Tag: OEE Training Online

How to Calculate the Quality Factor for OEE

How to correctly calculate the Quality Factor for OEE

Most people assume that the quality factor for Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is determined by simply calculating the yield of good parts from the total parts produced.  Unfortunately, this logic does not hold true when calculating the quality factor beyond the individual part or process.

We will show you how to correctly calculate the Quality factor and determine a truly weighted result that is consistent with the definition of Overall Equipment Effectiveness.  Although OEE itself does not have a unit of measure, it is based on the effective use of time.

The Quality Factor Defined

Although OEE itself is expressed as a percentage, all of the individual OEE factors are based on time.  Yes, even the quality factor:

The quality factor measures the percentage of time that was used to make or manufacture an acceptable quality product at rate or standard.

We have witnessed too many organizations that attempt to immediately convert the Quality Factor into a Cost of Non-Quality, Parts / Million (PPM), or other type of metric.  This is not the intent of the quality factor from an overall equipment effectiveness perspective.  Again, OEE measures effective use of time.

While it is not our intent to delve into a cost of non-quality discussion, we agree that understanding the cost drivers is in the best interests of the company to minimize losses.  This includes any investment that must be made to improve OEE.

We would also encourage you to download a copy of our Excel spreadsheets (see the BOX file on the sidebar).  There are no charges or fees for downloading these files and we request that these products remain available as such.  Now, let’s move on to the Quality Factor.

Free Download ->>> Click here to download a copy of the example developed in this post! <<<-Free Download

Where did the time go?

By definition, OEE is used to determine how effectively the time for a given machine, process, or resource is used: 

  • Availability:  Planned (Scheduled) versus Unplanned downtime
  • Performance:  Standard versus Actual cycle time
  • Quality:  Value Added versus Non-Value Added time

All of the OEE factors pertain to time.  From our definition above, the factors are independent of people (labour) required, parts produced, defective product, or the value of these items.  However, when we review many OEE templates, and more specifically the quality factor calculation, the time element is lost.

The true Quality Factor formula

The simple yield calculation works for a single process or part number but not for multiple machines or part numbers.  A simple example will demonstrate the correct way to calculate the Quality factor for a single part.  We will expand on this simple example as we go along.  Click here to download your free copy of the spreadsheet used in this post.

Note:  We are using the standard rate for the Quality time calculations as the Availability and Performance factors already account for downtime and cycle time losses respectively.  Quality is based on the pure standard rate or cycle time only.

EXAMPLE:  Machine A – Production Summary

Part Number

Rate / Minute

Total Produced

Defective

Quantity

Yield %
Quantity

1

2

800

10

98.75%

Totals

——-

800

10

98.75%

Averages

2

800

10

98.75%

As we can see from the table above, machine A produces part number 1 at a standard rate of 2 parts / minute.  A total of 800 parts are produced of which 10 are defective and scrapped.  The simple yield formula will correctly calculate the Quality factor as:

Quality Yield = (800 – 10) / 800 = 790 / 800 = 98.75%

From an OEE perspective, however, our interest is not how many parts were scrapped, but rather, how much machine or process time did we lose by making them.  From our example, 10 defective parts results in a loss of 5 minutes: 

Lost Time = 10 parts / (2 parts / minute) = 5 minutes

The quality factor actually tells us how effectively the time was used to make good or acceptable parts.  From our example, the time required to make ALL parts at the standard rate is 400 minutes (800 parts / 2 parts / minute = 400).  Our Quality factor can easily be calculated as follows: 

  • Value Added Time = Total Time – Non-Value Added Time
  • = 400 – 5
  • = 395 minutes

Total Time (All Parts) = 400 minutes

Quality Factor = Value Added Time / Total Time
                               = 395 / 400
                               = 98.75%

Although the results in this case are the same, the method is uniquely different.  Since this is based on a single machine, the cycle times are cancelled in the formula as shown below:

= (800 – 10) / 2 parts per minute / (800 / 2 parts per minute)

The YIELD pitfall revealed:

Our calculation method becomes relevant when we start looking at the production of different parts running through the same machine or process.  The easiest way to demonstrate this is by extending our first example.

