Mayowa Lewis

Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

Shop Floor Scheduling and Control

Mayowa Lewis & Kacie Bull

MBA 708-51: Operations for Competitive Advantage

March 30, 2016

We have abided by the academic honor policy on this assignment.

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

Mayowa Lewis

Kacie Bull

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

Abstract
Any company, like a manufacturer or distributor for example, will have a system
in place to keep all activities running correctly; this system is called shop-floor scheduling
and control. This system can also be referred to as production activity control, because the
terms are synonymous.

The American Production and Inventory Control Societys

Dictionary defines a shop floor control system as:

A system for utilizing data from the shop floor as well as data processing
files to maintain and communicate status information on shop orders and
work centers.
Shop-floor control procedures may vary from industry to industry, however, each industry
utilizes its shop-floor control for the same major functions. Within a shop it is essential to
keep up with the following major functions: allocating the priority of each shop order,
keeping up with quantifiable information from items in work-in-process, letting the office
know what the status is on each order, providing real time output data, and measuring the
efficiency, utilization, and productivity of the workers and machines. All of the previously
mentioned items are taken care of with a shop-floor scheduling and control system.
Shop-floor scheduling and control includes all the processes, systems and
techniques used to efficiently meet production orders and schedules. Schedulers will
manage all activities and the flow of materials within a plant by prioritizing, tracking, and
reporting the processes happening within the plant or shop on a day-to-day basis. Shopfloor scheduling and control is put to use in project management, inventory valuations, and
materials planning. Without shop-floor scheduling and control the entire manufacturing
process would be chaotic, and there would be no way to tell what needs to be started, is
finished, or what is still in process.

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

Introduction
There are basic tools used within shop-floor control; these tools are used on a daily
basis, and are imperative to the system working. One of the tools is a daily dispatch list;
this communicates to the supervisor which jobs will be running that day, the priority of
each job, and how long each will take. Shop-floor reports are another vital tool; these
various status and exception reports include the anticipated daily report, scrap reports,
rework reports, performance summaries, and a shortage list. Without reports there would
be no way to know what is going on within the plant on a day-to-day basis.
Plants must also be aware of their inputs and outputs, this is taken care of through
input/output control, which is another piece to shop-floor scheduling and control. The
main purpose of input/output control is to ensure that the planned work input never goes
beyond the planned work output. If this were to happen it would cause a myriad of issues
such as build ups, increasing lead times, congestion within the work centers, and decreased
efficiency. One of the main problems that an input/output report uncovers is a bottleneck.
To solve this issue, the capacity can be increased at the bottleneck station, or the input can
be reduced until the problem subsides.
Shop-floor control systems began as an on paper tracking system, but today most
systems are computerized. The advantages of a computerized system are easy to see from
its increased accuracy to its instant results. One way to gain the increased accuracy
alongside instant results is to use barcodes and scanners. A lot of plants employ barcodes
and scanners, which make it so once an item is scanned that item is instantly in the
computer and any person could check on it, or the status of the job the item is involved in.
With that ability there is little room for human error, and everything is kept up to date in

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

real time if the system is used correctly. If data is incorrect, then when it goes into the
overall planning system this will be wrong as well. If the overall planning system is false,
then decisions regarding production will be off target - this can lead to an overabundance
of inventory, issues with stock out, missed due dates, and/or inaccuracies in job costing.
Since many plants going to a computerized system this has generated a number of
companies coming up with different shop-floor scheduling and control computer integrated
systems. Companies are able to choose from multiple different software providers when
deciding which system the company would like to use. This allows a company to pick a
system that will really fit their needs for keeping their plant running efficiently.
Throughout the creation of computerized systems came the idea to utilize a shopfloor scheduling system for employees daily, hourly, and even weekly schedules. If this
technology can help a plant run smoothly, then why not run workers schedules smoothly?
This expanded the use of shop-floor scheduling and control systems from manufacturing
plants and job shops, to any company that schedules an employees time. This enables the
managers of companies to come up with a staffing plan to optimize the time of the workers,
while minimizing the variance between actual and planned outputs. All of the inputs are
entered for daily workloads with the time each one takes to finish, and with a few more
points of information the system is able to figure out how to best schedule the day. Not
only will the system schedule the day, but it will also let the managers know how long it
will take and how many workers are required. When the shop-floor system is used
correctly for employee scheduling the system is able to make decisions for the managers
who would normally make those decisions. This makes it possible for managers to spend

