Lean evaluation method for ship group building and related products

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of ship building, in particular to a lean evaluation method for ship group building and related products. According to the method, fine scoring is carried out on ship group construction through the indexes from the production and manufacturing aspect, the lean improvement aspect and the lean management aspect, so that the group production can be guided to accurately output products to the next procedure on time and according to quantity according to the score, and the quality of the output products is guided to be higher.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the technical field of shipbuilding, and in particular to a lean evaluation method for ship assembly construction and related products. Background Technology

[0002] One stage of modern shipbuilding is the intermediate product-oriented stage. This stage introduces group technology for small-batch, multi-variety production, utilizing flexible mass production methods. The ship sub-assembly is the smallest intermediate product in the shipbuilding process. Sub-assemblies are generally composed of plates reinforced with stiffeners, featuring a simple structure, relatively easy assembly, and less welding, resulting in better quality control. Ship sections are welded together from different sub-assemblies. As the smallest intermediate product, controlling the quality of sub-assemblies is crucial to controlling the quality of the entire ship section.

[0003] To improve the efficiency of ship assembly and segment construction, as the smallest intermediate product, it is necessary to increase the production capacity of the production span and ensure the on-demand, timely, and accurate delivery of the product. In addition to improving the manufacturing technology level of assembly processes, methods, and tooling, advanced and scientific management methods are also needed. Only by working together can the smoothness of on-demand production and supply of intermediate product assembly be effectively improved.

[0004] The existing ship assembly and segment manufacturing process only evaluates the assembly of ship segments, which cannot guide the assembly production to deliver products to downstream processes on time, in quantity, and accurately, resulting in poor product quality. Summary of the Invention

[0005] In view of the shortcomings of the prior art described above, the purpose of this invention is to provide a lean evaluation method and related products for ship assembly construction, which solves the problem that the evaluation of ship assembly construction in the prior art is relatively simple and cannot guide the assembly production to output products to the downstream on time, in quantity and accurately, resulting in poor quality of output products.

[0006] To achieve the above and other related objectives, this invention provides a lean evaluation method for ship sub-unit construction, the evaluation method comprising:

[0007] Establish a lean evaluation system for ship assembly construction, which includes scoring the ship assembly construction from three aspects: production and manufacturing, lean improvement, and lean management.

[0008] The shipbuilding team is evaluated from a manufacturing perspective, including monthly segment completion quantity targets, average monthly labor efficiency targets, average material quantity per person targets, on-time completion rate targets, outflow defect targets, and self-process defect targets. The manufacturing score is calculated as follows: Manufacturing score = (Sum of scores for each indicator / 6) * Maximum manufacturing score. If the final score exceeds the maximum score, it is still calculated as the maximum score.

[0009] The shipbuilding team was scored in terms of lean improvement, including scoring the key idea proposal indicators and on-site improvement points indicators separately, and summing them to obtain the lean improvement score.

[0010] The evaluation of ship assembly and construction from a lean management perspective includes scoring of anomaly visualization indicators.

[0011] Optionally, the scoring of monthly segmented completion quantity indicators, monthly average labor efficiency indicators, per capita material quantity indicators and plan on-time rate indicators are all calculated according to the actual / target of each indicator, and a maximum score is set for each indicator.

[0012] The scoring of outflow defect indicators and self-process defect indicators is calculated according to the target / actual of each indicator.

[0013] Optionally, the scoring of the "golden idea proposal" indicators includes:

[0014] Set a maximum score for the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator and a score for submitting one "Golden Idea Proposal".

[0015] The total score for the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator is calculated based on the number of golden idea proposals submitted.

[0016] If the total score of the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator exceeds the maximum score of the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator, the maximum score of the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator will still be used.

[0017] Optionally, the scoring of the "golden idea proposal" indicator also includes:

[0018] If a golden idea proposal is successfully approved, additional points will be awarded on top of the full score for the golden idea proposal indicator. The additional points = the points awarded for each approved project * the number of approved projects.

[0019] The number of projects approved each month should not exceed the number of "golden idea" proposals.

[0020] Optionally, the scoring of the on-site improvement point indicators includes scoring the monthly improvement number indicator and the monthly improvement maintenance number indicator separately, and calculating the sum of the monthly improvement number and monthly improvement maintenance number scores to obtain the score of the on-site improvement point indicator.

