MES Impact Analysis (Production)

eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
MES Implementation at PT. IKPP - Perawang
MES Impact Analysis

based on KPI Data Collection
February 22, 2006
KPI Data Collection
• All data were collected from January 2005 – December
2005.
• For giving fair comparison condition (apple to apple), the
data collection has taken from legacy condition. Majorly the
data is taken from legacy report. Some of the (in Planning
and Warehouse) the data has already taken from TIPS.
• The impact will be shown per area.
• The KPI will be shown using line chart. When the line is
going up, it means the condition is better. Therefore, we
have reversed the Y axis for the data which is the smaller is
better.
• The average before and after MES will be shown in table. If
the performance after MES is better than before MES, the
number will be using blue text. If the performance become
worst, the number will be using red text.
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
List of Content
• KPI Data
– Sales
– Production Planning
– Production (PM, Winder, Converting, & Finishing)
– Packaging Material
– Warehouse
– Shipping
– Claim
• Tangible Benefit & Other Benefits
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Sales Area – Lead Time (Export)
Reason:
Inquiry to Quotation Lead Time become worst after MES, because the following reasons:
1. Container Drawing must be completed before Inquiry planned into TIPS
2. Tighten validation up front for minimizing order revision, ie, Inquiry must be planned into TIPS in order to convert to Quota tion
3. Unstable backend system ie. unable to provide planned order on time, due to certain error, VC characters not maintain in
TIPS.
4. CRM System performance is slow in Mill -> VC Material usage leads to excess load for IPC server.
5. Unclear procedure beyond system control:
a. Extend material for tradco.
b. VC Characteristic maintenance
6. Revision on SO after Run created, makes the process become longer.
A v e r a g e In q u ir y - Q u o t a t io n - C o n f ir m a t io n L e a d T im e ( E x p o r t )
Ja n -0 5 Fe b -0 5 M a r-0 5 A p r-0 5 M a y -0 5 Ju n -0 5 J u l- 0 5 A u g -0 5 S e p -0 5 O c t- 0 5 No v -0 5 De c -0 5 Ja n -0 6
0 .0 0
0 .5 0
1 .0 0
1 .5 0
Days
2 .0 0
Formula:
Inquiry to Quotation Lead Time = Before MES After MES
Quotation Date – Inquiry Date 2 .5 0
Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
Quotation to Confirmation Lead Time = Inq to Quo 1.30 2.30

3 .0 0
Confirmation Date – Inquiry Date
Quo to Conf 1.03 1.70
3 .5 0
Ja n -0 5 Fe b -0 5 M a r-0 5 A p r-0 5 M a y -0 5 Ju n -0 5 J u l- 0 5 A u g -0 5 S e p -0 5 O c t- 0 5 No v -0 5 De c -0 5 Ja n -0 6
A v e r a g e In q u ir y t o Q u o t a t io n L e a d T im e 1 .2 9 1 .7 0 1 .3 0 1 .1 0 1 .8 0 0 .8 0 0 .8 0 1 .3 0 1 .6 0 2 .7 0 2 .9 0 1 .6 0 2 .0 0
A v e r a g e Q u o t a t io n t o C o n f ir m a t io n L e a d T im e 1 .2 4 1 .1 0 0 .9 0 1 .2 0 1 .3 0 0 .8 0 0 .9 0 0 .9 0 0 .9 0 2 .3 0 1 .6 0 1 .5 0 1 .4 0
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Sales Area – Lead Time (Local)
Reason:
The improvement in inq. to quo lead time more likely from very bad performance in January
2005. (It means MES did not contribute yet).
A v e r a g e In q u ir y - Q u o t a t io n - C o n f ir m a t io n L e a d T im e ( L o c a l)
Ja n -0 5 Fe b -0 5 Mar-05 A pr-05 May -05 Ju n -0 5 J u l- 0 5 A ug-05 Sep-05 O c t- 0 5 Nov -05 Dec -05 Ja n -0 6
0
10
Days
15
Formula: 20
Before MES After MES
Inquiry to Quotation Lead Time =
Quotation Date – Inquiry Date Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
25 Inq to Quo 13.12 11.02
Quotation to Confirmation Lead Time =
Confirmation Date – Inquiry Date Quo to Conf 5.79 6.52
30
A v e r a g e In q u ir y t o Q u o t a t io n L e a d T im e 2 8 .1 4 6 .6 7 1 5 .8 0 7 .7 5 1 4 .6 7 1 0 .2 3 1 0 .5 4 1 3 .3 4 1 0 .9 2 1 1 .3 5 1 0 .4 0 1 2 .3 3 1 0 .0 0
A v e r a g e Q u o t a t io n t o C o n f ir m a t io n L e a d T im e 5 .4 1 1 2 .2 2 6 .8 0 0 .8 8 3 .6 7 5 .4 2 3 .1 8 6 .9 7 7 .5 4 5 .9 6 5 .2 0 1 2 .0 8 2 .8 3
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Sales Area – On Time Delivery (Export)
Reason:
On Time Delivery become worst after MES, because MES system is not stable yet. It impacts in
production operational, which make the delivery become late. For example, MES cannot prevent
excess quantity per order. It make the next order lack of base paper, so the order need to wait
the next cycle.
Formula:
O n T im e D e liv e r y ( E x p o r t ) On Time Delivery =
(Count If (BL Date – RDD)<=0) / Delivery Count
90
80
70
Percentage
60