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

time making other more important decisions rather than trying to figure out an employees
schedule.
Review of the Literature
Quality control and production control in any shop-floor show the purpose and
anchors of a shop-floor control system. All the reviewed literature supports this standpoint.
The American Production and Inventory Control Society (APICS) defined production
control (PC) as:
Production control is the task of predicting, planning and scheduling work,
taking into account manpower, materials availability and other capacity
restrictions, and cost so as to achieve proper quality and quantity at the
time it is needed and then following up the schedule to see that the plan is
carried out, using whatever systems have proven satisfactory for the
purpose (APICS 1959).
Loosely defined then, PC involves the activities of monitoring and controlling any
particular production or process. In the article titled, "A Proposal for Integrating
Production Control and Quality Control", Maurice Bonney defined quality control (QC)
as the management function which aims to measure, understand, and improve the
production process and the materials flow in order to produce products according to
specification. A.L. Arentsen concurs in his article titled, The Integration of Quality
Control and Shop-floor Control, when he defines quality control as, operational
techniques and activities required to manufacture products conforming to their
specifications. Essentially then, quality PC leads to or can develop from effective QC.
Shop-floor controllers must understand that QC can and does play a key role throughout
the PC process for optimal efficiency and effectiveness (productivity). While todays QC
measures tend to focus heavily on inspection, a quality product or service will have QC
measures to ensure a match to specifications throughout the production of that product or

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

service. As a result, inspection then becomes a necessary, redundant check to ensure the
proper implementation of QC measures within the production control system at every
applicable task and station. These two fundamental functions have quality as the bedrock
of their mission. So then, one must define quality. Arentsen succinctly and accurately
defines quality (in relation to manufacturing) as conformance to specifications. Since
shop-floor control deals with the control and monitoring of activities on the shop-floor
(PC) (Arensten), conformance to specifications (QC) plays a pivotal role on the efficiency
and effectiveness (which both equate to productivity) of the shop-floor at Procter &
Gamble.
As alluded to earlier, the two working definitions of PC and QC suggest that the
application of either depends on the other or an integration of the two functions. As Bonney
states, Integration of management functions is considered nowadays as being one of the
most important ways to improve the performance of companies (Bonney 2008). He also
points out the necessity of PC and QC in managerial functions but notices that most
literature separates these two fundamentally, integrated functions. In most of the studied
literature, it appears that most researchers tend to blend or confuse the two without making
the proper distinctions. In fact, a survey highlighted by Arentsen shows that most systems
focus on measuring, recording, and reporting (monitoring), instead of controlling.
(Arentsen). He critiques further in pointing out that ISO 9000 standards offer no practical
solution to integrating QC and PC and lacks a model for the control of quality and
manufacturing activities. (Arentsen) A cursory review of the literature reveals that when
addressing PC issues, the authors either expect the reader to draw the QC conclusions or
confuse PC and QC without proper distinction and integration. For example, in Peter

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

Pharows article dealing with safety on the shop-floor, he suggests, a central technology
that makes the safety system more reliable, safe, and efficient; thus leading to reduced
accidents on the shop-floor and thereby increasing production efficiency. While one can
generally extrapolate the QC implications, Pharow does not clearly spell them out and
focuses more on PC applications. Dr. Vidyaranya Gargeya in his lecture on the Journey
to Excellence Model, proposes a similar thought about the necessity of a distinction and
integration of PC and QC. Dr. Gargeyas model, as depicted in Appendix A, shows quality
processes, or inputs, lead to high efficiency while quality products and services, or outputs,
lead to high effectiveness. The combination of efficiency and effectiveness then equate to
productivity. Not many articles make this important PC and QC distinction.
To remedy the failure of proper PC and QC integration, Bonney and Arentsen both
put forward two useful propositions. Maurice Bonney proposes three principles for the
integration of quality control with production control in systems with repetitive production
(RP). Chiefly, environments characterized by low production volume and low product
variety. Bonneys three principles include: 1) Making the flow of materials as simple as
possible, 2) Creating or enhancing compatibility between the production control system
and production systems, and 3) Taking the demand, capacity and quality of the production
and process in the production pace (task time). (See Appendix B for further details).
Arentsen presents a case based on the Van de Water and De Vries three-level
control model for quality management related to ISO standards as seen in Appendix C.
Further exploration into this model and its integration into P&Gs shop-floor control
system will occur in Recommendations and Conclusions section of this paper. Within
the model, however, one must understand that the operational quality control level (third