Let’s assume we are also using machine A to produce two additional part numbers.  The production data is summarized in the table below as follows:

EXAMPLE:  Machine A – Production Summary

Part Number

Rate / Minute

Total Produced

Defective

Quantity

Yield %
Quantity

1

2

800

10

98.75%

2

8

1600

160

90.00%

3

1

800

20

97.50%

Totals

——-

3200

190

94.06%

Averages

4

1067

63

95.42%

If we calculate the Quality factor for machine A, the simple yield formula will provide a misleading result.  Note that we’ve provided the process yield factor for each line item part number as we have already determined that the ime factors cancel for individual parts.

The average Yield % from the table above is 95.42%.  We will demonstrate that this result is also incorrect.  Remember, we’re interested in the percent of total time used to make a quality product (also known as Value Added Time).

The real question is, “What is the overall Quality factor for machine A?”  The simple yield formula would suggest the following:

Simple Yield Quality Factor = (3200 – 190) / 3200 = 3010/ 3200 = 94.06%

This percentage is misleading and – as we will demonstrate – the WRONG result.

Calculating the True Weighted Quality Factor

Let’s take the table from above and expand on it to reflect our TIME based calculations.  We will calculate the time required to produce all parts (Total Time) and the time lost to produce defective parts (Lost Time).  Remember, these times are calculated at the standard cycle time or rate.  The resulting table appears below:

EXAMPLE:  Machine A – Production Summary

Part Number

Rate / Minute

Total Produced

Total Time

Defective

Quantity

Lost Time

Yield %
Time

1

2

800

400

10

5

98.75%

2

8

1600

200

160

20

90.00%

3

1

800

800

20

20

97.50%

Totals

——-

3200

1400

190

45

96.79%

Averages

4

1067

467

63

15

95.42%

 From this table, we can quickly calculate the true weighted quality factor as follows:

           Quality Factor = Value Added Time / Total Time
                               = (1400 – 45) / 1400
                               = 1355 / 1400
                               = 96.79 %

Putting it ALL together

From the discussion above, we have combined the results into the table below:

EXAMPLE:  Machine A – Production Summary

Part Number

Rate / Minute

Total Produced

Total

Time

Defective

Quantity

Lost Time

Yield %
Quantity

Yield %
Time

Delta

1

2

800

400

10

5

98.75%

98.75%

0.00%

2

8

1600

200

160

20

90.00%

90.00%

0.00%

3

1

800

800

20

20

97.50%

97.50%

0.00%

Totals

——-

3200

1400

190

45

94.06%

96.79%

2.72%

Averages

4

1067

467

63

15

95.42%

95.42%

0.00%

The true weighted quality factor can be found in the Yield % Time column (96.79%).  This result fits the true definition of Overall Equipment Effectiveness. 

The table also shows that the differences between the methods can lead to a significant variance between the results (96.79% – 94.06% = 2.72%): 

  • = 94.06% (Simple)
  • = 95.42% (Average)
  • = 96.79 % (Weighted)

We can quickly prove which answer is correct quite easily.  Referring to the table below, the only factor that resulted in the correct time calculations is the Yield Time % factor (96.79%).  The table shows that the true Value Added Time or Earned Time is 1355 minutes and the total time lost due to defective parts is 45 minutes.  Exactly what we expected to find based on our earlier calculations.

Quality Factor – Validation Table – All Times are in minutes

Method

“Yield %”

Total Time

Earned

Lost Time

Delta Time

Yield Quantity %

94.06%

1400

1316.9

83.1

38.1

Average Yield %

95.42%

1400

1335.8

64.2

19.2

Yield Time %

96.79%

1400

1355.0

45.0

0.0

What does all this mean in terms of time?  The results shown in this table clearly demonstrate that a seemingly small delta of 2.72% between the different methods of calculating the Quality Factor can be significant in terms of time.  The Delta time indicated in the table is the difference between the calculated lost time for Method and the actually calculated lost time of 45 minutes.