[0021] Optionally, the scoring of the number of improvements this month and the number of improvements maintained this month includes:

[0022] Set the maximum score for the number of improvements this month and the number of improvements maintained this month, as well as the score for each item in the number of improvements this month;

[0023] Obtain improvement reports and improvement maintenance status within the evaluation area;

[0024] Determine the number of items that improved this month, the number of items that maintained their improvement this month, and the number of items that improved last month within the evaluation area;

[0025] The score for improvements this month is calculated as follows: (Number of items improved this month) * Score for each item improved this month. If the score for improvements this month exceeds the maximum score set for improvements this month, then the maximum score set for improvements this month will be used.

[0026] The score for this month's improvement maintenance is calculated as follows: (This month's improvement maintenance / Last month's improvement) * the maximum score for this month's improvement maintenance. If the score for this month's improvement maintenance exceeds the maximum score for this month's improvement maintenance, then the maximum score for this month's improvement maintenance will be used.

[0027] Optionally, the scoring of the anomaly visualization metrics includes:

[0028] Get the monthly anomaly record table for the evaluation area;

[0029] Determine the number of records that meet the conditions and have a recorded process, and the score for each record; the number of records with incomplete abnormal information and the deduction for each record; the number of records with no record of abnormal occurrences and the deduction for each record; the number of records with no feedback on abnormal occurrences after training on abnormal standards and the deduction for each record; and the number of records with the impact on working hours caused by the failure to promptly know and record on-site abnormalities and the deduction for each record. Among these, abnormal record types can be repeated.

[0030] The scores and deductions are summed to obtain the score for the anomaly visualization indicator, and the score does not exceed the maximum score set for the anomaly visualization indicator.

[0031] In another aspect, the present invention provides a machine-readable storage medium having a machine-executable program stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor, implements the lean evaluation method for ship group assembly construction as described above.

[0032] In another aspect, the present invention provides a computer device including a memory, a processor, and a machine-executable program stored in the memory and running on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the machine-executable program, implements any of the above-described lean evaluation methods for ship group assembly construction.

[0033] In a lean evaluation method for ship assembly construction according to the present invention, the ship assembly construction is scored in detail from various indicators of production and manufacturing, lean improvement and lean management. The scoring can guide the assembly production to output products to downstream processes on time, in quantity and accurately, thereby leading to higher quality output products. Attached Figure Description

[0034] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a lean evaluation method for ship group assembly construction according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0035] Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of a machine-readable storage medium according to an embodiment of the present invention;

[0036] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of a computer device according to an embodiment of the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0037] The following reference Figures 1 to 3 This invention describes a lean evaluation method for ship group assembly construction and related products.

[0038] like Figure 1 As shown in the figure, this embodiment of the invention provides a lean evaluation method for ship sub-group construction. The evaluation method includes:

[0039] Step S1: Establish a lean evaluation system for ship assembly construction, which includes scoring the ship assembly construction from three aspects: production and manufacturing, lean improvement, and lean management.

[0040] Step S2: Evaluate the shipbuilding team's assembly and construction from a manufacturing perspective. This includes scoring the monthly segment completion quantity, average monthly labor efficiency, average material quantity per person, on-time completion rate, outflow defects, and self-process defects. The manufacturing score is calculated as (sum of scores for each indicator / 6) * the maximum score set for manufacturing. If the final score exceeds the maximum score, it is still calculated as the maximum score.

[0041] Step S3: Evaluate the shipbuilding team's construction from a lean improvement perspective, including scoring the key idea proposal indicators and on-site improvement point indicators separately, and summing them to obtain the lean improvement score.

[0042] Step S4: Evaluate the ship assembly and construction from a lean management perspective, including scoring the abnormality visualization indicators.

[0043] By conducting detailed scoring of ship assembly and construction from various indicators in manufacturing, lean improvement, and lean management, the scoring can guide the assembly and production process to deliver products to downstream processes on time, in quantity, and accurately, thereby leading to higher product quality.

[0044] Furthermore, the weighting of each aspect in the evaluation—manufacturing, lean improvement, and lean management—is determined according to their respective importance. Optionally, with a maximum score of 100, manufacturing accounts for 30 points, lean improvement for 45 points, and lean management for 25 points.

[0045] Furthermore, the scores for each production and manufacturing indicator—including monthly segmented completion quantity, average monthly labor efficiency, average material quantity per person, and on-time performance rate—are calculated based on actual results / targets. The maximum score for any single indicator is set at 1.05. Scores for outflow defects and in-process defects are also calculated based on target / actual results.