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

level) relates to the manufacturing activities on the shop-floor. It relates to processes of

quality control and quality assurance according to the definitions of ISO.
There are also other examples that seem to show examples of PC and QC
integration without quite specifying distinctions. For example, sustainability, in the form
of energy management plays a major role in production control with QC implications. Jerry
Carter and Zach Platsis offer a comprehensive and fully integrated, energy master plan to
resolve the integration of sustainability projects and assets in large industrial
manufacturing and institutional facilities. (Carter and Platsis 2011). This supports
Bonneys earlier testimonial to the importance of integration and bolsters Rummler and
Braches statement: the greatest management improvement opportunities are
nowadays, on the function integration... Carter and Platsis postulate this energy master
plan creates value for an individual, manufacturing, or institutional facility such as Procter
& Gamble. Such a plan has strategic indications as it considers the higher-level, long term
business goals of a company.
A shop-floor must also have the ability to deal with sudden changes in its processes.
Vance VanDoren proposes a solution to changes in the set point of a process in the form
of lambda tuning. Lambda tuning provides a simpler, while more robust and durable
process control that keeps the control loop of a process more stable regardless of any highly
dramatic changes that may occur in process characteristics. It also allows for more errors
in dead-time or idle time measurements; unlike its more famous cousin, Ziegler-Nichols
tuning (VanDoren 2003). By providing this buffer, PC and QC measures benefit as any
improvement in the production process will generally lead greater quality or
conformance to specifications.

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

Research Methodology
An integration of quality control into production control thus seems to provide the
most logical framework for improving effectiveness and efficiency (production) of the
shop-floor. A deeper look into Arenstens and Bonneys models of integration may help
paint a better picture by showing how they could improve process control in Procter &
Gambles shop-floor. This article seeks to connect these thoughts into the shop-floor as
discovered by researching Procter & Gambles (P&G) shop-floor.
A site visit to the manufacturing plant of Procter & Gamble Greensboro on Friday,
February, 26th 2016, provides the bulk of research regarding the shop-floor production and
quality control measures of P&G. John Brandberg, the Group Manager of Operational
Insights at P&Gs Greensboro location, conducted the facility tour. Mr. Brandberg walked
students and visitors through the deodorant and toothpaste manufacturing sectors of the
plant allowing them to take notes and ask questions. Upon the request of Dr. Gargeya, Mr.
Brandberg also showed students and visitors the raw materials holding warehouse for
further investigation. After the tour, students and visitors had the opportunity to ask Mr.
Brandberg more pointed questions regarding the tour or other relevant topics. The 2-hour
tour and interview process produced information about P&Gs shop-floor production and
quality control that will guide the analysis of this article in relations to the integration of
PC and QC.
Findings
Procter & Gamble began with the partnership of candle maker (William Procter) and
soap maker (James Gamble) in 1837. The company manufactures and distributes products
in ten core categories: Baby Care, Feminine Care, Family Care, Grooming, Oral Care,

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

Personal Health Care, Hair Care, Skin and Personal Care, Fabric Care, and Home Care.
John Brandberg clarified that the Greensboro facility focuses on health and beauty. As a
global leader in all its core categories, P&G places a great emphasis on production control
and quality control. A structured analysis of P&Gs shop-floor according to Bonneys three
principles will show how P&G has integrated PC and QC into its daily functions.
I.

Make the flow of materials as simple as possible

In order to simplify materials flow, Bonney proposes a group or cellular layout that
divides components into families and groups machines into cells that may process all the
components of a family (Bonney 2008). A walk-through of the facility showed several
cells working within one unit to produce multiple items. For example, the deodorant
creating facilities consisted of several cells with heavy implementation of a conveyor
system. With its conveyor system, P&G reduces warehouse needs and also simplifies the
flow of materials. In the case of machine failure, backup plans vary based on the product.
Mr. Brandberg pointed out that deodorant producing machines do not have a lot of backup
procedures in the case of machine failure while the toothpaste manufacturing machines
have significantly more backup systems in place. P&G also manufactures deodorants in
one of two ways: pre-labeled or labeled online. While pre-labeling may streamline the
speed of production, this is not always ideal. Suppose P&G just received a large order for
pre-labeled deodorant canisters, when the company gets a notice that the brand is
revamping and will no longer be using that design. Therefore, by blending the two
processes, P&G is not always stuck with unusable product containers.
II.

