Perspectives on Material Handling Practice

Papers the in the Perspectives Handling series have appeared 1992 in conference the present. proceedings As such of Material Institute between and they provide a point of reference as to how the industry is changing as well as insight into accepted practice during this period. In many cases the authors credited have either changed jobs or are no longer in the industry. Some companies as well have been the subject of mergers or reorganization with a new corporate identity.

Successful Maintenance Practices at Abbott Laboratories, Ross Product Division Tracking, Measuring and Trending to Optimize System Performance
by Michael S. Power Principal Analyst Abbott Laboratories, Ross Products Division 625 Cleveland Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43215

ABSTRACT:

As new systems begin to age, and as business models migrate away from initial system design parameters; aggressive and well defined tracking, measuring and trending of the system environment will make the difference between a profitable system and a system which becomes a burden to manage and operate. This presentation will list and examine key measurables and schemes of trending, tracking and managing an AS/RS (automated storage and retrieval) system.

INTRODUCTION:

During the late 1960s, new AS/RS systems were built for many of the leading companies in the United States and Europe. The basis for their operation was system thruput and the business models for the companies they served. However, as time passes, systems begin to move away from their initial design parameters; business needs press the parameters closer to their design limits and most of the time, outside of optimum performance standards. The AS/RS systems start to be difficult to manage, and predicting their thruput becomes more difficult; the further from the initial design their software and hardware are stretched. Its their environment which causes system designers, maintenance personnel, and system managers to look for methods of determining how efficient their system is performing.

8720 Red Oak Boulevard Suite 201

Charlotte, North Carolina 28217-3992

Perspectives on Material Handling Practice Page 1 of 9

In the current business philosophy of customer service, system performance is being measured by how well a system delivers the right material, to the right place, at the right time, in the right quantity, at the lower cost. This the five finger rule of customer service. Looking at individual pieces of the system will give a limited picture of the overall interaction and performance of the WHOLE system. All pieces must be addressed or insignificant looking parameters which greatly impact the system will be overlooked. Gathering data and translating this data into information and trending is the focus of this presentation. The initial expected and predictable thruput and system parameters is the basis (baseline) on which continued trending is based. If the system is considered an integrated environment of many inter-dependent pieces, then continued tracking will lead to significant and accurate information which is meaningful for system trending, management and business analysis.

BASIS OF COMPARISON: Many existing AS/RS systems were based on material handling simulations. This simulations (some simple, some complex) addressed the system parameters and needs as defined in the original business model. They usually have parameters about system thruput such as: Number of pallets stored Number of pallets retrieved Number if internal moves (intermediate stands, scanners, etc.) Number of AGVs (auto-guided vehicles) Number of SRM (storage/retrieval machines - called cranes) Time associated with all events Type of distribution of events (averages are a BAD way to define events) People associated with the operating system Order mix and loading of work The more complex and accurate the original simulation, the easier it is to identify data for analysis and trending of the system. The important issue with the initial simulation is to validate its accuracy. This is done normally by a thruput acceptance test, where system parameters are consistently set and the system output measured. The results are compared to the simulation. If actual data is 96% of the simulation, the model and initial parameters are considered accurate. If the system was not simulated or if the simulation is not accurate, then you can either accept earlier data as the basis (baseline) or you can start capturing data and set a baseline based on 12 months data (the length will be discussed later.) Again, distributions of data are recommended, but a baseline can be determined by using averages or standard deviations if the system is not complex. One approach which will ALWAYS bring about skewed data is gut feel. This approach is based on how a person perceives a system, and is usually skewed in their overall knowledge of the system and all its inter-dependent parameters. The everyday users of the system gain a gut feel daily, but even this data is skewed by gradual changes in the system over time. This is much like a story about a frog. If you place a frog in a pan of nice warm water and slowly raise the temperature of the water over a long period of time, the frog will stay in the pan until it boils, and the frog dies. However, a new frog can be placed in hot water and it will immediately jump out because it can determine the difference. One method of validating a system where gut feel has set the tone and management of the system, is to get a fresh person to watch the system periodically for a short period of time and to then have this person record all the items they see which appear to require attention. Based on this list, initial data tracking and trending can begin.

SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS:

8720 Red Oak Boulevard Suite 201

Charlotte, North Carolina 28217-3992

Perspectives on Material Handling Practice Page 2 of 9

Many of the system constraints are key tracking and reading parameters. In the system at Ross, picking (both forward and reverse) are systems defined thruput parameters. They were initial built into the simulation with much effort given to AGY positioning and scheduling to handle the events associated with picking. In 1984, our business was mainly pallet business with moderate picking. (80% full pick, 5% reverse pick) However, due to changes in the market and continued pressure from our customers the business changed. Instead of trucks full of pallets, the customers wanted fewer cases on a truck, delivered to them more frequently. The division responded by moving away from public warehouses and migrated the work back to the plant warehouses (which became DCs.). This change caused picking performance to increase significantly, finally in 1990 to a point outside the upper limit of the initial simulation for the AS/RS. When this occurred, AS/RS thruput began to erode., and prediction of actual thruput for the system was impossible. Two things were immediately required. 1. A new simulation was needed which addresses the systems new operating constraints. 2. Inter-dependent measurement of the AS/RS system was required so the simulation would have an accurate operational parameter.

WHAT TO MEASURE? The system at Ross is an average system consisting of 8 AS/RS cranes, 16 AGVs, 6 output conveyer stations, 2 pick tunnels, an automated stretchwrap machine, a reverse pick stand, QA sampling and an automated monorail (input from the plant.) Everybody could see from daily activity that system performance was eroding; but no one could get a handle on what were the constraining factors in the system. Initially some shot in the dark changes were made to the AGV scheduler. This resulted in several thousand dollars spent with results all worse than leaving the system configured in its original parameters. Finally, it was determined that not knowing all the interdependencies, was moving the system constraints as parameters were tweaked. A tough decision was made (which was not easily considered.) All definable, measurable parameters would be tracked and trended until enough data could be transformed into information for loading a new simulation. The list was extensive. Crane Performance: The number and type of errors, exact time stamp of the error (to be compared to other events later), how many maintenance personnel were working on the errors, the speeds and operational performance of the cranes, and finally, the number and type of cycles (store, retrieve, dual) the cranes performed compared to the percentage of bin utilization. All these parameters were graphed together. (This is a very busy graph which I cannot show in this presentation.) Results, in-determinant.

AGV Performance The number of AGVs on-line, their errors by vehicle, their position on the floor when the error occurred, battery changes, down-time, number of empty moves to either parking or to get a load, number of AGVs in a floor zone at times of an error, and percent of parked vehicles were all measured. Their analysis and results were in-determinant, but several people commented on how often a vehicle was parked and maybe we should do something about this. Again this was a gut feel type of approach. System Utilization In this category we tracked loads at all the P&Ds with a time stamp (the time stamp came later in the analysis - so we could determine distributions, initial averages and set event times were done for the thruput test.) The number of interdependent moves were measured (these were moves from picking to wrap, monorail to sizer, etc.) and their

8720 Red Oak Boulevard Suite 201

Charlotte, North Carolina 28217-3992

Perspectives on Material Handling Practice Page 3 of 9

relationship to other system loading was captured. Order mix and order release to the system was tracked (again for distribution purposes). Bin utilization and capacity, wait times for scheduling of the events, and finally manpower and system CPU performance and loading were all tracked. All individual comparisons were in-determinant.

TOUCHES: One the day in 1989, I went to the AS/RS on a Saturday. My 12 year old daughter was with me. She had seen several of the AS/RS systems I have worked with, but on this day we had a lot of activity on the floor. Picking, loading, unloading, AGV and crane movement - everything was going were it should. My daughter commented Dad, for an automated system, you have to do a lot of work to make it run! As I stood there, I noticed we had every person assigned to the system doing their job, working in and out of the system. They were picking, loading, unloading, scanning, identifying materiel and generally busy everywhere. She was right!! This observation led to a conversation with a maintenance crewleader, the system analyst, the supervisors and the warehouse manager. It was determined that measuring touches in the system would be an indicator of overall system activity. A touch was considered an event where someone or something touched or moved material. In the next couple of days, this idea was expanded to including preparing for touch, and leaving a touch. The data began to take some meaning. By measuring the overall touches in the system, we began to see a point where more touches could not be handled by the system, even if they were successfully attempted or completed by humans.

