October 1996 € Volume 6 € Number 10

The Manufacturing Game:
Thingamajigs Teach MRP

By Suzanne Zolnick

The Manufacturing Game teaches an ambivalent&emdash;sometimes hostile &emdash; student body the basics of MRP and MRP II. It's a hands-on process that illustrates the real-world intricacies of manufacturing.

The House of Seagram manufactures, bottles, and ships beverage alcohol and flavors for the consumer market. Seagram does not make and sell Thingamajigs&emdash;at least not officially. The "manufacture" of Thingamajigs, however, has been instrumental in helping Seagram employees understand the concepts of manufacturing resource planning (MRP II) and material requirements planning (MRP).

The Manufacturing Division of this multinational company migrated from the dark ages of pencil and paper planning into the modern world in 1989, when MRP II and MRP were implemented at four production plants. At that time, the House of Seagram had no internal MRP training program. Management personnel either went to the Ollie Wight five-day courseor viewed the Ollie Wight videotapes to obtain a general understanding of MRP II and MRP, and attended a two-week training session on the specifics of the House of Seagram Manufacturing System. A few individuals also attended APICS certification courses following the initial implementation of the Seagram system. Despite these efforts, however, few people readily understood and accepted the advent of MRP II and MRP. Overall, in a culture used to and comfortable with a manual planning method, system users and non-users alike resisted these "high-tech" tools. They largely felt that the new system would be difficult to learn and use, particularly for individuals who were unfamiliar with computers of any sort. Operating personnel received only a brief overview of the workings of the House of Seagram Manufacturing System, and often blamed MRP for frequent product changeovers, the unavailability of supplies and most other production problems that arose over the next five years. Indeed, many employees decided that management had abdicated the details of operations and management to the computer system, the machine running MRP.

In 1993, system administrators and users conducted an audit of the House of Seagram Manufacturing System at all live locations. The audit uncovered a low understanding of the concepts of MRP II and MRP in general and the House of Seagram Manufacturing System specifically, as well as limited support and commitment for and use of an MRP system. Auditors therefore recommended development of a generic education program for both users and non-users of the system.

In conjunction with system administrators, the production division's training and development staff developed general content for the MRP education program. The training staff then set out to create a lesson plan and format for the training. Over several months, we struggled with defining terms and concepts to make them understandable to a variety of participants. Two of us knew the House of Seagram Manufacturing System well, as we had been system users prior to our assignment to training. Yet we had difficulty deciding how to make MRP II and MRP less foreign, less frightening and less frustrating to plant personnel at all levels.


Hands-on learning
MRP is not rocket science, we finally concluded. It is a logical tool that performs the mathematical functions that used to be done with pencil, paper and calculator. Such a formal system merely crunches more numbers, faster than humans can. With that revelation, we realized that a simple hands-on example of a manufacturing process would allow students to draw this same conclusion on their own. Thus the Manufacturing Game&emdash;Thingamajig Simulation was conceived. The Manufacturing Game would also help to achieve three of the 10 objectives set for the user and non-user generic MRP education. It would explain and demonstrate what MRP is, simulate the Universal Manufacturing Equation and give students an opportunity to have fun.

The goal established for the simulation is "to have participants demonstrate their natural tendencies to apply the Universal Manufacturing Equation and MRP II." The House of Seagram defines the Universal Manufacturing Equation as:

• What are we going to make? (forecast, plan)
• What does it take to make it? (resources, bill of material)
• What do we have? (inventory)
• What do we need, and when? (manufacturing schedule)

As pre-work to both the generic user and non-user classes, students receive game background and instructions, as well as an engineering drawing depicting the design and configuration of a Thingamajig. As per Engineering Drawing #Z737, Thingamajigs consist of a button, a small paper clip, a large rubber band, a small rubber band, and a spring type clothespin. The drawing and a written description of the Thingamajg provide students with the bill of material, as required by item two on the definition of the Universal Manufacturing Equation.