Create or enhance compatibility between the production control system and

production systems

10

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

For each processing unit of the company, this principle aims to choose a compatible
Production Control System (PCS) (Bonney 2008). According to a report by Siemens,
P&G relies on the Tecnomatix Plant Design and Optimization solution from Siemens
PLM Software to plan and optimize their manufacturing investments (Procter and
Gamble Plans). This PCS system allows its users to
1.) Discover and resolve late-stage changes earlier [through assembly simulation and
validation that simulates assembly sequences, human tasks, and machine
interactions to optimize assembly processes before the start of production], when
they are easier and less costly to fix, through the use of simulation
2.) Reduce the need for physical tryouts [through robotics simulation and
programming], thereby reducing system startup time for [] automation systems
3.) Evaluate variations in manufacturing process and production throughput with a
high degree of accuracy [by using logistics and material flow simulation]
4.) Easily perform engineering studies, including ergonomic factors of human
operations (Tecnomatix)
This shows how P&G has accounted for many factors of PC in the implementation
of its production systems. The plant tour also revealed aspects of P&G Greensboros
production systems. For example, the plant has a planned stop at 10 oclock every day to
address potential issues and engage in planned preventative maintenance. Machines also
have a planned schedule of working life. P&G plans for most of its machines to work 85%
of the time but requires 100% working efficiency sampling machines. In order to deal with
machine malfunctions P&G has a machine shop it uses to create small spare parts. The
plant itself holds about $8 million or 60 days worth of consumables and spare parts to
ensure minimal disruptions in process flow. This extensive capacity for consumables and
spare parts, in light of the third functionality of Tecnomatix, shows the integration of
P&Gs PCS into its production systems.
Mr. Brandberg also described the process flow at P&G. As a make to order system,
with some elements of make to stock, P&G tries not to invest heavily in holding costs.

11

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

P&G does utilize holding tanks for bulk materials such as silicone but employs trucks and
rails for the transportation of other raw materials in order to meet demand. Which means,
according to Bonneys model, P&Gs response time (R) is a function of its Production
Lead Time (PL) and its Distribution Lead Time (DL), or R=PL+DL. Consequently,
according to Appendix D, P&G should show a semi-repetitive production system with a
normal to flexible automation system, a group (cellular) layout, and a period batch control
(PBC) or Optimized Production Technology (OPT) PCS. As noted in the first principle,
and observed throughout the plant tour, P&G incorporates most if not all of these elements
into its shop floor control. P&G has automated approximately 80% of all its processes.
Essentially, people feed the machines with supplies and maintain them. Its process
production does show a semi-repetitive production system, as some products will require
variations due to certain circumstances but the overall system follows a generally repetitive
pattern. Finally, this paper has already noted a cellular or group layout within P&Gs
production system. Because of this, it can be concluded that P&G has incorporated
elements of enhanced compatibility between its PCS and production systems. P&G
operated with a Batch Process Production style; however, the tour did not clarify if this
Batch Processing followed a PBC or Economic Batch Quantity system. Appendix D further
discusses the levels of customization, types of buffer, flow, assembly, and work
organization.
III.

Take the demand, capacity and quality of the production and process in the
production pace (takt time).

After simplifying the materials flow (Principle I) and determining the PCS (Principle
II), Bonney suggests that the company now determine the pace of production (takt time)