If this machine was actually scheduled to run 450 minutes per shift on 2 shifts the results would be even more dramatic over the course of a year.  Assuming the machine is loaded with the same part mix and there are 240 working days per year:

Annual Working Time = 240 * 450 * 2 = 216,000 minutes

The following table summarizes the results on an annualized basis: 

Quality Factor – Annualized Results – All Times are in minutes

Method

“Yield %”

Total Time

Earned

Lost Time

Delta Time

Yield Quantity %

94.06%

216,000

203,169.6

12,830.4

5896.8

Average Yield %

95.42%

216,000

206,107.2

9892.8

2959.2

Yield Time %

96.79%

216,000

209,066.4

6933.6

0.0

The “Yield Quantity %” method indicates the actual lost time that could be incurred annually is 12830.4 minutes (28.51 shifts).  Relative to our “Yield Time %” method, this is overstated by 5896.8 minutes, the equivalent of just over 13 shifts.  Similarly, the “Average Yield %” method indicates a total lost time of 9892.8 minutes (21.98 shifts).  Relative to our “Yield Time %” method, this is overstated by 2959.2 minutes or approximately 6.6 shifts.  This further exemplifies the need to understand the correct way to calculate the Quality Factor.

Let’s continue to re-affirm the validity of our calculation method.

Individually Weighted Quality Factors

We will now show you how to calculate the individually weighted quality factors for each part number or line item.  The weighted “time based” quality factor is calculated using the following formula for each line item part number: 

Weighted Line Item = (Value Added Time)
Total Time for All Parts

Where, Value Added Time = Total Time – Lost Time

 We have simplified the table from our example to show the time related factors only.  The table showing the time weighted quality factors from our example is as follows:

Part Number

Rate / Minute

Total Produced

Total Time

Defective

Quantity

Lost Time

Yield %
Time

Weighted % Yield Time

1

2

800

400

10

5

98.75%

28.21%

2

8

1600

200

160

20

90.00%

12.86%

3

1

800

800

20

20

97.50%

55.71%

Totals

 

3200

1400

190

45

96.79%

96.79%

Averages

4

1067

467

63

15

95.42%

 

As we can see from the table, the sum of the “Weighted % Yield Time” percentages is the same as the “Yield % Time”.  The time based formula is once again validated.  We will now take this table one step further to reveal where the real opportunities are to improve the Quality Factor and Overall Equipment Effectiveness.

Improving the Quality Factor

The Yield % or the Weighted Time % do not provide any real indication of the contribution of each part number to the overall weighted quality factor.  We can see from the table that part numbers 2 and 3 both resulted in 20 minutes of lost time compared to part number 1 where only 5 minutes were lost.

Since part numbers 2 and 3 resulted in an equivalent loss of time, we would expect that they would also result in an equal contribution to improve the Quality Factor.  To demonstrate this and to appreciate the real improvement opportunity, we added two more columns to our table as shown below – “Weighted % Process Time” and “Yield % Opportunity”:

Machine A – Weighted Quality Factor – EXAMPLE  

Part Number

Total Time

Weighted

% Process Time

Lost Time

Value Added Time

Yield %
Time

Weighted % Yield Time

Yield % Opportunity

1

400

28.57%

5

395

98.75%

28.21%

0.36%

2

200

14.29%

20

180

90.00%

12.86%

1.43%

3

800

57.14%

20

780

97.50%

55.71%

1.43%

Totals

1400

100.00%

45

1355

96.79%

96.79%

3.21%

Averages

467

33.33%

15

452

95.42%

32.26%

1.07%

The weighted process time was calculated by dividing the process time for each part number by the Total Time.  Once again, we can validate our weighted Quality Time by multiplying the “Weighted % Process Time” by the “Yield %” for each line item. 

