Assignment 1:

Submitted to: Dr. Muhammad Nafea

two mini cases

Student Name: Ahmed Ashraf Yehia

and analytical
questions
a) Design capacity= 400 tumblers/hours *8 hours = 3200 tumblers/ day.

b) ineffective time =0.25 hr+0.25 hr+0.5 hour=1 hour

effective time= 8 hour – 1 hour= 7 hour
effective capacity=400 tumblers/hours * 7 hour =2800 tumblers/ day.
In percentage: effective capacity/ Design capacity= (2800 /3200) *100=87.5%

c) actual output = total production per five days per week / 5 =10000/5= 2000
tumblers/ day.

d) Efficiency = actual output /effective capacity= (2000/2800) *100=71.43 %

e) Utilization = actual output /Design capacity= (2000/3200) *100=62.5%

a) Design capacity =160 frying pans*2 shifts=320 flying pans / working day
Design capacity per week (5 days only ignoring 2 days off) =320*5 =1600 frying
pans
Design capacity per four weeks=1600 *4=6400 Frying pans

b) Effective time per week=2 shifts *8 hour per shift*5 Days (after assuming that
working days are 5 days /week and ignoring 2 days due to holiday) =80 hours
Effective time per four weeks= 80 hours* 4 weeks=320 hours
Ineffective time per week = (0.2 hours for break*2 breaks*2 shifts*5 days) +2
hours for cleaning +1 hour weekly for meeting =7 hours
Ineffective time per four weeks=7 hours *4 =28 hours
Effective capacity per four weeks= [(320 -28) hour/4 weeks] *[20 frying pans
/hour]=5840 frying pans
Effective capacity per four weeks in percentage= Effective capacity/design
capacity=(5840/6400)*100=91.25
c) Actual output per four weeks=3500 frying pans (as given)
d) Efficiency = actual output /effective capacity= (3500/5840)*100=59.93%
e) Utilization = actual output /Design capacity=3500/6400=54.69%
f) 1-Design capacity per shift=160 frying pans
2- Effective time per shift=8 hours
Ineffective time per week = (0.2 hours for break*2 breaks) +[(2 hours for cleaning
weekly +1 hour weekly for meeting )/5 days/2shifts]=0.7 hours
Effective capacity per four weeks= [(8-0.7) hour/shift] *[20 frying pans /hour] =146
frying pans
Effective capacity per four weeks in percentage= Effective capacity/design
capacity=(146/160)*100=91.25%
3- Actual output per week=875 frying pans
Actual output per one day=875/5=175
Actual output per shift=175/2=87.5 frying pans
4- Efficiency = actual output /effective capacity=(87.5/146)*100=59.93%
5- Utilization = actual output /Design capacity=(87.5/160)*100=54.68 %

