Reference no: EM131150231

The following data consists of the actual time used and potential (the best time possible for this review process)to complete each step in the review process. The actual times are based on the review of 30 projects. The potential times are subjective engineering judgment estimates.

Table: Basic Data Review for Construction Project Equipment Arrangement

			Cycle Time (hours)
Step	Description	Actual	Potential	Difference
1	Read basic data package	4	4	-
2	Write, type, proof, sign, copy, and distribute cover letter	21.9	0.5	21.4
3	Queue	40	0	40
4	Lead engineer calls key people to schedule meeting	4	0.25	3.75
5	Write, type, proof, sign, copy, and distribute confirmation letter	25.4	2.1	23.3
6	Hold meeting; develop path forward and concerns	4	4	-
7	Project leader and specialist develop missing information	12	12	-
8	Determine plant preferred vendors	12	12	-
9	Review notes from meeting	12	12	-
10	Resolve open issues	106	104	2
11	Write, type, proof, sign, copy, and distribute basic data acceptance letter	26.5	0.25	26.25
	Totals	267.8	151.1	116.7

Use the data in thetable above and answer the following questions in the space provided below:

1. What are the sources of value-added and non-value-added work in this process?

2. Where are the main opportunities to improve the cycle time of this process, with respect to both actual time used and the potential best times? What strategy would you use?

3. Step 10:Resolve Open Issues required 104 hours (potential) versus 106 hours (actual). Is there an OFI here? Why or why not? If so, how would you attack it?

4. What do you think are the most difficult critical issues to deal with when designing a sound cycle time study such as this one?