Equally important as the students' pre-work is that done by the facilitators. They must set up the training room with the Manufacturing Game in mind. The most effective configuration has tables in a "U" shape with a small table in the middle for the Thingamajig components. The central location of the components gives all teams equal access to them. The "U" shape allows teams members to sit on either side of the tables, again providing easier access to supplies.

When the Manufacturing Game begins, some 30 minutes into a class, students are asked to review the instructions for the simulation (see Figure 1) and again look at Drawing #Z737. The facilitator confirms their understanding of the information, then randomly divides the class into teams of three to four partners in the Thingamajig business venture, advising them, in the spirit of business competition, not to interact.


Getting down to business
Teams next receive one assembled Thingamajig and a random number of components for practice in manufacturing their product. Additional component materials, as noted above, are available in a central location in the training room. Participants are permitted to obtain additional components whenever they wish. Prior to a two-minute practice run, the class facilitators demonstrate the correct assembly of a Thingamajig as per the engineering drawing. Then, for two minutes, teams practice making their product. Facilitators collect all completed Thingamajigs at the end of this time, and give teams a few minutes to think about their practice period, individually set a manufacturing goal for a two-minute trial run, and come to consensus with team members on their production goal. They record their number and calculate theoretical profitability. Figure 1 describes the rate at which Acme Aerospace will pay for the Thingamajigs the teams make&emdash;$1.50 each for the first 10; anything over 10 earns $1 each. When the trial manufacturing period ends, they use this information to calculate their actual results. Facilitators collect all loose components and completed Thingamajigs from the teams.

Armed with manufacturing experience, teams set goals for a 10-minute "production" run. They predict the number of Thingamajigs they can make in 10 minutes and calculate their profitability at that manufacturing level, based on payment of $1.50 for each of the first 10 Thingamajigs produced and $1 for each over 10. Facilitators post these goals on a flip chart. Teams can then review their goals and change them if they wish. This activity answers the first question of the Universal Manufacturing Equation, "What are we going to make?" as it requires the teams to forecast their production. It should also lead them to calculate how many components they need to meet their plan. Experience with the game, however, has shown that teams usually skip this step.

Before the game begins, the third question of the Universal Manufacturing Equation is addressed&emdash;each entrepreneurial group receives a container with 10 unassembled sets of components. Facilitators do not comment on the contents of the container, and pass it out with no fanfare. The teams now have an inventory of components, but no finished goods on hand, as their trial run product has all been collected. Immediately before beginning the 10-minute manufacturing period, the facilitators review the rules for visits to the supplier. Required components, they explain, are available to the teams in a central location in the classroom. They are stored in large, open containers and participants can obtain them at any time, in any amount, by going to the supply location. Teams are reminded that the business of making Thingamajigs, and fulfilling their contract with Acme Aerospace, is totally under their control. Any decisions they make are the team's responsibility.


And they're off!
Teams now begin their 10-minute manufacturing "day." Generally, they form an assembly line operation, with team members taking on different roles. The teams, however, make this decision for themselves. Often, if one person cannot keep up on their "job," another individual will assist until they are caught up. On only two teams has each member manufactured Thingamajigs from start to finish. Although this technique was unexpected, one of the teams achieved its manufacturing goal. Neither, however, experienced the group dynamics and team learnings that most students experience. The teams remain engrossed in the manufacturing process for the 10 minutes, working to meet or exceed their goal. They remain quite competitive throughout the period. Some teams keep close tabs on the number of Thingamajigs they produce. Others have no idea until the end of the 10 minutes how much product they made. Rarely do the teams plan their component "purchases." Someone on the team runs for supplies during manufacturing and inevitably returns with handfuls of component materials. Amusingly, one or two teams will ask about work breaks, complain about "working conditions," or insist they have been injured on the job. These comments add to the fun students have playing the Manufacturing Game, even though the facilitators remind them that the team members own their Thingamajig business, so must assume responsibility for these problems.