50 Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
Average 72.06 55.45
40 VIC 79.04 60.20
Non VIC 65.08 50.71
30
A v erage 7 1 .5 1 7 4 .2 3 7 0 .3 5 6 9 .3 0 6 9 .0 2 7 2 .1 6 7 3 .6 6 7 4 .9 8 7 3 .3 3 7 4 .4 3 4 7 .7 4 5 0 .7 3 4 8 .9 0
- . V IC 8 5 .7 1 8 1 .5 2 7 6 .6 5 7 0 .0 7 7 2 .5 9 7 6 .4 0 8 0 .1 8 8 5 .3 8 8 2 .8 7 8 1 .0 1 4 9 .4 6 5 3 .4 6 5 6 .8 5
- . N o n V IC 5 7 .3 0 6 6 .9 5 6 4 .0 6 6 8 .5 3 6 5 .4 4 6 7 .9 2 6 7 .1 3 6 4 .5 8 6 3 .7 9 6 7 .8 6 4 6 .0 2 4 8 .0 1 4 0 .9 5
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Sales Area – On Time Delivery (Local)
Reason:
Same as previous reason in KPI for On Time Delivery (Export)
Formula:
O n T im e D e liv e r y (L o c a l) On Time Delivery =
(Count If (BL Date – RDD)<=0) / Delivery Count
60
50
Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
Average 19.07 16.98
40
VIC 22.97 10.70
Non VIC 15.17 23.25
Percentage
30
Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
20
72.06 55.45
Formula:
79.04 60.20 On Time Delivery =
10
65.08 50.71 (Count If(BL Date – RDD)<=0)/Delivery Count
0
Ja n - 0 5 Fe b -0 5 Mar-05 A pr-05 May -05 Ju n - 0 5 J u l- 0 5 A ug-05 Sep-05 O c t- 0 5 Nov -05 Dec -05 Ja n - 0 6
A v erage 1 7 .6 0 4 1 .7 0 2 1 .5 1 1 9 .0 4 1 9 .4 6 1 0 .9 6 1 7 .9 8 1 4 .7 3 8 .6 6 1 6 .4 1 1 5 .4 7 1 6 .5 1 1 9 .5 1
- . V IC 2 2 .7 0 5 1 .5 5 2 6 .2 6 2 1 .3 1 2 1 .6 2 1 4 .6 3 2 1 .1 4 1 7 .8 0 9 .7 0 1 5 .0 8 1 2 .7 3 6 .0 9 8 .9 0
- . N o n V IC 1 2 .5 0 3 1 .8 5 1 6 .7 6 1 6 .7 7 1 7 .3 1 7 .2 8 1 4 .8 2 1 1 .6 6 7 .6 1 1 7 .7 4 1 8 .2 1 2 6 .9 4 3 0 .1 2
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Sales Area – Delivery Date Variance (Export)
Reason:
According to the formula, the main components of this KPI (BL Date and RDD) are the same with
On Time Delivery KPI. This KPI want to track the date variance rather than the percentage of on
time delivery. Therefore the reason of this KPI is the same with the previous reason in KPI for On
Time Delivery (Export).
Formula:
A v e r a g e D e liv e r y D a t e V a r ia n c e ( E x p o r t ) Delivery Date Variance = BL Date - RDD
0
10
Days
15 Before MES After MES

Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
Average 4.87 12.19
20
VIC 3.96 9.87
Non VIC 5.77 14.51
25
A v erage 6 .3 8 4 .6 4 4 .9 5 4 .1 6 5 .7 2 4 .8 3 5 .3 6 4 .2 5 3 .5 0 8 .6 4 1 3 .7 2 1 2 .3 6 1 4 .0 5
- . V IC 7 .5 6 3 .7 5 4 .7 0 4 .6 7 5 .0 9 4 .3 1 3 .7 6 1 .0 2 0 .7 7 7 .1 7 1 4 .3 9 9 .9 9 7 .9 5
- . N o n V IC 5 .2 1 5 .5 3 5 .2 0 3 .6 6 6 .3 4 5 .3 5 6 .9 5 7 .4 7 6 .2 4 1 0 .1 1 1 3 .0 5 1 4 .7 3 2 0 .1 6
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Sales Area – Delivery Date Variance (Local)
Reason:
Same as previous reason in KPI for On Time Delivery (Export)
Formula:
A v e r a g e D e liv e r y D a t e V a r ia n c e ( L o c a l) Delivery Date Variance = BL Date - RDD
-1 0
0
10
Days
20

30
Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
Average 8.87 11.33
40
VIC 11.83 20.76
Non VIC 5.92 1.89
50
A v erage 8 .7 7 6 .6 3 8 .0 4 1 2 .4 0 1 0 .8 2 1 2 .4 5 6 .7 6 6 .6 0 7 .3 7 1 2 .0 5 1 1 .1 4 9 .3 2 1 2 .8 0
- . V IC 1 0 .5 3 5 .6 3 8 .5 5 1 2 .1 4 1 6 .9 8 2 0 .6 8 1 0 .6 2 1 0 .2 0 1 1 .1 1 1 9 .3 0 1 7 .8 7 1 9 .0 5 2 6 .8 3
- . N o n V IC 7 .0 1 7 .6 3 7 .5 4 1 2 .6 7 4 .6 7 4 .2 1 2 .8 9 3 .0 1 3 .6 3 4 .8 0 4 .4 2 - 0 .4 1 - 1 .2 4
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Sales Area – Delivery Quantity Accuracy
Reason:
January 06 data is not stable yet, since not all order have achieved full delivery.
Overall, the performance become worst after MES, related with the previous reason in On Time
Delivery (MES cannot prevent excess quantity order).
D e liv e r y Q u a n tity A c c u r a c y
100
95
90
Percentage

Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
85
Export 98.33 92.13
Local 100.00 99.67
80
Formula:
Delivery Quantity Accuracy =
(Count If (Abs(GI Weight – SO Weight)<(0.1*SO Weight))) / Order Count
75
Ex p o r t 9 9 .7 5 9 8 .1 7 9 9 .1 2 9 8 .1 7 9 6 .9 4 9 8 .8 1 9 6 .8 7 9 8 .4 3 9 8 .7 9 7 .1 7 9 5 .2 5 9 0 .7 9 8 5 .2 9
Local 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 9 9 .8 6 100 9 8 .8
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Sales Area – Over/Under Quantity Fulfillment (Export)
Reason:
According to the formula, the main components of this KPI (SO Weight and GI Weight) are the
same with Delivery Quantity Accuracy KPI. This KPI want to track the tonnage (over/under)
rather than the percentage of quantity accuracy. Therefore the reason of this KPI is the same
with the previous reason in KPI for Delivery Quantity Accuracy
O v e r /U n d e r Q u a n t it y F u lf ilm e n t ( E x p o r t )
0 .0 0
2 0 0 .0 0
4 0 0 .0 0
6 0 0 .0 0
Tonnage

Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
8 0 0 .0 0
Over 194.70 319.48
1 0 0 0 .0 0
Under 38.38 344.84
Formula:
1 2 0 0 .0 0 Delivery Quantity Accuracy =
1 4 0 0 .0 0
O v e r Q u a n t it y F u lf ilm e n t 0 .0 0 1 9 2 .2 6 8 0 .8 8 2 8 4 .3 0 5 1 7 .0 2 1 3 6 .7 5 3 0 0 .4 0 6 3 .7 5 1 7 6 .9 4 5 6 9 .6 9 2 8 8 .6 2 3 9 0 .2 6 2 9 .3 4
U n d e r Q u a n t it y F u lf ilm e n t 3 .7 4 2 7 .9 5 2 2 .1 2 4 .1 7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 9 .5 6 9 2 .8 0 1 6 5 .0 4 1 3 8 .5 8 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 2 4 0 .8 0
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Sales Area – Over/Under Quantity Fulfillment (Local)
Reason:
Same as previous reason in KPI for Delivery Quantity Accuracy.
O v e r /U n d e r Q u a n t it y F u lf ilm e n t ( L o c a l)
0 .0 0
5 0 0 0 .0 0
1 0 0 0 0 .0 0
Tonnage

1 5 0 0 0 .0 0
Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
Over 0.00 0.00
2 0 0 0 0 .0 0
Under 0.00 6602.49
2 5 0 0 0 .0 0
Formula:
Delivery Quantity Accuracy =
3 0 0 0 0 .0 0
O v e r Q u a n t it y F u lf ilm e n t 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0
U n d e r Q u a n t it y F u lf ilm e n t 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 1 .1 6 0 .0 0 2 6 3 9 8 .7 9
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Planning Area – Winder Machine Trim Efficiency
Reason:
There’s decreasing trend in the month of Jun – Aug 05 for PPM#1, because it follows the trend of
the orders from Marketing. Since it is the low season, so it impacted the trend.
In the month of Dec 05 – Jan 06, the trend is decreasing for PPM#2. This because there are a lot
of production for stock and it should not be counted as waste, because it will impacted in
decreasing trends.
A v e r a g e W in d e r M a c h in e T r im E f f ic ie n c y
100
90
80
Percentage
70 Before MES After MES

Formula:
Jan 05 - Aug 05 Nov 05 - Jan 06 Winder Machine Trim Efficiency =
60 Average 95.76 96.73 (Export Order + Local Stock) /
(Export Order + Local Stock + Export Stock + Waste)
PPM#1 90.87 96.28 Notes:
-. Export → Make to Order; Local → Make to Stock
50 PPM#2 97.13 96.99
-. Export Stock is created to minimize waste.
PPM#3 99.29 96.92 -. Sep 05 & Oct 05 data are not available for all KPI in Planning area
40
Ja n -0 5 Fe b -0 5 Mar-05 A pr-05 May -05 Ju n -0 5 J u l- 0 5 A ug-05 Nov -05 Dec -05 Ja n -0 6
A v erage 9 6 .9 8 9 5 .2 3 9 7 .1 3 9 7 .8 8 9 8 .1 9 9 5 .6 9 9 3 .1 7 9 1 .8 2 9 7 .8 6 9 5 .6 7 9 6 .6 6
- . PPM # 1 9 5 .3 1 9 4 .0 2 9 5 .6 2 9 5 .8 2 9 7 .5 8 8 7 .8 0 8 4 .1 8 7 6 .6 4 9 6 .1 6 9 5 .7 4 9 6 .9 4
- . PPM # 2 9 6 .1 5 9 2 .2 2 9 8 .2 8 9 8 .2 7 9 7 .2 6 9 9 .6 0 9 5 .9 3 9 9 .3 0 9 9 .4 9 9 8 .2 5 9 3 .2 5
- . PPM # 3 9 9 .4 7 9 9 .4 5 9 7 .4 9 9 9 .5 5 9 9 .7 2 9 9 .6 6 9 9 .4 2 9 9 .5 3 9 7 .9 5 9 3 .0 3 9 9 .7 8
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Planning Area – Trim Over Run Efficiency
Reason:
Major contribution of better performance in PPM#1, because over run before MES (June, July,
and August) is so high.
It happened, because PPIC needed to plan export stock for minimizing waste, since there was
low order condition at that month.
A v e r a g e T r im O v e r R u n E f f ic ie n c y
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
Percentage
20.00 Before MES After MES

