OEE improvement value

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 21 ноя 2024

Комментарии • 3

  • @JasperBoers
    @JasperBoers 7 месяцев назад +1

    Always a good discussion. Amazing to see that we still use Availability - Performance - Quality indicators. Who started this? These categories are not understood, not actionable, owned by a diverse group of functions ... useless in every way. Good categories link losses to one owner, who uses one dedicated tool, who owns the loss intelligence.

    • @TomMentink
      @TomMentink  7 месяцев назад

      Hi Jasper, totally agree - I don't like the A-P-Q split for OEE either, but it's one that's used a lot 🤷‍♂
      One of the things I advise people to always take into account is to define which time losses are planned vs not planned - and these aren't even categories, it's a simple matter of what does your planning department explicitly define vs what just happens at more or less random moments: ruclips.net/video/vruTx66L78U/видео.htmlsi=O3x54aE0eY97Jie8
      And there's a whole set of more detailed OEE categories (as you know well, I know that much😉). This video (ruclips.net/video/lDEd5muY7cU/видео.htmlsi=PuCY4CtbiFD2SkTF) goes into my reasons for wanting to split out OEE categories - having dedicated owners and tools per category is an important reason, as is the time scale at which I think you should be looking at these categories (e.g. speed losses are something operators can act on on an hourly basis, while setup standard times are something you'd probably want to reduce with organised teams working off a quarterly or yearly improvement roadmap).
      Hope those two videos give a more nuanced view and they might be a better starting point for a discussion that will truly benefit the community with your experience and insights 😃

  • @BUDWEIZER777
    @BUDWEIZER777 Месяц назад

    Wage slavery