W20.0_GGS_Logistics & Warehousing System Selection

Problem Statement

Case study in a mining company has been selected to be explored to answer the problem: what are the feasible solutions that the project team in the company can use, in order to ensure the materials will be available for the project when needed? This blog will discuss and select the preferred alternative for Logistics and Warehousing, based on field force analysis results from week 8-12 blog postings. 

Feasible Alternatives

There are five feasible alternatives to consider for the procurement, logistics and warehousing of the project:

  1. Procurement, Logistic and Warehousing for the project are performed by the company’s Supply Chain Management (SCM) Department, as is (status quo).
  2. Procurement, Logistic and Warehousing for the project are performed by the project. SCM manager is reporting to the Project Manager.
  3. Procurement, Logistic and Warehousing for the project are performed by the company’s Supply Chain Management (SCM) Department, as is, but with simplified procedure and improvements
  4. Procurement, Logistic and Warehousing for the project are done by contractor (turn key project)
  5. Outsourcing ONLY the procurement function (NOT turnkey project, but JUST the procurement function), Logistic and Warehouse for the project are performed by the company’s Supply Chain Management (SCM) Department, as is, but with simplified procedure and improvements

Analysis and Criteria

Force Field Analysis technique has been used to analyze each alternatives. The following table shows the result for Logistic and Warehousing:

Table 20.1 Alternative comparison using Field Force Analysis – Logistic & Warehousing

Top three score alternatives (positive variance) have been chosen and will be compared using Compensatory Models, in order to select the most appropriate alternative for this company. As alternative 3 and alternative 5 are the same for logistics and warehousing, there will be only two alternatives to compare (alternative 3/5 and alternative 4).

Selection criteria are:

  1. Cost, all cost associated with change negative forces into positive forces
  2. Easy to implement, the easiest the implementation, less resistance, the better
  3. Time, time required to change the negative forces into positive forces 

The two (2) alternatives comparison after assessing each negative forces is shown in the following table 20.2

Table 20.2 Alternatives comparison data

The attribute weight and ordinal ranking is shown on table 20.3

Table 20.3 Attribute Weight – Ordinary Ranking

The non dimensional scaling of the possible attribute values are presented in table 20.4

Table 20.4 Dimensionless Values

By combining the weights and performance for each alternative, the results are shown on table 20.5

Table 20.5 Weighted Score

Conclusion

According to the additive weighting technique analysis above, the alternative 3 has the highest score; therefore, it is chosen as preferred alternative. Alternative 4 can be also applied for selected project, i.e. major/big scale project.

Performance monitoring and post evaluation of result

The alternative 3 has to be periodically evaluated and aligned with up to date logistics and warehousing system practicing.

 References:

  1. Brassad, M., Ritter, D. (2010), The Memory Jogger 2, Second Edition, GOAL/QPC
  2. Richardson, G., T., W., Supply Chain Management. Retrieved from: http://www.witiger.com/internationalbusiness/SupplyChainManagement.htm
  3. Mindtools, Force Field Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_06.htm
  4. Sullivan, G., William, Wicks, M., Elin, Koelling, Patrick, C. (2009), Engineering Economic, Fifteenth Edition. Pearson International Edition.
Advertisements

W19.0_GGS_Procurement System Selection

Problem Statement

A system, by nature has its own “fit for purpose”. A system that works in one area or type of business may not fit for the other areas. It applies also for a procurement, logistic and warehousing system for the project. Case study in a mining company has been selected to be explored to answer the problem: what are the feasible solutions that the project team in the company can use, in order to ensure the materials will be available for the project when needed? Blog posting week 8-12 have explored each alternative using Field Force Analysis. 

