LEAN THINKING (EBUS507)

Assignment No. 2 - Lean tools

Set by Prof Dongping SONG

Date of issue: 19th Apr 2024

Date of submission: Monday 13th May 2024 before 12 noon (ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

ONLY)

Contribution: 50%.

Essay length: Maximum words 1500 (excluding reference list and appendix);

Maximum 12 pages including everything except the cover page and

the Table of contents page. State the word count on the first page.

Question 1 (50%):

You are required to solve the line balancing problem below. Suppose a production line is

designed to operate 7.5 hours per day and supply a steady demand of 450 units per day.

The line efficiency is assumed to be 100%. The production line performs 14 tasks. The task

operation times (in minutes) and their precedence relationships are given in Table 1. You are

required to determine the number of workstations and the assignment of the tasks to the

workstations to balance the production line, and meet customer demands by applying the

longest-task-time (LTT), and the Ranked Positional Weights (RPW) methods, respectively.

You need to present and explain the solution procedures and discuss the results

appropriately. Moreover, you are required to discuss line balancing and production levelling

methods in broad context to demonstrate the breadth of your knowledge with supporting

references.

Table 1. Description of the tasks, time and precedence relationships

Task Number Task time (minutes) Preceding tasks

Task 1 0.32 -

Task 2 0.85 -

Task 3 0.72 -

Task 4 0.41 -

Task 5 0.82 -

Task 6 0.55 -

Task 7 0.44 -

Task 8 0.39 3, 2, 1

Task 9 0.74 4,

Task 10 0.34 5,

Task 11 0.53 6,

Task 12 0.87 9, 8, 7

Task 13 0.47 12, 11, 10

Task 14 0.56 13

Question 2 (50%; maximum 900 words):

Define the concept of Kanban system. Discuss the implementation of Kanban

systems in practice using a case study (please do not use the case studies given in

our lectures and seminars). Support your arguments with relevant references.

Note: ULMS ASSIGNMENTS – Criteria for Assessment

90 - 100% Extremely thorough and authoritative execution of the brief. Containing

evidence of significant independent research, reflective, perceptive, well-

structured, showing significant originality in ideas or argument, aptly focused

and very well written, in appropriate register; few areas for improvement.

Potentially worthy of publication.

80 - 89% Thorough execution of the brief, well-structured, clearly argued. Signs of

originality and/or independent critical analytical ability. Supported by

independent research, materials well utilised; well focused and well written,

displays mastery of the subject matter and of appropriate theories and

concepts.

70 - 79% Good execution of the brief; well-focused, knowledgeable, strong evidence of

reading beyond the basic texts. Good critical grasp of relevant theories and

concepts.

60 - 69% Well-structured and well-focussed answer with strong evidence of reading

beyond the basic texts. Thorough and comprehensive in approach. Displays a

good knowledge of the subject matter and where appropriate displays sound

grasp of relevant theories and concepts. Approach generally analytical.

50 - 59% Competently structured answer, reasonably well-focused and comprehensive

but tending to be descriptive in approach. Limited evidence of reading

beyond the basic texts. May contain excessive use of quotations.

40 - 49% Tending to rely entirely on lecture materials. Almost entirely descriptive in

approach, limited knowledge and understanding of the subject matter

displayed; partial and/or containing significant errors and/or irrelevancies;

poorly structured. May contain excessive use of quotations.

30 - 39% Inadequate execution of the brief. Highly partial and/or containing serious

errors; contents partly or substantially irrelevant. Poorly structured. Displays

little knowledge of the subject matter. May contain excessive use of

quotations.

0 - 29% Seriously inadequate execution of the brief. Failure to focus upon the

question. Seriously short or even devoid of theoretical under-pinning. Large

sections irrelevant. May contain excessive use of quotations.