Detailed Design Review (Week 9) - Andon System for TPS Lab

Date: 2/8/13Location: 06-3232Time: 9 am – 11 am

Meeting Attendees:

KGCOE MSDPage 1 of 4Technical Review Meeting Minutes

Trevor Andrews(TA)

Holli Monroe(HM)

Emily Piccione(EP)

William Wright(WW)

Scott Bellinger(SB)

John Kaemmerlen(JK)

Timothy Schmoke(TS)

Srinath Sriram(SS)

KGCOE MSDPage 1 of 4Technical Review Meeting Minutes

Materials Reviewed:

KGCOE MSDPage 1 of 4Technical Review Meeting Minutes

  1. Planning & Execution
  2. Project Summary
  3. Customer Needs
  4. Specifications
  5. Project Plans & Schedules
  1. Detailed Design
  2. Drawings and Schematics: Mechanical System
  3. Drawings and Schematics: TV Cart
  4. Bill of Materials
  5. Preliminary Test Plan
  6. Risk Management
  7. System Functions
  8. States Diagram
  9. PLC Diagram
  10. Drawings and Schematics: Global Display

KGCOE MSDPage 1 of 4Technical Review Meeting Minutes

Discussion Topics:

  1. Planning & Execution
  1. Project Summary

No additional comments

  1. Customer Needs
  2. TS questioned the accessibility of a TV and associated components if placed in the corner. He is of the opinion that a stand makes sense, but perhaps not a cart. WW remarked that the PLC needs placement. HM added that line of sight is an issue with regards to a wall-mounted TV. TS suggested that locating the TV where the clock is currently placed might be opportune because, unlike being located in the corner, station four would be able to view the display on the clock wall.
  1. Specifications
  2. JK suggested meeting with Wendy Dannels, who works in NTID and has knowledge of Lean Manufacturing. She might offer insight into accommodating NTID needs.
  1. Project Plans & Schedules
  2. JK emphasized the importance of building in extra, “slack” time into the Gantt Chart.
  3. JK suggested starting to write the paper before mid-April. The poster, by comparison, can be completed fairly quickly.
  4. JK wants to schedule a mid-quarter meeting with the team to write a lab exercise, perhaps week 5 or 6. Then later in the quarter, perhaps week 7 or 8, a dry run of the exercise could be completed.
  1. Systems Design
  1. Drawings and Schematics: Mechanical System
  2. JK remarked that Drawing 3 looks like a light stack.
  3. JK asked is Drawing 4 uses a single colored flag. WW confirmed that it currently uses only one flag, but could be retrofitted. SS asked if it only requires one action to trigger visual and auditory cue. WW responded yes.
  4. JK suggested that due to the similarities between Drawing 1 and Drawing 2, perhaps one could be selected as a mechanical design, but not both.
  5. SS remarked that Drawing 1 is easy to visualize and understand. He also mentioned that Drawing 4 only requires one action, but might be more difficult to execute.
  6. TS agreed with SS.
  7. JK likes Drawings 1 and 3. He would like ideas to be run by Andres Carrano (being sure not to select both Drawing 1 and 2).
  1. Drawings and Schematics: TV Cart
  2. JK noted that Chris has a desktop the team can used.
  3. JK stated that the desktop, in addition to being free of charge, would lower the center of gravity of the cart.
  4. HM pointed out that acquiring a desktop from RIT might circumvent software licensing issues. JK said software issues (ie: those relating to Microsoft Office) shouldn’t be an issue due to their relatively low cost, if any.
  5. SS suggested looking into Creaform, which is a bit beefier than other options.
  1. Bill of Materials
  2. TA said item number 21 can now be updated to reflect the free desktop.
  3. WW asked about a possible resource regarding the wiring harnesses. JK suggested Professor George Slack.
  1. Preliminary Test Plan

No additional comments

  1. Risk Management
  2. JK suggested a way to mitigate risk #11 is by opening boxes upon receipt to ensure proper parts are delivered.
  1. System Functions
  2. JK asked if “green” functionality can be suppressed. WW responded that by design, it can’t currently. SB said that it wouldn’t be much of a logic change. HM added that the ability to mimic a paced line and conduct a proper part count would be jeopardized by removing the “green” functionality. JK said to keep “green” functionality.
  3. SB understood there to be lag time to facilitate the passing of parts. WW said that this time could simply be incorporated into TAKT time. SB agreed that that would be easier to code.
  1. States Diagram
  2. SB asked if downtime should be gathered and cumulated per station. There was a general consensus that this is preferred.
  3. JK and SB concurred that there is little to no benefits gathered from tracking “green” time. JK doesn’t want to gather this information because it might encourage “office engineering” tendencies, as opposed to line interaction and problem solving.
  4. There was a general discussion about green, yellow, local/global red, and E-Stop conditions.
  5. SB suggested using a “chirp” sound to signal the passing of parts.
  1. PLC Diagram
  2. SB suggested using strobe for deaf operators.
  3. TA pointed out that green inputs need to be added to andon inputs.
  4. SB said it would probably be good to ground to metal TV cart.
  1. Drawings and Schematics: Global Display
  2. JK said we don’t need to count number of triggers. SS asked if in the information would be helpful (ie: tracking number of pulls versus quantity of downtime). JK said it could, but it might encourage “office engineering” tendencies, as opposed to line interaction and problem solving.
  3. JK said, of the options presented, Option 2 is the closest. It included one light indicator per station and shows goal versus actual. There is no need to count number of triggers, however. The progress bar should also be displayed in an unbiased color (not yellow or red).
  4. JK suggested asking Scott Grassman for Siemens contact. The contact would be able to say if Siemens software can be used in place of LabVIEW for local/global display purposes.
  5. SB emphasized the importance of going back to the vendor to find software.
  6. JK requested the ability to adjust TAKT time percentage escalation on the HMI display.
  7. SB said it’s possible to move the average cumulative data to a separate screen on the HMI display.
  8. SS brought up the point that there is a slight lag, approximately 0.5 seconds, between synchronizing station screens.
  1. Additional Comments
  2. JK noted that once Andres approves the BOM, the team will be working with Marilyn to order parts.
  3. JK advised the team of the need to schedule a meeting during Week 11, preferably Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday.
  4. TK said the focus during the Week 10 Tuesday morning meeting would be to provide Andres Carrano with a brief rundown of the Detailed Design Review.

KGCOE MSDPage 1 of 4Technical Review Meeting Minutes