Feasible Alternatives

There are five feasible alternatives to consider for the procurement, logistics and warehousing of the project:

  1. Procurement, Logistic and Warehousing for the project are performed by the company’s Supply Chain Management (SCM) Department, as is (status quo).
  2. Procurement, Logistic and Warehousing for the project are performed by the project. SCM manager is reporting to the Project Manager.
  3. Procurement, Logistic and Warehousing for the project are performed by the company’s Supply Chain Management (SCM) Department, as is, but with simplified procedure and improvements
  4. Procurement, Logistic and Warehousing for the project are done by contractor (turn key project)
  5. Outsourcing ONLY the procurement function (NOT turnkey project, but JUST the procurement function), Logistic and Warehouse for the project are performed by the company’s Supply Chain Management (SCM) Department, as is, but with simplified procedure and improvements

Analysis and Criteria

Force Field Analysis technique has been used to analyze each alternatives. This blog will focus on the Procurement side and the next blog will finalize the selection for Logistic and Warehousing. The result as is shown in this table:

Table 19.1 Alternative comparison using Field Force Analysis – Procurement

Top three score alternatives (positive variance) have been chosen and will be compared using Compensatory Models, in order to select the most appropriate alternative for this company.

Selection criteria are:

  1. Cost, all cost associated with change negative forces into positive forces
  2. Easy to implement, the easiest the implementation, less resistance, the better
  3. Time, time required to change the negative forces into positive forces 

The 3 alternatives comparison after assessing each negative forces is shown in the following table 19.2

 Table 19.2 Alternatives comparison data

The attribute weight and ordinal ranking is shown on table 19.3

Table 19.3 Attribute Weight – Ordinary Ranking

The non dimensional scaling of the possible attribute values are presented in table 19.4

Table 19.4 Dimensionless Values

By combining the weights and performance for each alternative, the results are shown on table 19.5

Table 19.5 Weighted Score

Conclusion

According to the additive weighting technique analysis above, the alternative 3 has the highest score; therefore, it is chosen as preferred alternative. Alternative 5 has the highest positive variance, but it is required biggest effort to implement, in term of cost and changes to the existing organization.

Performance monitoring and post evaluation of result

The alternative 3 has to be periodically evaluated and gradually changed to be aligned with up to date procurement system practice and to ensure the alignment with the real purpose, which is to guarantee the availability of materials for the project when required.

 References:

  1. Brassad, M., Ritter, D. (2010), The Memory Jogger 2, Second Edition, GOAL/QPC
  2. Richardson, G., T., W., Supply Chain Management. Retrieved from: http://www.witiger.com/internationalbusiness/SupplyChainManagement.htm
  3. Mindtools, Force Field Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_06.htm
  4. Sullivan, G., William, Wicks, M., Elin, Koelling, Patrick, C. (2009), Engineering Economic, Fifteenth Edition. Pearson International Edition.

W18.0_GGS_Treated Water Supply Control System_Compensatory Model

Problem Statement

“Treated water supply control system” case study that has been posted in W17 will be analyzed using different decision making technique, one of compensatory models – additive weighting technique.

Feasible Alternatives

The same three alternatives are considered to solve the problem:

  1. Alternative A – Use the pump that supply facility A to the new equipment. Install solenoid valve in each tank supply pipe to open/shut off supply to the tank. Install level switches – high and low, in each tank to activate the solenoid valve.  Install pressure switch at the discharge side of the pump to run/shut off the pump, when certain/preset pressure is achieved. The schematic of this alternative is as shown in blog W17,  fig 6.1
  2. Alternative B – Use the pump that supply facility A to the new equipment. Use manual valve to regulate filling to facility A  and the new equipment. The schematic of this alternative is as shown in blog W17, fig 6.2
  3. Alternative C – Install dedicated pump for each facility. Install mechanical floating valve in each tank supply pipe to open/shut off supply to the tank. Install pressure switch at the discharge side of the pump to run/shut off the pump, when certain/preset pressure is achieved. The schematic of this alternative is as shown in blog W17,  fig 6.3

Selection Criteria

The following are the key criteria that have to be considered for the best alternative selection.

  • Reliability of control, the more reliable the control system to handle the operating system, the better the control system is. Reliability will reduce maintenance call out for repair and interruption to the system operation.
  • Operability of the system, the easier way to operate the system, the better.
  • Maintainability, is the capability of the system to be maintained, including maintenance cost and spare part. The simpler maintenance required, the better.
  • Investment Cost, cost of alternative, including material and installation cost.

Analysis and comparison for each alternatives

Additive weighting technique, one of the compensatory models for multi attributes decision making technique is used to compare and analyze the alternatives.