Jan 05 - Aug 05 Nov 05 - Jan 06
25.00
Average 3.70 2.30
30.00 PPM#1 8.34 1.41 Formula:
Trim Over Run =
PPM#2 2.48 2.68 (Export Stock) /
35.00
PPM#3 0.29 2.83 (Export Order + Local Stock + Export Stock + Waste)
40.00
A v erage 2 .5 5 4 .2 9 2 .4 2 1 .6 5 1 .2 5 3 .7 6 6 .0 9 7 .6 2 1 .1 3 3 .3 4 2 .4 4
- . PPM # 1 4 .1 4 5 .3 7 3 .8 9 3 .5 4 1 .3 9 1 1 .2 8 1 4 .5 9 2 2 .5 4 1 .3 9 1 .9 3 0 .8 9
- . PPM # 2 3 .5 0 7 .3 2 1 .2 6 1 .4 2 2 .3 5 0 .0 0 3 .6 7 0 .3 2 0 .2 2 1 .4 1 6 .4 1
- . PPM # 3 0 .0 0 0 .1 9 2 .1 3 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 .7 9 6 .6 9 0 .0 0
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Planning Area – Trim Waste Efficiency
Reason:
Waste in PPM#1 is higher than PPM#2 and PPM#3, because order with special quality (LEO,
GTP, Embosindo, etc.) in PPM#1 is higher that other PPM.
Before MES, all kind of order (normal order and special quality order) can be planned in same
run. (which MES cannot)
Therefore, trimming in PPM#1 cannot be more optimize than other PPM.
A v e r a g e T r im W a s t e E f f ic ie n c y
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
Percentage
2.00 Before MES After MES

Jan 05 - Aug 05 Nov 05 - Jan 06
2.50
Average 0.57 1.00
3.00
PPM#1 0.88 2.40
Formula:
3.50
PPM#2 0.41 0.34 Trim Over Run =
PPM#3 0.43 0.26 (Waste) / (Export Order + Local Stock + Export Stock + Waste)
4.00
A v erage 0 .4 9 0 .5 1 0 .4 6 0 .4 8 0 .5 8 0 .5 9 0 .8 2 0 .6 4 1 .0 4 1 .0 3 0 .9 4
- . PPM # 1 0 .5 8 0 .6 5 0 .5 2 0 .6 6 1 .0 6 1 .0 4 1 .4 7 1 .0 6 2 .5 5 2 .4 3 2 .2 3
- . PPM # 2 0 .3 6 0 .5 1 0 .4 7 0 .3 2 0 .4 0 0 .4 0 0 .4 2 0 .3 8 0 .3 0 0 .3 5 0 .3 6
- . PPM # 3 0 .5 3 0 .3 6 0 .4 0 0 .4 5 0 .2 8 0 .3 4 0 .5 8 0 .4 7 0 .2 7 0 .3 0 0 .2 2
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Production – Mill Output Efficiency
Reason is not submitted yet
M ill O u t p u t E f f ic ie n c y
100
Formula: Before MES After MES

98 Mill Output Efficiency = Total All Product HTW / (Total
Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
All Product HTW + All Loss)
96 Mill Output 91.30 89.20
Mill Output Efficiency (Only A) = Total A Class HTW /
(Total All Product HTW + All Loss) Only A 86.02 85.04
94
Percentage
92
90
88
86
84
82
M ill O u t p u t Ef f ic ie n c y 9 1 .6 9 9 1 .6 3 9 0 .8 0 9 2 .4 8 9 2 .1 9 9 0 .7 1 8 9 .4 2 9 2 .1 2 9 0 .6 7 8 8 .2 2 8 8 .8 5 8 9 .4 9 9 0 .2 2
M ill O u t p u t Ef f ic ie n c y ( O n ly A ) 9 0 .0 8 8 7 .8 3 8 2 .9 4 8 6 .4 2 8 8 .5 6 8 2 .5 6 8 2 .8 4 8 7 .1 0 8 5 .8 1 8 4 .5 4 8 4 .7 6 8 5 .4 5 8 5 .3 9
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Production – Total Over Run (Winder)
T o t a l O v e r r u n ( W in d e r )
0
5000
10000
Tonnage
15000
Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
20000
Average 9385.99 9048.73
25000 PPM#1 817.64 310.13

