revcam, LLC, Heliforming Technologies
Tel: 586-336-1237
Fax: 586-336-1287
|
|
|
|
| Low Cost Tooling Initiative introduction |
| Submitted By: Bob Quinn on 7/12/2008 8:51:00 AM |
|
|
Hi to all, this will be my first official blog entry. Some coming to this sight may already be a part of the Low Cost Tooling Initiative community.
This group is comprised of people from within the tool & die industry that have expressed some level of interest in what we are doing at RCM.
Those that have joined have been receiving an occasional e-mail/newsletter explaining what we are doing and the progress that we are making in an effort to develop and deploy the most advanced, and automated tool & die manufacturing system possible.
I will soon repost those e-mails as blog entries for new lookers to see what we have done, and learn what we are about.
Thanks to you all for your support!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