To make sure we understand the calculations involved, let’s work out one of the line items in the table.  For Part Number 1, 

  • Weighted % Process Time = 400 / 1400 = 28.57%
  • (1)  Weighted % Yield Time = 28.57% * 98.75% = 28.21%
  • (2)  Weighted % Yield Time = (400 – 5) / 1400 = 28.21 %

Note that we showed two ways to demonstrate the Weighted % Yield Time to once again validate the quality factor calculation method.

The opportunity to improve the OEE for the three part numbers is the difference between the Weighted Process Time and the Weighted Yield Time.  For Part Number 1,

            Improvement = 28.57% – 28.21% = 0.36%

Similarly, the improvements for part numbers 2 and 3 are as follows: 

  • Improvement Part Number 2 = 14.29% – 12.86% = 1.43%
  • Improvement Part Number 3 = 57.14% – 55.71% = 1.43%

Three Key Observations

  1. First, the results of the calculations are consistent the actual observed down time.
  2. Second, although the yields for part numbers 2 and 3 are significantly different, each has the same NET impact to the final OEE result.
  3. Third, when add the total “Yield % Opportunity” (3.21%) for all three part numbers to the total “Weighted % Yield Time” (96.79%), the result is 100%.

This last calculation once again demonstrates that the Quality Factor calculation presented here is consistent with the true definition of OEE.

The formula for the Quality Factor is:

Total Time to Produce Good Parts @ Rate / Total Time to Produce ALL Parts @ Rate

One Final Proof

Our method will produce a result that is consistent with the formula OEE = A * P * Q.  Using our example, it is clear that if Availability and Performance are both 100% and the Quality Factor is 96.79%, the final OEE for all parts will also be 96.79%.

Consistent with the definition of OEE, using our example, 96.79% of 1400 minutes is 1355 minutes.  This is the time that was used to make good or acceptable quality parts.  Similarly then, the time lost making all defective parts is 45 minutes (1400 – 1355 = 45).

The Impact to Operations

OEE is typically used by the Operations team for capacity planning, labour planning, and to determine how much time to schedule for a given resource to produce parts.  The above examples clearly demonstrate that even a small delta can have significant capacity, labour, and scheduling implications.  From this perspective it also becomes a relatively simple task to determine the direct labour costs associated with the production of defective parts.

Purchasing, Materials, Scheduling (Lead Times), Inventory (Stock), Finance, and Quality are all affected by inaccurate data and, in this case, OEE calculation errors.  Of course these errors are not just limited to the Quality Factor itself.

There are other significant losses and costs related to quality as well.  It is not our intent to pursue a discussion on the cost of non-quality as we recognize there are many other factors (internal and external) that must be considered to truly understand the real cost of non-quality for activities such as sorting, inspection, scrap (material losses), rework, re-order, machine time, and administration.

In the real world, someone may just be preparing a plan to improve the Quality of parts running on Machine A to reduce excessive labour and material costs.  We can only wonder what method they used to calculate the “savings”.  Inevitably, many companies approve the project and the funding only to realize the savings fell well short of expectations or will never materialize at all.

In Closing

We would contend that the differences in the calculation method presented here and those found elsewhere are significant.  In our example case, the difference is 2.72%.  We demonstrated that this can be significant when annualized over time.  Similarly, the opportunity for improvements using our method is clear and concise.

Now when someone asks you how to calculate the Quality Factor, you can confidently show them how and tell them why.

The example used in this post can also be downloaded from our BOX File on the sidebar or CLICK HERE.  This is offered at no charge and of course will make it easier for you to use for your own applications.

Thank you for visiting – Until Next Time – STAY lean!

Feel free to send us your feedback – We appreciate your questions, comments, and suggestions.

Privacy Policy:  We do not share, distribute, or sell your contact information.  What you send to us – stays with us.

OEE and Standardized Work

Overall Equipment Efficiency (OEE):  Standardized Work

After you start collecting OEE data for your processes, you may notice significant variance between departments, shifts, and even employees performing the work.  Of the many aspects that you will be inclined to investigate, standardized work should be one of them.