PPM#2 2675.52 2659.77
Formula:
Total Over Run =
30000 PPM#3 5892.83 6078.84 Sum If (Winder Production – Production Instruction List)>0
T o ta l 6 3 6 9 .5 8 7 2 7 5 .8 1 8 7 4 7 .1 0 1 1 5 2 5 .6 9 3 5 0 4 .1 0 1 5 8 8 1 .0 1 7 5 1 9 .4 4 9 0 2 0 .0 6 1 4 6 3 1 .1 0 1 3 2 1 9 .3 0 5 9 7 7 .8 4 6 6 1 1 .3 5 1 0 3 8 6 .4 5
- . PPM # 1 8 4 5 .5 1 0 .0 0 1 1 9 1 .4 5 1 6 8 9 .4 5 4 4 6 .3 2 1 7 8 0 .0 6 2 4 6 .1 4 1 1 5 9 .8 5 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 4 7 8 .4 0 0 .0 0 7 6 2 .1
- . PPM # 2 2 2 5 9 .8 6 4 0 5 3 .3 4 1 9 3 .1 1 3 5 1 2 .3 9 9 0 2 .7 7 4 4 0 7 .6 9 0 .0 0 3 7 4 7 .9 2 5 0 0 2 .5 9 6 9 8 5 .9 7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 3 6 5 3 .1
- . PPM # 3 3 2 6 4 .2 1 3 2 2 2 .4 7 7 3 6 2 .5 4 6 3 2 3 .8 5 2 1 5 5 .0 1 9 6 9 3 .2 6 7 2 7 3 .3 0 4 1 1 2 .2 9 9 6 2 8 .5 1 6 2 3 3 .3 3 5 4 9 9 .4 4 6 6 1 1 .3 5 5 9 7 1 .2 5
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Production – Total Under Run (Winder)
T o t a l U n d e r r u n ( W in d e r )
0
200
400
600
Tonnage

800
Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
Average 116.02 499.54
1000
PPM#1 84.39 115.39
Formula:
1200 PPM#2 31.63 384.15 Total Under Run = Abs (Sum If (Winder
PPM#3 0.00 0.00 Production – Production Instruction List)<0)
1400
T o ta l 0 .0 0 8 5 .8 7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 8 4 .6 5 0 .0 0 6 7 3 .6 6 4 6 1 .5 7 1 2 9 3 .7 0 2 4 2 .9 0 0 .0 0
- . PPM # 1 0 .0 0 8 5 .8 7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 6 7 3 .6 6 4 6 1 .5 7 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0
- . PPM # 2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 8 4 .6 5 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 1 2 9 3 .7 0 2 4 2 .9 0 0 .0 0
- . PPM # 3 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0 .0 0
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Production – Sheeter Machine Efficiency
A v e r a g e S h e e t e r M a c h in e E f f ic ie n c y
80
Before
MES After MES 70
Jan 05 - Oct 05 -
60
Sep 05 Jan 06
Average 40.27 40.41 50
Percentage
C/V#1 39.70 45.24