Question 1

a. It is necessary to conduct a thorough analysis of both the theoretical

capabilities that were envisioned during the design phase and the actual
realization of these capabilities in operational settings to comprehend the subtle
elements that lead to the discrepancy between design capacity and effective
capacity. The primary factor is technological limits, which include those related to
hardware, software, and infrastructure. Furthermore, human variables can have a
major influence on the actual functioning of the system, including people skills
and training. The effective implementation and utilization of a system can also be
influenced by organizational and cultural variables. To understand the complex
interactions between a system's actual performance and its imagined potential, it
is imperative to acknowledge these elements
b. In real-world operational circumstances, disparities between design capacity
and effective capacity might appear through a variety of pathways. When
particular components run less efficiently than they should, performance
bottlenecks can occur, and the system becomes inefficient as a whole. Unexpected
demand fluctuations, including abrupt spikes or lulls, can put a system under more
stress than it is intended to handle, leading to either overload or
underperformance. Operational situations are also impacted by maintenance
concerns, such as the frequency and efficiency of maintenance. The physical
effects of theoretical-practical differences on daily operations are highlighted by
these divergences, which can cause interruptions, delays, or even system
breakdowns.
c. Differences in effective capacity and design have a variety of effects on
organizational effectiveness and strategic decision-making. Such differences can
lead to inefficient use of resources, higher operational expenses, and lower
productivity. Deteriorated performance or service disruptions may have a negative
impact on customer satisfaction. Organizations must consider the possible gaps
between design and effective capacity when planning for scalability, projecting
future needs, and allocating resources to technology from a strategic perspective.
An organization's capability to adjust to changes in the market and seize
possibilities for expansion may be hampered by inaccurate capacity estimates,
which can result in less-than-ideal decision-making. Maintaining a competitive
advantage, encouraging innovation, and assuring long-term organizational success
all depend on addressing these inequalities. Prioritizing strategies that match
theoretical capacity with effective capacity is essential for strategic decision-
makers.
Question 2: Analyze the array of techniques that operations managers deploy to
address bottleneck operations, delving into the nuanced strategies and
methodologies
The slowest or most constrained areas of a system, procedure, or workflow are
known as bottlenecks, and they have a detrimental effect on growth, production,
and the bottom line.
Operations managers use a variety of approaches to deal with operations that are
experiencing bottlenecks, including sophisticated tactics and procedures to
maximize system performance. A basic strategy is capacity planning and
forecasting, in which managers examine past data to anticipate future needs to
proactively reallocate resources and avoid bottlenecks. At the same time,
operations managers use methods such as value stream analysis and process
mapping to explore the nuances of process flows. They minimize possible
restrictions and optimize resource allocation by recognizing bottlenecks and
simplifying procedures. This entails not just the operational procedures but also
the incorporation of information technology to improve coordination and
communication across various phases of the process.
The strategic application of automation and technology is another essential
component of bottleneck management. Operations managers use cutting-edge
technologies to improve process efficiency and lessen reliance on human labor.
Automated systems can do repeated activities quickly, reducing the possibility of
human delays creating bottlenecks. Operations managers give continuous
improvement techniques like Kaizen priority over technology innovations. By
promoting a culture of continuous improvement, they enable groups to locate
bottlenecks and remove them with little, gradual adjustments, which builds
operational framework flexibility and resilience. All things considered, the fusion
of these subtle tactics enables operations managers to design flexible and
adaptable systems that can successfully negotiate and alleviate bottlenecks when
they appear in dynamic operational contexts.
Among the techniques employed is inventory management, Keeping your
inventory at an ideal level can help prevent bottlenecks. Operations managers
deliberately control inventory levels to minimize the impact of delays brought on
by bottlenecks and guarantee that goods are accessible when needed
Question 3:Critically assess the effectiveness of each technique in mitigating
operational constraints and enhancing throughput. Furthermore, scrutinize the
inherent trade-offs associated with these approaches, emphasizing which, if
any, fails to yield a reduction in throughput time despite ostensibly addressing
bottlenecks.
Every method that operations managers use to remove bottlenecks has
advantages and disadvantages of its own. While capacity planning and forecasting
are useful tools for matching resources to demand, they may not be able to
predict abrupt changes in capacity, which might result in overcapacity or
undercapacity. Process flow optimization may help increase overall system
efficiency by locating and removing bottlenecks. However, if the process is not
controlled thoroughly, there is a chance that new bottlenecks can inadvertently
arise. Although inventory management reduces bottlenecks, it has trade-offs with
capital tied, storage expenses, and obsolescence risk.
By cutting down on processing times, technology and automation provide a very
effective solution, but there may be major trade-offs in terms of initial investment
costs and possible job displacement. Rapid demand adaptability is made possible
by flexible manufacturing systems, however there may be difficulties due to their
complicated installation and high starting costs. Although they need time and
money for training, cross-training and skill development lessen the possibility of
skill-related bottlenecks but may not completely remove skill-related limitations.
Scheduling and queuing theory minimize wait times and maximize resource
allocation, but they may encounter opposition in practice, especially from
employees used to the current schedules.
Although the technique necessitates a long-term commitment, continuous
improvement through Kaizen promotes a culture of constant optimization.
Additionally, tiny improvements may not have an instant impact. While
collaborative decision-making improves overall responsiveness to bottlenecks, it
may also cause delays in the decision-making process and coordination issues.
Although scenario planning might improve readiness for unanticipated obstacles,
it can also require a significant investment of time and energy for study, and it
may not be possible to anticipate every possible situation.