Project data information is shown in the following table 18.1

 Table 18.1 Alternatives comparison data

Operability of the control is the key criteria of the project to deliver the objective, therefore it has the highest ordinary ranking. The attribute weight and ordinal ranking is shown on table 18.2

 Table 18.2 Attribute Weight – Ordinary Ranking

The non dimensional scaling of the possible attribute values are presented in table 18.3

Table 18.3 Dimensionless Values

By combining the weights and performance for each alternative, the results are shown on table 18.4

Table 18.4 Weighted Score

Conclusion

According to the additive weighting technique analysis above, the final choice is alternative A. This is because alternative A, as same as alternative C, have the top two highest ranks. The last thing that has made the different is that alternative A has better rank for the investment cost attribute. In comparison with the previous result that used non-compensatory model, the final decision is same; however, compensatory model has shown certain value that has clearly differentiated the three alternatives.

Performance monitoring and post evaluation of result

The alternative A has to be translated to more detail design in the process and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) and then be evaluated in the process hazard and operability study to ensure that every aspects of this alternative have been considered.  

Reference:

Sullivan, G., William, Wicks, M., Elin, Koelling, Patrick, C. (2009), Engineering Economic, Fifteenth Edition. Pearson International Edition.

GraphPad.com, What is the difference between ordinal, interval and ratio variables? Why should I care?. Retrieved from: http://www.graphpad.com/faq/viewfaq.cfm?faq=1089

Instrument and Process Control, Level Switches. Retrieved from: http://instrumentation.web.id/?p=270

Instrument and Process Control, Solenoid Valves. Retrieved from: http://instrumentation.web.id/?p=494

W17.0_GGS_Treated Water Supply Control System

Problem Statement

A new equipment which requires “treated water supply” has to be installed in PP area to support plant production. There is existing water treatment plant nearby the location which is currently supplying treated water to the facility A. It has been confirmed by the engineer that the existing water treatment plant capacity is adequate to supply both facility A and the new equipment; however, it cannot use the existing supply pipe and storage tank as the location, size of tank, elevation of supply tank and usage flow rate of the two facilities are significantly different. A correct control system to supply treated water to both facilities are required to address this situation.

Feasible Alternatives

Three alternatives are considered to solve the problem:

  1. Alternative A – Use the pump that supply facility A to the new equipment. Install solenoid valve in each tank supply pipe to open/shut off supply to the tank. Install level switches – high and low, in each tank to activate the solenoid valve.  Install pressure switch at the discharge side of the pump to run/shut off the pump, when certain/preset pressure is achieved. This alternative shown in fig 6.1
  2. Alternative B – Use the pump that supply facility A to the new equipment. Use manual valve to regulate filling to facility A  and the new equipment. This alternative shown in fig 6.2
  3. Alternative C – Install dedicated pump for each facility. Install mechanical floating valve in each tank supply pipe to open/shut off supply to the tank. Install pressure switch at the discharge side of the pump to run/shut off the pump, when certain/preset pressure is achieved. This alternative shown in fig 6.3

Selection Criteria

The following are the key criteria that have to be considered for the best alternative selection.

  • Reliability of control, the more reliable the control system to handle the operating system, the better control system is. Reliability will reduce maintenance call out for repair and interruption to the system
  • Operability of control, the easier way to operate the control system, the better.
  • Maintainability, is the capability of the system to be maintained, including maintenance cost and spare part. The simpler maintenance required, the better.
  • Investment Cost, cost of alternative, including material and installation cost.

Analysis and comparison for each alternatives

Schematics of the control system are shown on the following figures:

Figure 6.1 Alternative A

Figure 6.2 Alternative B

Figure 6.3 Alternative C

Lexicography, one of non-compensatory models for multi attributes decision making technique is used to compare and analyze the alternatives.

Summary information for the selection is shown in table 1:

All attributes in table 1, be ranked in order of importance by doing paired comparison between each possible attribute combination. Result as on table 2:

Table 2 – Ordinal Ranking of Attributes

Based on table 2, the ranking is found to be Operability > Reliability > Investment Cost > Maintainability.

The application of lexicography to the ordinal ranking developed in table 3.