[0046] Optionally, the maximum score for manufacturing can be set at 30 points, and the score for manufacturing can be calculated as (sum of scores for all indicators / 6) * 30. If the final score exceeds 30 points, it will also be calculated as 30 points.

[0047] Since the group assembly is the smallest unit in ship section manufacturing and also the smallest unit for product quality control, it is necessary to set outgoing defect indicators and self-process defect indicators.

[0048] Furthermore, the scoring weighting of the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator and the "On-site Improvement Point" indicator is determined according to their importance. Optionally, with a maximum score of 45 points for Lean Improvement, the Golden Idea Proposal indicator would account for 20 points, and the On-site Improvement Point indicator would account for 25 points.

[0049] The Golden Idea Proposal is a way for all employees to participate in self-initiated improvement initiatives by submitting ideas for improvement on-site by scanning a QR code.

[0050] Furthermore, the key idea proposals are scored using various metrics, including:

[0051] Set a maximum score for the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator and a score for submitting one "Golden Idea Proposal".

[0052] The total score for the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator is calculated based on the number of golden idea proposals submitted.

[0053] If the total score of the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator exceeds the maximum score of the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator, the maximum score of the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator will still be used.

[0054] Optionally, each submission is worth 2 points out of a maximum of 20 points. Submissions exceeding 10 points are also worth 20 points.

[0055] Furthermore, if a brilliant idea proposal is successfully approved, additional points will be awarded on top of the full score for the brilliant idea proposal indicator. The additional points = the points awarded for each approved project * the number of approved projects.

[0056] Optionally, for each successful project, an additional 2 points will be awarded on top of the full 20 points.

[0057] Furthermore, the number of projects initiated each month cannot exceed the number of "Golden Ideas" proposals, in order to prevent staff from including the number of projects initiated in the previous month in the current month, and to incentivize staff to submit proposals and complete them in the current month.

[0058] Furthermore, the on-site improvement point indicators are scored, including scoring the number of improvements this month and the number of improvements maintained this month, and calculating the sum of the scores for the number of improvements this month and the number of improvements maintained this month to obtain the score for the on-site improvement point indicators.

[0059] Furthermore, the scoring weighting of the number of improvements this month and the number of improvements maintained this month can be determined based on their importance. Optionally, with the on-site improvement indicator scored out of 25 points, the number of improvements this month accounts for 15 points, and the number of improvements maintained this month accounts for 10 points.

[0060] Furthermore, scores are given for the number of improvements this month and the number of improvements maintained this month, including:

[0061] Set the maximum score for the number of improvements this month and the number of improvements maintained this month, as well as the score for each item in the number of improvements this month;

[0062] Obtain improvement reports and improvement maintenance status within the evaluation area;

[0063] Determine the number of items that improved this month, the number of items that maintained their improvement this month, and the number of items that improved last month within the evaluation area;

[0064] The score for improvements this month is calculated as follows: (Number of items improved this month) * Score for each item improved this month. If the score for improvements this month exceeds the maximum score set for improvements this month, then the maximum score set for improvements this month will be used.

[0065] The score for this month's improvement maintenance is calculated as follows: (This month's improvement maintenance / Last month's improvement) * the maximum score for this month's improvement maintenance. If the score for this month's improvement maintenance exceeds the maximum score for this month's improvement maintenance, then the maximum score for this month's improvement maintenance will be used.

[0066] Optionally, the maximum score for the number of improvements this month is set at 15 points, the maximum score for the number of improvements maintained this month is 10 points, and the score for each item of the number of improvements this month is 3 points.

[0067] Abnormal situations are inevitable during the production process, making their handling crucial. Abnormality visualization refers to quickly identifying and addressing on-site abnormalities via WeChat or other means, recording the time of occurrence, the method of handling, and the time to resolution.

[0068] Furthermore, the anomaly visualization metrics are scored, including:

[0069] Get the monthly anomaly record table for the evaluation area;

[0070] Determine the number of records that meet the conditions and have a recorded process, and the score for each record; the number of records with incomplete abnormal information and the deduction for each record; the number of records with no record of abnormal occurrences and the deduction for each record; the number of records with no feedback on abnormal occurrences after training on abnormal standards and the deduction for each record; and the number of records with the impact on working hours caused by the failure to promptly know and record on-site abnormalities and the deduction for each record. Among these, abnormal record types can be repeated.