TRACKING: Now the basis for looking at the overall system (touches) was producing some very interesting data, the next step was to determine what touches needed to be tracked. Tracking brings about three questions: 1. How long a period (frequency and sample?) 2. What media should be used to track? 3. Should I track everything measured? The real question is do I have all the data, is it too much, too little or insignificant? To help in answering this question, a return to the original simulation parameters was made. What were the key parameters associated with the original system? These parameters were analyzed against touch criteria, and a list of simulation touches was made. In addition, we discovered that a length of time for touch might have some bearing, so we decided to include another parameter along with the touch, its time duration. The decision to look at time was driven by a crane and AGV utilization. How long a period? It took 5.5 years for the system parameter to move outside their original design. We had struggled for 1.5 years deciding what to track. How long should we measure the touches? The answer to this question was determined by looking at the order frequency for the loading of the warehouse. The MIS department sorted out all the orders by customer and frequency and determined that 95% of the time, orders cycled every 14 days. This meant our tracing cycle would be for 14 days. However, since our business is very conservative, we determined to go through multiple cycles looking for consistency and repeatability (similar to validation requirements of our manufacturing process.) The length of time was set. What media should be used to report the tracking data? Many AS/RS systems have standard reports. These reports include: crane utilization and errors, AGV utilization and errors, rack utilization by zone, and events associated with P&Ds (pick up and delivery stands) of the system. The reports are system generated using data from a 24 hour period, however, they only list the events and the usual analysis of these reports are averages and sums, with little account given to the time duration and inter-relationship

8720 Red Oak Boulevard Suite 201

Charlotte, North Carolina 28217-3992

Perspectives on Material Handling Practice Page 4 of 9

of this event to another. What was needed was a method of seeing the whole picture, which included the time and duration of the event. Even if a time stamp was placed on the reports, the tendency was to average or sum report data. The reports were used to determine a number of events, but soon it was seen that a better information media was required. The MIS department suggested reading the file manger journal log and reporting in 30 minute blocks the overall number of touches. This was great, except for looking at crane errors and AGV inserts. An event was needed to capture the end of a touch so that Its overall time could be determined. To get this, the MIS analyst inserted into each crane restart command, a start/stop start which could easily capture and distinguished from an auto-restart of the crane (which was part of the system). The same was utilized for the AGVs. At insert, a semi/insert/semi/auto was automatically installed in the journal. We now had access to touches which could be dumped to file and sorted. The next obstacle was where to manipulate the data. The AS/RS ran on a DEC PDP 11/84 (not much more power than an IBM XT desktop computer), and concerns were raised that additional processing would effect CPU performance (which was already at 98%.) Moving the data to the off-line DEC machine was an option, but the programs to convert the data and allow for ad hoc sorting and reporting was non-existent. A decision was made to export the file (generated from the journal file) to a PC based relational dB (database) which could be sorted and manipulated as required. This proved to be an excellent approach. Since a PC was used, the data could be charted, tabulated, sorted, stacked, and presented to the user in meaningful charts and diagrams. The beginning of a true analysis was in place. Should I track everything? The short and hopefully non-confrontational answer is YES!. It is the interdependencies of the events which are the key to tracking and trending data. No event (or touch) should be considered insignificant. An example - If an AGV errors, the floor system records the original error and the AGV effected. A maintenance person would remove the vehicle which freed the floor. However, we found that if the AGV was on its way to pick up a load and did not arrive, another vehicle would not be dispatched to replace the removed vehicle until a load timed-out. As we began to report and look at the data, several long time wait to touch to occur conditions were seen. These would not have been discovered if we did not look at all events in the system. One modification which was installed in the system was to track and log events on the audit trail which were not readily seen anywhere else In the system. These included IMT/AMT changes, AGVs to semi for manual intervention, release of orders to the system, close of orders, last pallet delivered to a ship rail, last pick done, last pick pallet to a ship rail, and time an RF device was locked into an order for picking. A couple of groupings emerged. They were; Order life cycles Full pallet cycle Pick pallet cycle AGV move to pick up AGV move to park Cranes pickup, retrieve, dual cycles. All of the above paths were measures against criteria of touches and the impact of the touch on an overall system. The data was collected for 28 days and then concluded, since most questions needed for a new simulation were answered.