12

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

by accounting for demand, capacity, and the influence of the production pace on the
rejection rate. (Bonney 2008)
In 2015, Procter & Gamble began to consolidate its brands by selling off up to 100
brands, thus leaving the company with about 70 to 80 of its top brands at the time. The
CEO during that the time, AG Lafley, commented on the consolidation in stating that he
wanted to focus the company on generating a much more reliable profit stream and higher
profitability margin (Pelberg 2014). This move also affected the shop-floor. According to
John Brandberg, more variety and complexity adds more downtime than theoretically
advisable. One could also apply this statement to P&G optimizing its assembly line.
However, as the Toshiba Case Study in the Operations and Supply Chain Management
textbook by F. Robert Jacobs and Richard B. Chase revealed, reducing idle time does not
always equate to increased efficiency. Nevertheless, P&Gs downsizing tactic not only
had economic benefits on the company, but also benefitted its production and quality
control processes. The consolidation provided a more focused and concise demand and
capacity. The company could now set a more productive production pace without the
complexity of several brands cluttering its planning.
According to the P&Gs quality policy: We will manufacture products that deliver our
Corporate Quality Promise by integrating quality thinking and practices in everything we
do. We will provide assurance that P&G standards and all applicable regulations are met.
Already, the necessity of PC and QC integration on P&Gs shop-floor becomes clear if the
company hopes to achieve this quality policy. As the tour revealed, P&G already has
measures in place to facilitate this integration. P&G has automated approximately 80% of
all its processes; meaning that, people feed the machines with supplies and intermittently

13

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

maintain them. Using less humans in the shop reduces costs and affects certain quality
control measures that help the plant run more efficiently. These efficiency boosters remain
unknown to the end-user and may actually enhance his/ her experience with P&G products.
Peter Welander, has noticed the increased trend towards automation in process control and
he offers a slight check. He writes: I don't believe there are many instances on the plant
floor that can be brought under automatic control where we should go back to manual
control. We should be trying to control as much as possible in an efficient, automatic way,
while at the same time involving people more and more in the operation because of the
business dynamic. (Welander 2013).
In determining the production pace, Bonney pulls from Sipper and Bulfins (1997)
research, which suggests a production pace that establishes a constant production flow and
the conveyor system along with P&Gs automation facilitates this constant production
flow. Bonney utilizes Womack and Jones (1996) theory, which matches takt time
(production pace) precisely to the customer demand. In order to account for all possible
parameters, the formula for takt time must consider the relationship between demand and
capacity. Bonney suggests that, The effective takt time is thus the calculated (or nominal)
takt time if the capacity is greater than or equal to the demand but is the cycle time when
the capacity is less than the demand. Therefore:
Effective takt time = maximum (takt time; cycle time)
where cycle time = the operation execution time on the slowest machine or
on the slowest point of the line, the bottleneck operation. (Bonney 2008)
Bonney however, cautions that increasing the production pace (or reducing takt time) to
fulfill a certain demand may increase the rejection rate and reduce the effective takt time,
even if the capacity allows for it. This would lead to the value flow reducing. As he notes,

14

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

determining the production pace while accounting for the relationship between PC and QC
requires a knowledge of the takt time vs. rejection rate curve, which will vary according to
the products and production process (Bonney 2008). The Toshiba Case also revealed a
similar theory within assembly line balancing. If production pace increases, cycle time
decreases. However, a decreased cycle time could increase (decreased efficiency) or
decrease (increased efficiency) the number of workstations.
P&Gs shop floor also considers several metrics to determine success and
ultimately the pace of production. In terms of demand, P&G Greensboro looks for 100%
order completion with minimal to no mistakes; products that seem to sell the most and the
rate of sale; and what affects the demand of the different countries that P&G sells to such
as GDP, birth rates, political and economic stability, etc. Capacity also looks at demand.
P&G holds raw materials in the case of bad planning and maintenance along with a design
to deal with customer demand and risk averseness. Unfortunately, the company doesnt
look into more optimal methods of inventory planning due to 30+ years of tradition. Also,
in the US market, expanding does not make much economic sense since the market has
already reached close to 100% penetration. The slice of the [US] pie isnt growing, says
John Brandberg.
Recommendations and Conclusions
Recommendations:
The recommendations given in this section only take the information gathered from
the plant tour into account as the authors of this article do not possess a fully working
knowledge of all P&G systems. First of all, based on Maurice Bonneys research, P&G
should look to implement either a Period Batch Control (PBC) or Optimized Production