Conclusion

According to the lexicography technique analysis above, the final choice is alternative A. Alternative A has the same degree with alternative C in operability (highest rank) and reliability of control (2nd rank) but  because of its investment cost (3rd rank) is lower; therefore, alternative A is the best choice.

Performance monitoring and post evaluation of result

The alternative A has to be translated to more detail design in the process and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) and then be evaluated in the process hazard and operability study to ensure that every aspects of this alternative have been considered.  

Reference:

Sullivan, G., William, Wicks, M., Elin, Koelling, Patrick, C. (2009), Engineering Economic, Fifteenth Edition. Pearson International Edition.

Instrument and Process Control, Level Switches. Retrieved from: http://instrumentation.web.id/?p=270

Instrument and Process Control, Solenoid Valves. Retrieved from: http://instrumentation.web.id/?p=494

 

W13_GGS_Wasuponda T-Junction Traffic Management

Problem Statement

The uncontrolled Tugu Nenas intersection (intersection of Jln Ahmad Yani and Jln Andi Nyiwi) at Wasuponda district allows illegal traffic movements due to lack of control and policing.  A recent illegal movement recently resulted in a fatal motor vehicle / motorcycle accident. The company safety department has requested Engineering Department to evaluate the current intersection and come up with recommendation, to avoid the occurrence of the traffic accident.  

Feasible Alternatives

Three options have been considered to improve safety at the intersection.

  • Option A – Construct a centre island with a right turn bay on main Sorowako –Malili Road (Jln Ahmad Yani).
  • Option B – Construct a centre island without a right turn facility on main Sorowako – Malili Road (Jln Ahmad Yani).
  • Option C – Close access (entry and exit) to side road (Jln Andi Nyiwi) from main Sorowako –Malili Road (Jln Ahmad Yani).

Analysis and Criteria

The selection criteria of the alternatives are:

  1. Approval from local police department – the road is also used as public road
  2. Approval from local government (Camat Wasuponda) – Local authority in Wasuponda district
  3. Approval from head of public transportation ofEast Luwu– Department representing the government who responsible for all public road
  4. Approval from the company logistic department (main user of the road), to deliver all materials from the port to the site
  5. Approval from the company Mine department – they sometimes support Logistic department to transport big equipment from the port to the site. It normally consumes more than ¾ of road width during mobilization
  6. Effectiveness of the new design to reduce illegal movement

Sketch for each options are shown as follows:

Layout 1 – Option A 

Layout 2 – Option B

Layout 3 – Option C

The three options have been presented to local police department, local government, company’s logistic & mining department in order to get approval. During the discussion, all parties have been in agreement that Option B and C have disadvantages in that they force additional traffic through the existing intersection at Jln Ahmad Yani and Jln Lasemba.  This is not desirable as this intersection is a poor design and located in an area with reduce sight distance.  In addition to this, the new traffic management arrangements at the Wasuponda Tugu Nenas intersection may not eliminate all illegal movements especially related to motorcycle traffic.  Option A has also disadvantage that the sight and stop distance is very short and has possibility to create hazard when vehicle stops to attempt right turning from Jln Ahmad Yani to Jln Andi Nyiwi. They, then push back the engineering team to perform deeper analysis of the options.

Conclusion

As there is no major dominant advantage among the three options, Engineering team has decided to perform trial using one of the three options. The selection criteria that is used to select the trial option are:

  1. Minimum modification to the current layout condition
  2. Lowest hazard created during trial

From the three options, option B has been selected as it complies the above criteria more than others.

Next Step

It is recommended to perform base-line survey for 7 consecutives days from 06:00 AM to 06:00 PM (the highest traffic rate), then use sand bag as trial media to construct option B design layout on site. As comparison, perform exactly the same survey as base line survey on the new layout. Finally, use the result to measure the effectiveness of the design to reduce illegal movement.

Furthermore, the proposed new island will impact on the passage of heavy and over-width vehicles.  It is proposed that the island and signage be designed to allow large vehicles to pass over the island without disruption. 

Reference:

  1. Ditjen Bina Marga (1970), Peraturan Perencanaan Geometrik Jalan Raya  No. 13
  2. PT. INCO Indonesia, Road Condition, Major Hazard Standard – MHS 03