In a discussion in the TPS + 1 SENSEI group on LinkedIn, Casey Ng drew my attention to a materials handling approach from Kiva Systems, a company started up in Boston in 2003 by engineer/MBA Mick Mountz with funding from Bain Capital, that is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon. The following is a promotional video from Youtube:
The system shown in the video is clever, and can certainly be useful in fulfilling Amazon orders or in kit picking for assembly, but it is also obviously not a panacea. It only supports a single-level of racks, and boxes or bins that can be lifted by people. If you wanted to use the overhead space for storage, you might combine it with a classical automatic storage and retrieval system, which would move the portable racks to and from from upper levels for further handling on the ground by the Kiva pods.
Bringing materials to an operator at a fixed location rather than have the operator travel to do the picking is what is also attempted by carousels, but carousels require the operator to wait up to a half-turn for the right slot to be presented, and are limited in the number of items they can carry.
As shown in the video, while the concept is innovative in terms of storage and retrieval, it does not stretch hardware technology. As we see on the video, we see the operator who loads boxes onto racks for putaway use devices that look like the ones used in restaurants like The Cheesecake Factory or the Fish Market to notify waiting customers that their tables are ready. The pods look like giant Roombas, but move in a more restricted manner. According to Mick Mountz, the pods just move around the grid of small squares marked on the floor with optical guidance and a simple form of “after-you” system to avoid collisions. On the video, auto-ID seems to be based on plain old barcodes. There is no mention of RFID or even QR-codes. The actual transfer of boxes is manual, with a form of pick-to-light guidance. While less visible, the software that coordinates all the moving parts is clearly at the core of this system.
I learned of Kiva’s existence this morning, and have no relationship with this company.
See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing Global manufacturing is in transition. The advantage of Chinese manufacturers is slipping, and every day brings more news of another American manufacturer gaining (or recovering) a little piece of …
See on blogs.ptc.com
“Any single failure anywhere in the supply chain can bring operations and profits to a standstill. From the 2011 tragedies of the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan to last year’s devastating Hurricane Sandy closer to home, Mother Nature has a way of reminding us to reexamine catastrophe preparedness.
These events, and the tragic aftermath that follows, also serve to remind the insurance industry of the challenges in quantifying risk and accounting for exposure in an increasingly complex supply chain environment. As a result, risk managers are being asked new questions as insurance underwriters require them to seek information from a broader range of stakeholders within and outside of their organizations.”
Michel Baudin‘s insight:
The article is limited to a list of questions an insurer might ask about a supply chain, some of which cannot be pratically answered. The supply chain management literature often states the need to know your suppliers’ suppliers and your customers’ customers, but most companies don’t, and practically can’t.
After all, the point of buying from suppliers is to delegate responsibility for the whole upstream supply chain. If you have to worry about it all the way to mining raw materials out of the ground, you might as well make it all in-house from scratch, like at Ford’s River Rouge plant in the 1930s.
Asking the right questions is fine, but providing answers is better. Supply chain disruptions come in many degrees of severity and a variety of frequencies, from trucks delayed by traffic accidents to earthquakes and tsunamis.
You can, and should have preplanned responses to small, frequent disruptions. That may involve building some slack in milk run schedules, keeping small buffers of stocks, or having contingency plans for alternative transportation…
But you cannot practically have preplanned responses to all possible catastrophes. What you need is to monitor operations with vigilance to get early warnings, and develop relationships with your suppliers and customers that are strong enough that they come together and develop an ad-hoc, rapid response when disaster strikes.
This is the lesson I see in Toyota’s response to emergencies, from the Mississippi flood of 1993 to the Aisin Seiki fire of 1997 and the Fukushima earthquake of 2011.
Following is a translation of the report posted on Asenta’s website on the joint seminars we conducted in Barcelona, Madrid, and Bilao last week:
Lean Logistics – World Class Practices Series 2013
On October 7, 8 and 10, we held the fourth session of our World Class Series 2013 Lean Cycle in three cities, with more than 100 executives in attendance.
We provided an overview of the meaning and scope of the Lean Logistics as a strategy for competitiveness, together with case studies, to show the solutions used on specific problems and thus show the benefits of highly effective management
Among the speakers was Michel Baudin, a recognized expert in operations management and a strategic partner of ASENTA. Since 1987 has been advising companies on Lean implementation across many industries in America, Asia and Europe. He has published four books on various aspects of operational excellence.
Also participating were Luis Mauleon, Managing Partner at ASENTA, who specializes in transformation processes in organizations, and Juan Ortega, Management Consultant and coordinator of Lean Logistics at ASENTA.
These seminars were for CEOs, and Directors of Manufacturing, Operations, and Logistics, and, more generally, for leaders committed to improving their organizations’ supply chains.
Following are a few shots of the seminars in Barcelona and Bilbao:
“Mistake proofing can make a significant difference in the output of any process [….] Mistake-proofing devices should meet three criteria:
Simple
Infallible
Effortless”
Michel Baudin‘s insight:
The article makes the point that mistake-proofing must be “effortless.” The way I usually say it is that a mistake-proofing/poka-yoke device must not add labor, a point that is frequently missed in discussions of this topic in the US.
Why is it essential? Because any device that adds labor is guaranteed to be by-passed under pressure. If preventing a mistake requires one more gesture, on any day where “we have to ship all this by 6:00PM,” the organization will find a way around it.
Mistake-proofing makes a difference in any process where human error is a major cause of failure. Many processes qualify, but not all. If the main cause of defects is the machine’s inability to hold tolerances consistently, mistake-proofing will not do much good.
Yes, a device that is fallible cannot be considered mistake-proofing. Usability engineering, for example, provides user interfaces that make mistakes unlikely, but not impossible. Sometimes it is sufficient, but it is not mistake-proofing.
The one criterion I have an issue with is simplicity. A mistake-proofing device must be simple to use, I agree, and its design should not be anymore complex than necessary. However, where the stakes in human error are high, as in airliner cockpits or semiconductor process equipment, preventing mistakes may require elaborate technology. If a device for this purpose works every time and adds no labor, I see no reason to deny it the “mistake-proofing” label.
I came across this article titled “Top 5 Reasons Lean Projects Fail” and thought I would jot down my own list of 8 big reasons for lean failure: 1 Let’s start with his article – viewing lean as a collection of projects. Too…
Michel Baudin‘s insight:
Good insights! I will have to come up with my own list.
Oct 19 2013
A New Approach to Materials Handling in Warehouses
In a discussion in the TPS + 1 SENSEI group on LinkedIn, Casey Ng drew my attention to a materials handling approach from Kiva Systems, a company started up in Boston in 2003 by engineer/MBA Mick Mountz with funding from Bain Capital, that is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon. The following is a promotional video from Youtube:
The system shown in the video is clever, and can certainly be useful in fulfilling Amazon orders or in kit picking for assembly, but it is also obviously not a panacea. It only supports a single-level of racks, and boxes or bins that can be lifted by people. If you wanted to use the overhead space for storage, you might combine it with a classical automatic storage and retrieval system, which would move the portable racks to and from from upper levels for further handling on the ground by the Kiva pods.
Bringing materials to an operator at a fixed location rather than have the operator travel to do the picking is what is also attempted by carousels, but carousels require the operator to wait up to a half-turn for the right slot to be presented, and are limited in the number of items they can carry.
I learned of Kiva’s existence this morning, and have no relationship with this company.
Share this:
Like this:
By Michel Baudin • Technology • 3 • Tags: AGV, Amazon, Automation, Kiva, Materials Handling, Warehouse