Making sure that all employees are executing a process or sequence of processes correctly and exactly the same way every time is the topic of standardized work.  The OEE data may also direct you to review how the processes are being executed by some of the top performers to determine if they are truly demonstrating best practices or simply cutting corners.

Lean practices are founded on learning by observing.  We cannot stress the importance of observing an operation to see first hand what opportunities for improvement (waste elimination) are available.  OEE data is a compass that directs you where to look; however, the destination for improvements is the process, the very source from where the data originated.

Establishing Standard Cycle Times

One of the first questions we usually ask is, “How were the standard cycle times determined?”  Was the standard based on best practices, quoted rates, time studies, name plate ratings, or published machine cycle times?

We recommend conducting an actual time study using a stop watch and calculating part to part (button to button) cycle times accordingly.  We have used the stop watch capability of the BlackBerry many times.  Results for lap times and total elapsed time are easily recorded and can be e-mailed as soon as the study is complete.

The sample size of course will depend on the actual rate of the machine and should be statistically relevant.  One or two cycles is not sufficient for an effective time study.

For operator “controlled” processes, we recommend involving the employees who normally perform the work when conducting the time study.  It doesn’t make sense to have the “office experts” run the equipment for a short burst to set a rate that cannot be sustained or is just simply unreasonable.

Many processes, those dependent on human effort or automation, are usually controlled by PLC’s that are also capable of providing the machine cycle time.  At a minimum, we recommend validating these cycle times to at least satisfy yourself that these are part to part or “button to button” cycle times.

For automated operations, PLC’s can typically be relied upon to provide a reasonable cycle time.  Without going to far into process design and development, you will need to understand the elements that control the process sequences.  Some processes are driven by time controls (an event occurs after a period predetermined period of time) versus those that may be event-driven (an event occurs based on satisfying a dependent “sensor on-off” condition or similar “event signal” mechanism.

The real key to understanding the process being studied is to develop a flow chart clearly defining each of the process steps.  It is of equal importance to observe the differences that may be occurring between employees performing the work.  Either the instructions lack clarity or habits (good or bad) have been developed over time.  Although templates exist to aid in the development of standardized work, don’t wait to find the right tool.

Using Video – Record it Live

We highly recommend using a video recorder to capture the process in action.  With the technology available today, video is readily available and a very cost-effective method of documenting your processes.  Video presents several advantages:

  1. Captures activities in real-time.
  2. Provides instant replay.
  3. Establish process or sequence event timing in real-time.
  4. Eliminates need for “stop watches” to capture multiple event timing.
  5. Can be used as a training aid for new employees to demonstrate “standardized work practices”.
  6. Can be used to develop “best practices”.
  7. Reduces or minimizes potential for time measurement error.

We have successfully used video to not only develop standardized work for production processes, but also for documenting and recording best practices for tool changes, set up, and checking or inspection procedures.

Standardized work eliminates any questions regarding the proper or correct way of performing the work required.  Standardized work procedures allow additional development work to be completed “offline” without further disruption to the production process.

Conclusion:

Of course, Standardized Operating / Work procedures are required to establish effective and meaningful value stream maps but even more importantly, they become an effective tool to understand the opportunity for variances in your OEE data, certainly where manual or “human” controlled operations are concerned.

It has been argued that OEE data in and of itself is not statistically relevant and we are inclined to agree with this statement.  The simple reason is that the processes being measured are subject to significant internal and external variances or influences.  Examples may include reduced volumes, product mix changes, tool change frequency, employee turnover, and economic conditions.

As mentioned in many of our posts, it is important to understand “WHAT and WHY” we are measuring.  Understanding the results is more important than the result itself.  A company looking to increase inventory turns may resort to smaller production runs and more frequent tool changes.  This will reduce Availability and, in turn, will result in a lower OEE.  The objective may then be to find a way to further reduce tool change times to “improve” the Availability.

