2004-2005 Design Competition Summary

Sponsored by CICMHE and Modern Materials Handling magazine. Thanks to Gross & Associates for developing the case based on an actual project.

Contest Case Description

Advanced Additives ® is a manufacturer and distributor of liquid and powdered products. They ship to contractors, distributors and hardware stores. Due to the current growth in the construction industry, the company needs to increase its production capabilities. A planned addition of two production lines will cause the company to look at new methods of receiving and shipping, feeding and removing products from the lines and storing raw materials and finished product. The current building cannot be expanded or replaced. Advanced Additives ® currently operates its manufacturing and shipping staff on a two shift schedule. Receiving is performed on the first shift. The facility has some significant constraints inherent in its design and location. Expansion is not an option as the building is abutted by a freight rail line to the North, a river to the East and a road to the West. All receiving, shipping and employee parking occurs in the lot to the South.

Advanced Additives® has challenged the design teams to improve the layout design of their facility. The company has provided all the current production, inventory and sales data for this facility and anticipates an overall growth of approximately 8%. It is assumed that order characteristics (lines per order, units per line, etc.) will continue at current levels. In addition, inventory turns will remain the same. Advanced Additives® is looking for the best material handling, storage and product flow for this facility including the manufacturing space. Their desire is to remain in this facility for an additional 5 years.

Each team was tasked to include in their reports (at a minimum), the following:

The placement of new manufacturing lines required, or updates required for existing lines (assume the cost of the new production lines to be approved and thus not a part of the justification)
Storage system layout (raw materials and finished goods) to accommodate increased production
Storage and handling equipment to be purchased
Production and warehouse control for improved product flow
Receiving and shipping recommendations for improved yard operations and operational control

Judging

The three academic and two industry judges evaluated the entries according to the criteria of product flow, equipment utilization, space utilization, operational plan, overall integration and economic justification. Additionally, the judges were asked to evaluate writing quality, analysis and presentation.

The Results

First Place ($1500 split among the team plus $500 for the department):

Anna Maria Cherrez, Anat Elazari, Endri Lilaj, Rachel Mayo
Virginia Tech
Dr. Russell D. Meller, Advisor

Second Place ($1000 split among the team plus $500 to the department):

Christina Albertson, Randy Bunch, Andrew Franklin, Blake Orlandi
University of Pittsburgh
Dr. Bryan Norman, Advisor

Third Place ($500 split among the team plus $500 to the department):

Ben Arterburn, Ronnie Flowers, Brittany Carroll, Brad Gunter
University of Louisville
Dr. John Usher, Advisor

Honorable Mentions:

Charles Coufal, John Bishop, Dale Craghead
University of Nebraska-Omaha
Dr. Kenneth Merkel, Advisor

David Blonski, Sean Carmody, Matthew Klosner, Sagar Sheth
Rochester Institute of Technology
Dr. Andres Carrano, Advisor