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

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 the table 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?