The use of OEE data can vary in scope, ranging from part specific performance to plant wide operations.  As the scope of measurement changes, so do the influences that impact the net result.  So once again, we urge you to use caution when comparing data between personnel, shifts, departments, and production facilities.  Typically, first or day shift operations have greater access to resources that are not available on the “off’ shifts.

Perhaps the greatest “external” influence on current manufacturing operations is the rapid collapse of the automotive industry in the midst of our current economic “melt down”.  The changes in operating strategy to respond to this new crisis are bound to have an effect on OEE among other business metrics.

The ultimate purpose of Lean practices is to reduce or eliminate waste and doing so requires a rigorous “document and review” process .  The ability to show evidence of current versus proposed practices will reduce or eliminate the roadblocks that may impede your continuous improvement objectives.

While the post is brief today, hopefully the message is helpful.

Until Next Time – STAY Lean!

"Click"

Practical OEE – How To Calculate and Use Weighted OEE

We have presented the methods of calculating OEE for a process and also demonstrated how weighted OEE is calculated for multiple processes.  Our next challenge is to determine how this data can be used to make sure we are targeting the right processes for improvement.

Over the next few posts, we will show you how to calculate weighted OEE factors for each process.  This weighting will include calculations for each of the factors as well as the overall OEE.  The results of the individual weighted factors may well serve to point us in the right direction.

Calculating the weighted OEE and it’s factors is not just a simple calculation of averages as you can see from our previously calculated data.  It is easy to fall into this trap and it is also for this very reason that we have put forth the effort to show you how it should be done.

We highly recommend reviewing the posts presented over the past few days to refresh yourself with the ongoing development of our key Lean metric:  OEE.

Free Excel Downloads:

We have created a number of Excel spreadsheets that are immediately available for download from our FREE Downloads page or from the Free Downloads widget on the side bar.  These spreadsheets can be modified as required for your application.

Calculating Weighted OEE

We will continue to use the examples presented in our previous posts to develop our OEE metric.  We will start with the overall OEE percentage to help you understand the weighting concept applied here.

The basic formula to determine the weighted OEE for each individual process follows:

Weighted OEE = Process OEE * (Net Available Time / Total Net Available Time)

The OEE data taken from our previous examples is summarized in the table below:

  1. Machine A:  OEE = 80.22%, Net Available Time = 455 minutes
  2. Machine B:  OEE = 70.05%, Net Available Time = 455 minutes
  3. Machine C:  OEE = 55.90%, Net Available Time = 455 minutes

The total Net Available Time for all machines = 455 * 3 = 1365 minutes.  Now we can calculate our “weighted OEE” for each machine as shown:

  1. Machine A:  Weighted OEE = 80.22% * (455 / 1365) = 26.74%
  2. Machine B:  Weighted OEE = 70.05% * (455 / 1365) = 23.35%
  3. Machine C:  Weighted OEE = 55.90% * (455 / 1365) = 18.63%

Adding the individual weighted OEE together for each machine, we find the total is 68.72%.  Note that this matches the total OEE calculation from our previous post.

Warning:  Don’t fall into the trap of assuming that the same result could have been achieved by simply averaging the three OEE numbers.  The results in the calculation appear to be a simple average, however, this is misleading because you will also note that the Net Available Time and Total Net Available Time ratio is the same for each machine.  This is not always the case.  Many times, a machine may run for only half a shift or a few hours at a time.  This may significantly change the weighted OEE for a given machine and the result is not a simple arithmetic average.

Our next step will be to calculate the individual weighted factors for Availability, Performance, and Quality for each machine.  These calculations will readily demonstrate that it’s not a simple averaging process.