[0071] The scores and deductions are summed to obtain the score for the anomaly visualization indicator, and the score does not exceed the maximum score set for the anomaly visualization indicator.

[0072] Optionally, the maximum score for the anomaly visualization indicator is set at 25 points. 1 point is awarded for each condition met and the process recorded; 1 point is deducted for each incomplete anomaly record; 2 points are deducted for each anomaly without record; 2 points are awarded for each anomaly not reported after training on anomaly standards; and 4 points are deducted for each anomaly that is not promptly identified and recorded, resulting in impact on work hours. The maximum score for the anomaly visualization indicator is 25 points.

[0073] It should be noted that, since each factory has its own focus, the weight of each indicator will vary when the ship is constructed in sections.

[0074] refer to Figure 2 The present invention also provides a machine-readable storage medium 400 on which a machine-executable program 410 is stored. When the machine-executable program 410 is executed by a processor, it implements the lean evaluation method for ship group assembly construction in the above embodiments.

[0075] refer to Figure 3 The present invention also provides a computer device 500, including a memory 520, a processor 510, and a machine-executable program 410 stored in the memory and running on the processor. When the processor 510 executes the machine-executable program 410, it implements the lean evaluation method for ship group assembly construction described in the above embodiments.

[0076] For the purposes of this embodiment, the machine-readable storage medium 400 can be any means capable of containing, storing, communicating, propagating, or transmitting a program for use by or in conjunction with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the machine-readable storage medium 400 include: an electrical connection (electronic device) having one or more wires, a portable computer disk drive (magnetic device), random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), erasable and editable read-only memory (EPROM or flash memory), fiber optic devices, and portable optical disc read-only memory (CDROM). Furthermore, the machine-readable storage medium 400 can even be paper or other suitable media on which the program can be printed, since the program can be obtained electronically, for example, by optically scanning the paper or other medium, followed by editing, interpreting, or otherwise processing as necessary, and then stored in a computer memory.

[0077] It should be understood that various parts of the present invention can be implemented using hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof. In the above embodiments, multiple steps or methods can be implemented using software or firmware stored in memory and executed by a suitable instruction execution system.

[0078] Computer device 500 can be, for example, a server, desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, or smartphone. In some examples, computer device 500 can be a cloud computing node. Computer device 500 can be described in the general context of computer system executable instructions (such as program modules) executed by a computer system. Typically, program modules can include routines, programs, object programs, components, logic, data structures, etc., that perform specific tasks or implement specific abstract data types. Computer device 500 can be implemented in a distributed cloud computing environment where tasks are performed by remote processing devices linked via a communication network. In a distributed cloud computing environment, program modules can reside on local or remote computing system storage media, including storage devices.

[0079] Computer device 500 may include a processor 510 adapted to execute stored instructions and a memory 520 that provides temporary storage space for the operation of said instructions during operation. The processor 510 may be a single-core processor, a multi-core processor, a computing cluster, or any other configuration. The memory 520 may include random access memory (RAM), read-only memory, flash memory, or any other suitable storage system.

[0080] The processor 510 can be connected via a system interconnect (e.g., PCI, PCI-Express, etc.) to an I / O interface (input / output interface) suitable for connecting the computer device 500 to one or more I / O devices (input / output devices). I / O devices may include, for example, a keyboard and indicating devices, where indicating devices may include a touchpad or touchscreen, etc. I / O devices may be built into the computer device 500 or may be external devices connected to the computing device.

[0081] The processor 510 can also be linked via a system interconnect to a display interface suitable for connecting the computer device 500 to a display device. The display device may include a display screen as a built-in component of the computer device 500. The display device may also include an external computer monitor, television, or projector connected to the computer device 500. Furthermore, a network interface controller (NIC) may be adapted to connect the computer device 500 to a network via a system interconnect. In some embodiments, the NIC may use any suitable interface or protocol (such as an Internet Minicomputer System Interface) to transmit data. The network may be a cellular network, a radio network, a wide area network (WAN), a local area network (LAN), or the Internet, etc. Remote devices can connect to the computing device via the network.

[0082] The above embodiments are merely illustrative of the principles and effects of the present invention and are not intended to limit the invention. Any person skilled in the art can modify or alter the above embodiments without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. Therefore, all equivalent modifications or alterations made by those skilled in the art without departing from the spirit and technical concept disclosed in the present invention should still be covered by the claims of the present invention.