40
C/V#3 35.98 37.21
F/N#1 29.53 33.90 30
F/N#3 55.86 44.37 20
10
Formula:
Sheeter Machine Efficiency =
0
Yield Efficiency * Time Efficiency * Ja n -0 5 Fe b -0 5 Mar-05 A pr-05 May -05 Ju n -0 5 J u l- 0 5 A ug-05 Sep-05 O c t- 0 5 Nov -05 Dec -05 Ja n -0 6
Capacity Efficiency
A v e r a g e S h e e t e r M a c h in e Ef f ic ie n c y 4 0 .2 2 3 8 .1 5 3 9 .7 1 3 9 .5 2 3 9 .6 4 3 9 .9 0 3 8 .1 2 4 6 .1 5 4 0 .9 9 3 3 .9 4 4 2 .8 7 4 2 .2 0 3 9 .8 0
A v e r a g e C / V # 1 C u t S h e e t e r M a c h in e Ef f ic ie n c y 3 5 .7 7 3 5 .3 7 3 6 .9 0 3 6 .6 3 4 1 .7 7 4 4 .8 0 3 7 .3 0 4 4 .1 3 4 4 .6 3 3 6 .0 3 4 4 .0 3 4 6 .8 7 5 4 .0 3
A v e r a g e C / V # 3 C u t S h e e t e r M a c h in e Ef f ic ie n c y 3 6 .0 1 3 4 .1 4 3 2 .5 3 3 5 .8 1 3 5 .0 7 3 4 .1 1 3 7 .1 4 4 0 .0 0 3 9 .0 3 3 6 .1 0 3 5 .8 1 3 9 .7 3
A v e r a g e F / N # 1 F o lio S h e e t e r M a c h in e Ef f ic ie n c y 3 1 .2 5 2 7 .7 8 2 8 .9 2 3 3 .2 0 2 7 .6 7 2 9 .0 5 2 8 .0 8 2 7 .3 0 3 2 .5 3 3 4 .0 7 3 5 .4 8 3 4 .7 8 3 1 .2 5
A v e r a g e F / N # 3 F o lio S h e e t e r M a c h in e Ef f ic ie n c y 5 7 .8 7 5 5 .3 0 6 0 .4 9 5 2 .4 4 5 4 .0 8 5 1 .6 4 4 9 .9 7 7 3 .1 7 4 7 .7 5 2 9 .5 4 5 6 .1 4 4 7 .4 4 3 4 .1 1
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Production – Sorter Waste Efficiency
Reason is not submitted yet Formula: Before MES After MES
Sorter Waste Efficiency =
Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
Total Waste in Sorter Area /
Total Sheet into Sorter Area Average 19.40 17.46
C/V#1 28.32 24.41
C/V#3 27.87 30.09
F/N#1 9.74 10.28
F/N#3 11.68 6.57
A v e r a g e S o r t e r W a s t e E f f ic ie n c y
0
10
15
Percentage
20
25
30
35
40
45
A v erage 1 6 .5 3 2 0 .4 7 1 9 .7 4 1 9 .4 9 2 3 .5 6 2 0 .5 2 2 2 .3 8 1 6 .9 7 1 4 .9 6 1 6 .7 3 1 9 .2 0 1 8 .6 1 1 2 .9 6
- . C /V # 1 2 3 .7 3 3 8 .5 8 3 4 .0 3 3 1 .0 3 3 8 .5 5 2 2 .7 1 3 1 .7 7 2 1 .5 8 1 2 .9 0 2 2 .2 1 2 7 .2 7 2 6 .5 6 2 1 .5 9
- . C /V # 3 2 0 .2 5 2 1 .6 4 2 7 .5 8 2 8 .2 2 3 3 .9 6 3 7 .4 0 3 5 .8 2 2 2 .7 3 2 3 .2 4 2 8 .8 7 3 2 .1 5 2 9 .2 4
- . F /N # 1 9 .9 4 1 1 .1 5 9 .7 4 8 .3 9 .0 5 1 0 .1 6 8 .0 7 1 0 .9 4 1 0 .2 9 8 .5 2 1 1 .9 2 1 1 .7 8 .9 9
- . F /N # 3 1 2 .2 1 1 0 .4 9 7 .5 9 1 0 .4 1 1 2 .6 9 1 1 .8 2 1 3 .8 7 1 2 .6 4 1 3 .4 1 7 .3 1 5 .4 7 6 .9 3 8 .3 1
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Production – Sheet through Sorter
Sheet through Sorter =
Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
Total Sheet into Sorter Area /
Total Sheet Produce by Average 24.42 29.90
Sheeter Machine
C/V#1 5.58 6.86
C/V#3 2.58 2.63
F/N#1 49.76 58.03
F/N#3 39.74 49.05
A v e r a g e S h e e t th r o u g h S o r te r
0
10
20
Percentage
30
40
50
60
70
A v eraged 2 7 .6 1 2 4 .8 4 2 2 .9 5 2 4 .6 9 2 4 .7 2 2 4 .7 5 2 4 .5 0 2 1 .7 6 2 3 .9 4 2 8 .9 9 2 9 .4 2 2 9 .2 5 4 2 .4 2
- . C /V # 1 5 .3 2 7 .5 2 6 .1 9 5 .6 4 5 .5 0 6 .3 5 5 .3 2 4 .1 4 4 .2 5 7 .3 3 9 .0 8 6 .5 2 4 .5 1
- . C /V # 3 3 .4 4 2 .8 7 2 .3 2 2 .4 5 2 .8 3 2 .7 8 2 .5 5 1 .9 4 2 .0 6 2 .3 6 2 .2 2 3 .3
- . F /N # 1 5 8 .6 8 4 8 .4 9 4 1 .9 7 4 4 .5 1 5 3 .1 7 4 4 .8 5 1 .1 4 5 0 .3 9 5 4 .6 6 5 6 .7 9 5 6 .5 1 5 9 .4 5 9 .4
- . F /N # 3 4 2 .9 9 4 0 .4 6 4 1 .3 1 4 6 .1 5 3 7 .3 8 4 5 .0 6 3 8 .9 7 3 0 .5 8 3 4 .8 1 4 9 .4 7 4 9 .8 8 4 7 .7 9 6 3 .3 5
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT
Production – Intermediate Storage
Intermediate Storage =
Jan 05 - Sep 05 Oct 05 - Jan 06
Total Stock in Production Area
(Converting and Finishing) Average 26687.85 32321.67
C/V#1 14120.18 16015.11
C/V#3 1711.69 2712.31
F/N#1 6200.43 8172.93
F/N#3 4655.55 8132.53
In t e r m e d ia t e S t o r a g e
0
5000
10000
15000
Tonnage
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
T o t a l In t e r m e d ia t e S t o r a g e 2 5 6 2 8 .6 3 2 0 9 0 1 .3 4 2 5 6 5 9 .2 8 2 6 6 4 3 .9 9 3 2 5 0 8 .2 8 2 2 2 2 2 .1 0 2 2 7 4 6 .5 4 3 2 5 4 8 .3 2 3 1 3 3 2 .1 5 3 3 6 9 1 .1 3 3 0 6 3 0 .1 3 3 7 6 4 4 .3 4 3 4 1 8 3 .1 8
- . C /V # 1 1 0 9 7 6 .8 0 8 7 7 3 .6 0 1 1 7 6 3 .3 1 1 3 8 9 5 .2 9 1 9 4 1 0 .3 3 1 0 4 7 9 .1 8 1 1 4 9 4 .7 2 2 0 0 2 6 .3 3 2 0 2 6 2 .0 9 1 6 8 2 0 .7 3 1 1 3 3 4 .9 5 1 7 1 9 8 .3 0 1 8 7 0 6 .4 7
- . C /V # 3 3 2 7 2 .3 9 7 7 3 .0 4 2 1 5 0 .9 4 1 3 7 1 .8 7 1 9 5 4 .8 8 8 1 4 .1 5 3 5 0 .8 7 2 5 3 2 .9 5 2 1 8 4 .1 4 3 0 2 9 .6 6 2 8 6 6 .5 7 2 2 4 0 .6 9
- . F /N # 1 7 6 1 1 .0 8 6 7 5 9 .6 5 7 0 4 4 .5 5 5 9 1 8 .8 5 2 1 9 .6 8 6 4 2 7 .6 1 6 5 4 9 .7 3 5 7 9 1 .3 8 4 4 8 1 .3 7 6 9 7 5 .9 7 8 3 6 0 .4 6 8 7 4 0 .6 7 8 6 1 4 .6 3
- . F /N # 3 3 7 6 8 .3 5 7 4 5 9 5 .0 4 8 4 7 0 0 .4 8 1 5 4 5 8 .0 3 2 5 9 2 3 .3 8 9 4 5 0 1 .1 6 4 4 3 5 1 .2 2 1 4 1 9 7 .6 6 6 4 4 0 4 .5 4 6 6 8 6 4 .7 7 1 8 0 6 8 .1 5 5 9 4 6 4 .6 7 8 6 8 6 2 .0 8 3
eUCALYPTUS PROJECT