At the end of 10 minutes, the facilitators stop the manufacturing process. Teams inspect one another's work, usually finding several non-conforming or defective Thingamajigs. This invariably leads to loud protests from the manufacturing team. The facilitators next call for the moment of truth. The Thingamajig entrepreneurs receive a sample calculation sheet and a work sheet to determine their company's status (see Figure 2). After reviewing the sample, teams have approximately five minutes to calculate their results.

The teams assume that all Thingamajigs made will contribute to their profit. They fail to realize that they will need to consider the cost of all Thingamajigs produced as well as that of all components on hand after the manufacturing period. The facilitators point out that the teams have no known market for more Thingamajigs than those Acme has agreed to buy. Few teams make a conscious decision to overproduce their contract to have safety stock or replacements for defective items. Most, in the heat of the moment, make as many Thingamajigs as they can. Similarly, the teams procure component supplies in bulk during the manufacturing period. Leftover items sometimes number in the hundreds, providing a "costly" lesson to those who do not look at the fourth part of the Universal Manufacturing Equation, "What do we need, and when?" before they manufacture.


The bottom line
Once the teams complete their final profitability calculations, the facilitators post their numbers of actual Thingamajigs produced and profit or loss on the flip chart next to the pre-production forecasts. Students must then decide if they have a Business Success, which occurs if the team delivers the number contracted with Acme Aerospace and meets their profit prediction; Unhappy Shareholders, when they deliver the number of Thingamajigs contracted, but do not accomplish their profit prediction; or Business Failure, where the team does not deliver the number contracted with Acme. Experience to date has resulted in few Business Successes. Many teams end up with Unhappy Shareholders. They over produce Thingamajigs and/or accumulate large inventories of component parts, both of which slice heavily into their sales profits.

After posting actual production results, the facilitators take care to process the learnings from the Manufacturing Game. They elicit responses from the teams on such questions as:

• What occurred during the goal-setting period?
• What influenced their goal-setting?
• How did the trial run influence their goal?
• Who won the game?

More importantly, they relate the game to the Universal Manufacturing Equation, which is formally introduced immediately following the Manufacturing Game. Facilitators ask teams how they knew what to make, how many components they needed, and how did they know what components to obtain from the supplier. They further question the class about how the opportunity to use the House of Seagram Manufacturing System when they were ready to make Thingamajigs might have influenced their decisions and actions, and what information it could have provided to them. The game can also be related to MRP II, entrepreneurship, goal setting and team behaviors.

With the processing time, the Manufacturing Game takes about an hour to complete. Facilitators can increase that time if they wish by asking students to analyze in detail how their Thingamajig business operation compares to what really happens on the job. Experience with the game has shown thus far that participants learn the basic concepts of MRP II and, from their mistakes in inventory control, MRP. Once they gain some short distance from the heat of playing the game and competing with other teams, they invariably see that the concepts of MRP II and MRP are simple, easily understandable and useful in their jobs or operation. Class members who enter the training apprehensive or unwilling to participate emerge after the game in good spirits, ready to learn more about the topic at hand. They have had fun.

In seven class sessions to date, the Manufacturing Game has done its job and more. Students have come to understand that MRP in its pure form is not "rocket science." They learn that it still employs tried and true pencil and paper planning techniques, just enhanced by the computer's capabilities in number crunching. Management, students discover, has not given up its right to disagree with system recommendations and can still strike out on a course that best meets the needs of the business&emdash;after all, we run our operation, not "MRP." They can also review the steps of the game to recall the Universal Manufacturing Equation and, upon reflection, discover that they use MRP in their daily lives, to cook dinner, paint their house and plan a vacation. Most importantly, however, the Manufacturing Game featuring Thingamajigs breaks the ice in a sometimes hostile student group and definitely provides the opportunity to have fun.

For more information about this article, input the number 255 in the appropriate
place on the October Reader Service Form