Claims

1. A lean evaluation method for ship sub-unit construction, characterized in that, The evaluation methods include: Establish a lean evaluation system for ship assembly construction, which includes scoring the ship assembly construction from three aspects: production and manufacturing, lean improvement, and lean management. The shipbuilding team is scored from a production and manufacturing perspective. This includes scoring the monthly segment completion quantity, average monthly labor efficiency, average material quantity per person, on-time completion rate, outflow defects, and self-process defects. The production and manufacturing score is calculated as follows: Production and Manufacturing Score = (Sum of scores for each indicator / 6) * Maximum score set for production and manufacturing. If the final score exceeds the maximum score, it is also calculated as the maximum score. The shipbuilding team was scored in terms of lean improvement, including scoring the key idea proposal indicators and on-site improvement points indicators separately, and summing them to obtain the lean improvement score. The evaluation of ship assembly and construction from a lean management perspective includes scoring of anomaly visualization indicators.

2. The lean evaluation method for ship sub-unit construction according to claim 1, characterized in that, The scoring of monthly segmented completion quantity indicators, monthly average labor efficiency indicators, per capita material quantity indicators, and plan on-time rate indicators are all calculated based on the actual / target of each indicator, and a maximum score is set for each individual indicator. The scoring of outflow defect indicators and self-process defect indicators is calculated according to the target / actual of each indicator.

3. The lean evaluation method for ship sub-unit construction according to claim 1, characterized in that, The scoring criteria for the "golden idea" proposals include: Set a maximum score for the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator and a score for submitting one "Golden Idea Proposal". The total score for the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator is calculated based on the number of golden idea proposals submitted. If the total score of the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator exceeds the maximum score of the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator, the maximum score of the "Golden Idea Proposal" indicator will still be used.

4. The lean evaluation method for ship sub-unit construction according to claim 3, characterized in that, The scoring of the "golden idea proposal" indicators also includes: If a golden idea proposal is successfully approved, additional points will be awarded on top of the full score for the golden idea proposal indicator. The additional points = the points awarded for each approved project * the number of approved projects. The number of projects approved each month should not exceed the number of "golden idea" proposals.

5. The lean evaluation method for ship sub-unit construction according to claim 1, characterized in that, The scoring of on-site improvement point indicators includes scoring the number of improvements this month and the number of improvements maintained this month, and calculating the sum of the scores for the number of improvements this month and the number of improvements maintained this month to obtain the score of the on-site improvement point indicator.

6. The lean evaluation method for ship sub-unit construction according to claim 5, characterized in that, The scoring of the number of improvements and the number of improvements maintained this month includes: Set the maximum score for the number of improvements this month and the number of improvements maintained this month, as well as the score for each item in the number of improvements this month; Obtain improvement reports and improvement maintenance status within the evaluation area; Determine the number of items that improved this month, the number of items that maintained their improvement this month, and the number of items that improved last month within the evaluation area; The score for improvements this month is calculated as follows: (Number of items improved this month) * Score for each item improved this month. If the score for improvements this month exceeds the maximum score set for improvements this month, then the maximum score set for improvements this month will be used. The score for this month's improvement maintenance is calculated as follows: (This month's improvement maintenance / Last month's improvement) * the maximum score for this month's improvement maintenance. If the score for this month's improvement maintenance exceeds the maximum score for this month's improvement maintenance, then the maximum score for this month's improvement maintenance will be used.

7. The lean evaluation method for ship sub-unit construction according to claim 1, characterized in that, The scoring of the anomaly visualization indicators includes: Get the monthly anomaly record table for the evaluation area; Determine the number of records that meet the conditions and have a recorded process, and the score for each record; the number of records with incomplete abnormal information and the deduction for each record; the number of records with no record of abnormal occurrences and the deduction for each record; the number of records with no feedback on abnormal occurrences after training on abnormal standards and the deduction for each record; and the number of records with the impact on working hours caused by the failure to promptly know and record on-site abnormalities and the deduction for each record. Among these, abnormal record types can be repeated. The scores and deductions are summed to obtain the score for the anomaly visualization indicator, and the score does not exceed the maximum score set for the anomaly visualization indicator.

8. A machine-readable storage medium, characterized in that, It stores a machine-executable program, which, when executed by a processor, implements the lean evaluation method for ship group assembly construction as described in any one of claims 1-7.

9. A computer device, characterized in that, It includes a memory, a processor, and a machine-executable program stored in the memory and running on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the machine-executable program, implements the lean evaluation method for ship group assembly construction as described in any one of claims 1-7.

Images