15

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

Technology (OPT) system. According to J. Benders and J. Riezebos, Period Batch Control
(PBC) consists of a single cycle system (same planning cycle or release frequency for all
products controlled with this system), single phase (the system makes all work orders
available to the next stage), and a single offset time (the system uses the same internal
through-put time for work orders released to a stage). It differs from an Economic Batch
Quantity in that while a PBC system chooses to fix the order frequency for all products
and parts, the EBQ system independently determines optimal order sizes for parts and
products, resulting in a large variety of order frequencies. (Benders and Riezebos, 2002).
According to Bonney, the methodology proposed by MacCarthy and Fernandes (2000)
may contribute to better results regarding the increase of productivity (less levels of WIP
and increase at the throughput rate) and reduction of lead-time. (Bonney 2008)
P&G should also look into incorporating Van de Water and De Vries three-level control
model for quality management related to ISO standards. As Appendix C shows the three
levels consist of:
(1) A control layer: This control level chooses control actions, on the basis of
information about (and originating from) the transformation process, T, and given
performance measures. These control measures can be regarded as consisting of
both actions which control certain aspects of the transformation process and
actions in the form of feedback information to the other layers. At this level the
development and implementation of the quality policy takes place. In principle this
quality policy can be formulated on the basis of two different points of view. On the
one hand, quality goals can be regarded as being deduced from "higher" goals,
such as getting a bigger market share or realizing a certain continuity of the
company. On the other hand, quality goals can be formulated more or less
independently of other goals in the organization.
(2) An adaptive layer: This control level aims at reducing uncertainties for the control
level described above. To do so, it has to develop certain performance criteria and
procedures on the basis of which the control layer can decide which actions should
be chosen and how. At this control level two subsystems can be distinguished: a
quality system and a subsystem consisting of the processes of auditing, reviewing
and evaluating.

16

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

(3) A self-organizing layer: This level specifies goals, means and strategies which act
as constraints for the lower control levels. On the basis of both outside information
and feedback information from lower control levels, this layer can adapt these
goals and strategies. This level consists of two processes, the processes of quality
assurance and quality control. Quality assurance can be described as "all those
planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a
product or service will satisfy given requirements for quality". Quality control
comprises the "control actions and observation processes aimed at the detection
and elimination of causes of unsatisfactory performance at any stage or phases in
the total industrial cycle"
(Van de Water and de Vries)
P&G may also benefit from incorporating lambda-tuning within its process control
systems. By using a system that does not respond too sensitively to more errors in deadtime or idle time calculations, P&G may gain an increased production pace that leads to
higher efficiency (VanDoren 2003). Finally, P&G should look into improving Overall
Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) through optimizing its Enterprise Asset Management
(EAM) and Enterprise Resources Planning environment. Ulf Stern (2010) offers three tips:
1) Eliminate data silos - The ideal OEE application also enables financial and business
management to pull essential data from the ERP system, marry it to data in the OEE
system, and make the information available to the rest of the organization.
a. Joe Morray (2015) also qualifies this suggestion by identifying three work
streams (maintenance management and work order processing, plant
operations and process control, and plant information asset) and
emphasizing that more companies need to explore their plant information
asset. This work stream emphasizes the accessibility and indexing of
information for quick use of it in times of need. (Morray 2015)
2) Integrate with the plant floor Equipment slowdowns, stoppages, accidents, and
other factors may be subtle and digital real-time information capture can often
detect these hindrances. More accurate and complete data will of course allow for
OEE data that is more reliable and actionable.
3) Focus on Usability - Making automated data capture easy and attractive for users
throughout an organization to interact with an EAM or ERP system to log
information
(Ulf Stern 2010)
According to Thomas F. Wallace, P&G already incorporates a form of ERP known
as Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP) II in several global facilities (Wallace 2001).

17

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

Some positive characteristics of MRP II include: a broad product line, large lot sizes,
relatively low product volumes, a process layout, and a high shop floor control/ feedback
Negative characteristics include long lead times, a higher susceptibility to nervousness,
high inventory levels, and high setup times. The nature of its industry helps determine the
ERP system used. However, according to Wallace, improved forms of ERP already exist.
Incorporating Sterns 3 steps along with an updated for of ERP will ensure better
production and quality control.
Conclusions:
Integration of production and quality control in the shop floor drives the efficiency
and effectiveness of all its efforts. Quality control measures within the production control
system will help ensure the optimization of quality in the shop floors output. Procter &
Gamble has incorporated these measures in several aspects of its shop floor. However,
several measures to increase productivity of its shop floor may help boost its revenues and
provide further improvements to its productivity. This paper does not claim an exhaustive
analysis of the information and its application into P&Gs shop floor but rather a cursory
look with general insights and recommendations into a global leaders shop floor.