SIMULATION REVISITED: The next step in the process was to take all the information and data (touches) gathered over a 28 day period and to generate data for the building of a new simulation. The technology base for the simulation (Auto-mod) had matured from the initial work done for the AS/RS and the original model was scrapped; a new simulation was started. The data was broken into three areas:

8720 Red Oak Boulevard Suite 201

Charlotte, North Carolina 28217-3992

Perspectives on Material Handling Practice Page 5 of 9

1. Movement (crane, AGV, monorail) 2. Events (touches associated with P&Ds and intermediate devices - wrap sizer) 3. Order handling and mix A distribution loading was determined for all three areas. (Again straight averages and set times during the hour are very bad ways to define a simulation.) Some help was obtained from our R&D area using SAS (Statistical analysis system) on a PC to define the distributions and anomalies for the simulation. Included in the movement numbers were errors and human intervention factors based on the gathering data. The events were tabulated and a distribution thruput defined for the simulation based on touches and actual anomalies seen in the system. An example of this is queues and times associated with clearing a shipping conveyor and loading a truck. Finally, the order mix (number of full pallets versus partially packed pallet) was determined and a distribution loading assigned to the simulation. With all parameters identified, the simulations were started. A base line was ran and tuned until the results of the simulation were close to what actually was seen on the floor ( a 98% accuracy rate was finally achieved for the simulation.) Once the simulation was validated, then a baseline was established which allowed for predictions of what would happen if the system in a certain loading and changes to the operational parameters were seen. The simulation became a predictive tool for management to determine the overall effect on the system in certain conditions were seen. (More about using this tool later in the next section of the presentation.)

TREADING Now that a method, media and tool were in place to monitor an gather data, the next step was to establish key parameters for monitoring, reporting and trending the AS/RS system. The start of this effort was to use the simulation to predict AS/RS performance as parameters were changed. Each simulation run gave information as the interdependence of the system, and several of the parameters which ere initially tracked and gathered appeared to have little effect on the system. The goal of all the simulation runs was to identify KEY parameters to measure and report for management understanding. In the past, management had looked in their crystal ball to determine system resource requirements such as headcount, and maximum loading of the system. Even though the thruput of the system was rated at 100 pallets in, 100 pallets out with 30 picked pallets and 10 reverse pallets per hour, the system basically achieved 55 pallets average (I dont like averages) an hour. Each night for three weeks a new simulation was defined and the PC left to run overnight offering a morning a 30-35 hour picture of AS/RS activity. As the system was skewed to either high inputs or high outputs, the system parameters began to break down. The simulation pressed the management team in the AS/RS to try to make some sense of all the tech stuff which was presented by the simulations. It was decided to address trending in the following manner: Who is the intended audience? What do we report? How can we avoid information skewing, and do we want to indicate skewed environments? Is the trending believable (can you get a gut feel from the data?) What period and frequency should be reported? The initial audience was determined to be the operational personnel in the AS/RS and then eventually to the logistics and distribution management of the company. It was determined to report touches, movement activity, and order mix (the three main groupings in the simulation.) In addition, the error and activity reporting on the AGVs and cranes would be sent to maintenance for analysis and subsequent PMs, repairs, etc. Maintenance would use the information to predict liability of when to work around a crane or AGV so that repairs could be made. A known error would be allowed until an appropriate time to repair the error was set between maintenance and operations.

8720 Red Oak Boulevard Suite 201

Charlotte, North Carolina 28217-3992

Perspectives on Material Handling Practice Page 6 of 9

KEY FACTORS: Several key factors were discovered for the AS/RS system, which became rules of thumb for quick analysis of the overall system performance and efficiency. They were: Total number of touches divided by automation input, picking Number of picks and time of day the were assigned Number of reverse picks compared to forward picks Number of AGV move to touch actions Based on the parameters, the overall performance for the AS/RS system could be tracked against a known standard (determined from simulation.) This meant if the orders to the AS/RS were outside the known parameters, the overall time to complete the orders could be quickly determined and the impact of the orders on the AS/RS efficiency (without waiting until tomorrow for the simulation to be complete. Headcounts and overtime were quickly determined, so that enough resources were available, and not too many were asked to work overtime. Friday night and Saturday work schedules would reflect actual manpower and effort required to cover the work (instead of the guess which one was done previously.) The most important feature of all this effort was the ability for people to adjust work and resources on the system to optimize system efficiency. In the past, when outputs were heavy, the floor personnel would throttle inputs at the receiving conveyor and monorail thinking the extra AGV resource would be used to handle the outputs. Also a change was made to the software to dual retrieve loads (by the cranes) to the output P&D so that once an AGV picked up a load, a load waiting on the shuttle could be placed on the output saving retrieval time. During both simulations, both of these thoughts proved to be false (again letting your gut feel determine how to run an AS/RS is not good.) The most productive action was to loading receiving and allow AGVs to pick up loads and to take them to the input of the cranes. Next the AGV would go to the output and get a retrieved load and move to reverse pick or the outputs. The simulation and actual results on the floor indicated an 18% thruput increase in efficiency in times of heavy input and output loading of the system. The key trending factor was AGV move to touch waits which were almost eliminated in the above scenario. Another factor was wait time for the pallets being retrieved from the pick tunnel. Trending revealed two things to be changed. First the order mix was moving toward 8 oz and plastic product (which is mainly in pick tunnel 2), so the item assignments were changed to balance the loading between tunnel 1 and 2. Secondly, the RF picking scheme was modified slightly so the pickers had some latitude to be more user driven than system driven. This allowed pickers to work around wait times and congested conditions so that picking continued, and the wait times for the pick tunnel P&Ds was reduced. The system basically continued in this mode for 2.5 years.