MES Impact Analysis (Production)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

MES Impact Analysis (Production)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MES Impact Analysis (Production)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

eUCALYPTUS PROJECT

MES Implementation at PT. IKPP - Perawang

MES Impact Analysis

Quotation to Confirmation Lead Time = Inq to Quo 1.30 2.30

Before MES After MES

Before MES After MES

15 Before MES After MES

Before MES After MES

Before MES After MES

Before MES After MES

Before MES After MES

70 Before MES After MES

Ja n -0 5 Fe b -0 5 Mar-05 A pr-05 May -05 Ju n -0 5 J u l- 0 5 A ug-05 Nov -05 Dec -05 Ja n -0 6

20.00 Before MES After MES

Ja n -0 5 Fe b -0 5 Mar-05 A pr-05 May -05 Ju n -0 5 J u l- 0 5 A ug-05 Nov -05 Dec -05 Ja n -0 6

2.00 Before MES After MES

Ja n -0 5 Fe b -0 5 Mar-05 A pr-05 May -05 Ju n -0 5 J u l- 0 5 A ug-05 Nov -05 Dec -05 Ja n -0 6

Formula: Before MES After MES

25000 PPM#1 817.64 310.13

Before MES After MES

C/V#1 39.70 45.24

F/N#3 55.86 44.37 20

You might also like