18

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper
APPENDICES

Appendix A:

Appendix B:

19

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

Appendix C:

Appendix D:

20

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

References:
n.p. "Manufacturing Shop Floor Control." Resource Library. Siemens, n.d. Web. 22
January 2016.
<http://camstar.industrysoftware.automation.siemens.com/en/resources/glossary/shopfloor-control/>
APICS (1959) cited in: Kenneth N. McKay, Vincent C. S. Wiers (2004). Practical
Production Control: A Survival Guide for Planners and Schedulers, p. 29
Bartholomew. Doug. Procter & Gamble Goes To Mountain For Shop Floor Controls.
Industry Week. Industry Week. 13 January 2005. Web. 27 January 2016.
<http://www.industryweek.com/archive/procter-gamble-goes-mountain-shop-floorcontrols>
Pharow, Peter. "System to improve safety on the shop-floor." Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 15 Sept. 2013: 8+. Business Insights: Essentials. Web. 25 Mar. 2016.
Hodge, Paul. "Virtualization lifecycle considerations: this new approach can help keep
some older platforms operating longer." Control Engineering 60.2 (2013): 35. Business
Insights: Essentials. Web. 25 Mar. 2016.
J. BENDERS and J. RIEZEBOS. Period batch control: classic, not outdated.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL, 2002, VOL. 13, NO. 6, 497506
Stern, Ulf. "Three tips to improve OEE." Plant Engineering (2010): 55+. Business
Insights: Essentials. Web. 25 Mar. 2016.
A. L. Arentsen, J.J Tiemersma, H.J.J. Kals (1996) The integration of quality control and
shop-floor control, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 9:2, 113130, DOI: 10.1080/095119296131733

21

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

Jacobs F.R. & Chase R.B. (2014). Operations and Supply Chain Management. New
York. NY. McGraw-Hill/ Irwin.
Wallace, Thomas F. Michael H. Kremzar. ERP: Making It Happen: The Implementers
Guide To Success with Enterprise Resource Planning.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3j86qt9VQ2kC&printsec=frontcover&authuser=0&s
ource=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=procter%20%26%20gamble&f=false
Carter, Jerry, and Zach Platsis. "Energy master plan reduces costs: need higher
efficiency? Drop the piecemeal approach to managing energy and sustainability
initiatives. An integrated energy master plan, including discrete, batch, and processing
lines, helps industrial and manufacturing companies realize cost, efficiency, and
operational benefits." Plant Engineering (2011): 47+. Business Insights: Essentials. Web.
25 Mar. 2016.
History of Innovation (2016) <
http://us.pg.com/who_we_are/heritage/history_of_innovation >
Procter and Gamble Singapore (Jan 15, 2016)
<https://www.edb.gov.sg/content/edb/en/case-studies/pg.html>
Tecnomatix Manufacturing Simulation and Validation. (2010)
<http://global.siemensplmevents.com/?elqPURLPage=4235&stc=usiia420522>
Procter and Gamble Plans and Optimizes Manufacturing Systems Virtually. (2010)
<http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/tecnomatix/manufacturingsimulation/index.shtml>

Corporate Structure (2010)

22

Mayowa Lewis
Kacie Bull

Shop-Floor Scheduling and Control

March 2016 Topic Paper

<http://us.pg.com/who_we_are/structure_governance/corporate_structure>
Dan Pelberg. Procter & Gamble to downsize, sell off half its brands. Digital Journal.
August 1, 2014. Web. March 27, 2016.
<http://www.digitaljournal.com/business/business/procter-gamble-to-downsize-sell-offhalf-its-brands/article/394277>
H. Van de Water. Jan de Vries, (1992),"The Organization of Quality Management: From
Abstract Model to Real Example", International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 9 Iss. 2 pp.
Morray, Joe. "Removing obstructions to your plant's workflow streams: tackle moving
plant information strategically across departments and locations." Plant Engineering 69.1
(2015): 55+. Business Insights: Essentials. Web. 25 Mar. 2016.
MacCarthy, B., & Wilson, J. (2001). Human performance in planning and scheduling.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Welander, Peter. "Beyond automation: humans as process controllers." Control
Engineering 60.6 (2013): 26+. Business Insights: Essentials. Jun. 2013. Web. 25 Mar.
2016.

23