UPGRADE: The simulation indicated that in 1994-95, the increase and extra demands on the system for picking would require the software to be greatly enhanced to insure the continued performance of the system. At the same time, the division logistics department was working with a software vendor to modify and install a warehouse management system for the conventional warehouse for Ross. A decision was made to also adopt a new software package for AS/RS and abandon the DEC system currently being used. Because of the extensive work which was done for the second simulation effort, several key factors which contributed to the continued de-gradation of the AS/RS system where known. These factors had been tracked, and trended. In some cases the factors were key reportables associated with on-going trending of the AS/RS system. A major decision was made to limit the touches and non-productive touches which existed in the current system. In addition, it was determined that as much data as practical would be kept on the new system for further data collection, tracking, evaluation and trending.

8720 Red Oak Boulevard Suite 201

Charlotte, North Carolina 28217-3992

Perspectives on Material Handling Practice Page 7 of 9

The new system was PC based, with a relation database at its center (DB/2). It was also decided to slightly expand the warehouse trace capabilities of the new system to include a touch which changed inventory or requested a move. The system was broken into two pieces, a manager system for the overall management of orders and move requests in the system, and the automation controller for handling actual movement of AGVs and cranes. Bar-code scanning and PLC (programmable logic controller) integration was run through the automation controller. The new configuration allowed for initial tracking and trending of data from its first day, plus the change to a relational database enhanced the ability to extract ad hoc data based on new events being placed against the system.

RECOMMENDATIONS: Listed below are some recommendations which should be considered for tracking, trending, and monitoring an AS/RS system AGV and Crane Performance The cranes and AGVs should track errors, utilization, number of stores, retrieves, dual cycles, park time and move to work time. These are events which effect overall performance. Since they indicate if a crane or AGV is in the right place at the right event.

Order Handling In the system described above, the mix of product being picked versus full pallets of the product greatly effects system performance. In a customer service type company, the overall business trend is to provide more of what the customer wants in smaller quantities, on a more frequent basis. Touches This terminology as described in this document as an event where a product is touched and moved in a system. Touches are indications of events, and generally any system can only handle a finite number of events at a certain time. Touches are an indicator of how many of the possible events are being done. Also, it is recommended that touches be compared against potential touches to determine overall system utilization. This is a key reportable number which management can identify and remember.

SUMMARY: In conclusion tracking, trending, and monitoring the overall performance in an AS/RS system is not a gut feel activity. Simulations and data are required to see the overall impact on a system. Most systems are complex, and the interdependencies of the events will skew intuitive guesses of what a system constraint might be. Remember the example of having more work placed on the receiving conveyor to set up more retrievals from the racks. The example indicates a situation where a gut feel went totally wrong. Validate the simulation so that everybody can depend on the accuracy of the model. PC based simulations are less expensive (compared to five years ago.) The PC and software cost is somewhere around $20,000, and can be setup and run by warehouse personnel who have only limited amount of MIS skills. Depend on the output of the simulation to do what if scenarios. In the new configuration, what-ifs are the simulations main function. Determine a few GOOD indicators for reporting and trending system performance. For example, use touches, order mix, manpower and picking accuracy (which are the values Ross has determined to reflect the overall business direction.) In the future, customer service measures are being considered (i.e. the right product, at the right place, at

8720 Red Oak Boulevard Suite 201

Charlotte, North Carolina 28217-3992

Perspectives on Material Handling Practice Page 8 of 9

the right time, in the right quantity.) Whatever values are reported, make sure management understands these to be KEY values, not a total picture of the complexity of the system. Finally, monitoring and trending on an on-going basis will setup credibility for management as they look at changes which will be or are currently occurring in an AS/RS system accurately, is a great value to an organization.

8720 Red Oak Boulevard Suite 201

Charlotte, North Carolina 28217-3992

Perspectives on Material Handling Practice Page 9 of 9