Line balance and a suggestion on how to improve

Hello all.

So i would like to suggest a “end game” or atleast higher medium range suggestion.
as of now we have the “fixed” modules that force us to build “fit windows” and it cant be less them 3.something minutes.
This as a general statment means that the balance of production can never be less them the highest value assembly time.

I work at a major (worlds largest actually) (secret) supplier and we are a “Teir 1” supplier, that means we are the first supplier in the supply chain of several steps to make a product. needless to say for vehicles (both cars and trucks, forklifts etc) so ive been around for a fjew “rebalancing” days in my now 13… (wow need to get a new job…) years of making cars.

normally when output is slow and demand is higher what we do is we split the jobs performed at a certain station to lower the takt times and increase output, for this to work in “Production Line” this would require Cliff to brake down the build of a car even further then it is right now (to nuts and screws basicly), this is a staggering request and i doubt it can be done.

But what can be done however is to create a “generic” workstation (now we are talking final assembly, not paint or welding), give the player a “gui” simular to “upgrades” (hmm… i wonder if this can be done via upgrades…) and let us put down our own process steps.

if i want to split up “fit windows” in 4 steps to get 1 “minute” steps all along the line, this should be possible, it would increase the manning at a certain station and it would increase cost, but hopefully at a higher efficiency rate.

Lets find a way out of the “fixed” status we have now, becose if we dont we need to keep running 3-4 paralell lines building the same car to reach the efficiency we want.

What do you guys think?
(Sorry for spelling misstakes)


Or you can just put more ‘fit window’ stations parallel to each other to increase the efficiency.

yes you can, if you want to lose efficiency.

Station 1 = 100 Sec = 66% efficiency (33% loss to station 3)
Station 2 = 80 sec = 66% efficiency (33% loss to station 3)
station 3 = 150 sec = 66% efficiency ( every 3rd car is “lost”)
station 4 = 100 sec = 66% efficiency (33% waiting time due to station 3)
(output = 1 car every 100 sec at a 66% efficiency)
avg efficiency = 66%


Station 1 = 100 Sec = 100% efficiency
Station 2 = 80 sec = 80% efficiency
station 3 = 150 sec (70) = 70% efficiency
station 3 = 150 sec (70)= 70% efficiency
station 4 = 100 sec = 100% efficiency’
avg efficiency = 84%
(output still 1 car every 100 sec with a 84% efficiency but 1/5th higher manning = higher cost)

To gain something you actually needs to duplicate 1, 3, 4, to lower the output to 1 car every 80 sec’’

Station 1 = 100 Sec (50s) = 70% efficiency
Station 1 = 100 Sec (50s) = 70% efficiency
Station 2 = 80 sec = 100% efficiency
station 3 = 150 sec (70s) = ~85-90% efficiency
station 3 = 150 sec (70s) = ~85-90% efficiency
station 4 = 100 sec (50s) = 70% efficiency
station 4 = 100 sec (50s) = 70% efficiency’

= i car every 80 sec
Efficiency = 74%

Might be so that the efficiency here is slightly off but in theory its the same
So adding that second station does give you an additional 4% efficiency due to the fact you just move the bottleneck from 3 to 1 and 4

So in ideally planned production, each line balance needs to have a takt time thats within the set parameters of your planned output.
IF you want to produce 60 cars / hour, that would require you to have a balance of no more then 60 sec on any station.

due to this, to reach planned output its not efficient to put an other station next to the first unless the takt of the rest of the line is HALF of the station you duplicate.

so a job split would be alot better, brake down the build to the smallest components avalible for each station