Weighted Availability Factor:

The basic formula to determine the weighted Availability Factor for each individual process follows:

Weighted Availability = Availability % * (Net Available Time / Total Net Available Time)

You will note that the weighting factor for availability is the same as the weighting factor for the overall OEE weight.  The Availability data taken from our previous examples is summarized in the table below:

  1. Machine A:  Availability = 92.97%, Net Available Time = 455 minutes
  2. Machine B:  Availability = 96.04%, Net Available Time = 455 minutes
  3. Machine C:  Availability = 95.16%, Net Available Time = 455 minutes

The total Net Available Time for all machines = 455 * 3 = 1365 minutes.  Now we can calculate our “weighted availability” for each machine as shown:

  1. Machine A:  Weighted Availability = 92.97% * (455 / 1365) = 30.99%
  2. Machine B:  Weighted Availability = 96.04% * (455 / 1365) = 32.01%
  3. Machine C:  Weighted Availability = 95.16% * (455 / 1365) = 31.72%

Adding the individual weighted Availability factors together for each machine, we find the total is 94.72%.  Note that this matches the total weighted Availability calculation from our previous post.

 Warning:  because all process have the same Net Available Time you may be thinking that this seems like a lot of work to simply get an average of the numbers.  More on this later when we take a look at Performance and Quality.

Weighted Performance Factor:

The basic formula to determine the weighted Performance Factor for each individual process follows:

Weighted Performance = Performance % * (Net Operating Time / Total Net Operating Time)

You will note that the weighting factor for performance is different.  This is because performance is a measure of how well the operating time was used to make parts.  The Performance data taken from our previous examples is summarized in the table below:

  1. Machine A:  performance = 88.26%, Net Operating Time = 423 minutes
  2. Machine B:  Performance = 77.23%, Net Operating Time = 437 minutes
  3. Machine C:  Performance = 61.70%, Net Operating Time = 433 minutes

The total Net Operating Time for all machines = 1293 minutes.  Now we can calculate our “weighted performance” for each machine as shown:

  1. Machine A:  Weighted Performance = 88.26% * (423 / 1293) = 28.87%
  2. Machine B:  Weighted Performance = 77.23% * (437 / 1293) = 26.10%
  3. Machine C:  Weighted Performance = 61.70% * (433 / 1293) = 20.66%

Adding the individual weighted Performance factors together for each machine, we find the total is 75.63%.  Note that this matches the total weighted Performance calculation from our previous post.

 Finally:  You will note that the Weighted Performance is NOT the same as the Arithmetic Average!  The arithmetic average in this case is 75.73%.  Although it doesn’t appear to be a significant difference, you wil see that it can be.

Weighted Quality Factor:

The basic formula to determine the weighted Quality Factor for each individual process follows:

Weighted Quality = Quality % * (Ideal Operating Time / Total Ideal Operating Time)

You will note that the weighting factor for quality is different.  This is because quality is a measure of how well the ideal operating time was used to make good (saleable) parts.  The Quality data taken from our previous examples is summarized in the table below:

  1. Machine A:  Quality = 97.77%, Ideal Operating Time = 373.33 minutes
  2. Machine B:  Quality = 94.44%, Ideal Operating Time = 337.50 minutes
  3. Machine C:  Quality = 95.20%, Ideal Operating Time = 267.17 minutes

The total Ideal Operating Time (to make all parts) for all machines = 978 minutes.  Now we can calculate our “weighted quality” for each machine as shown:

  1. Machine A:  Weighted Quality = 97.77% * (373.33 / 978) = 37.32%
  2. Machine B:  Weighted Quality = 94.44% * (337.50 / 978) = 32.59%
  3. Machine C:  Weighted Quality = 95.20% * (267.17 / 978) = 26.01%

Adding the individual weighted Quality factors together for each machine, we find the total is 95.92% as expected.  Note that this matches the total weighted Quality calculation from our previous post.

 Finally:  You will note that the Weighted Quality is NOT the same as the Arithmetic Average! 

Remember to get your free downloads.  We have created a number of Excel spreadsheets that are immediately available for download from our FREE Downloads page or from the Free Downloads widget on the side bar.  These spreadsheets can be modified as required for your application.

Until Next Time – STAY Lean!

"Click"