Cooper Wine Racking And Cellar Company

Cooper Wine Racking And Cellar Companycooper Wine Racking And Cellar

Cooper Wine Racking and Cellar Company is a small but growing carpentry job shop that specializes in natural-finish redwood racking systems for the storage and display of wine bottles. As the company expands, it plans to move into a larger leased building divided into 12 equal zones. The company must strategically assign its functional areas within the building, respecting existing restrictions regarding door locations, plumbing, and utility lines, to optimize workflow and minimize costs. The assignment involves considering proximity ratings between different departments, the placement of entrances and exits, and utility access points, particularly for restrooms and loading bays. A well-designed initial layout will help streamline operations, improve efficiency, and reduce operational costs.

Paper For Above instruction

Designing an optimal layout for Cooper Wine Racking and Cellar Company within its new building involves integrating multiple constraints and considerations derived from the company's operational needs and the building owner’s restrictions. The core objective is to assign each of the 12 functional areas to one of the designated zones in a manner that promotes operational efficiency, minimizes travel distances, and remains cost-effective.

The first step in layout design is understanding the key restrictions outlined by the building owner. The building’s external doors are fixed: the front entrance must be located either in the front office (zone 4) or the demo cellar (zone 4), and the shipping department and lumber storage must be situated adjacent to the exterior loading bays (zones 11 and 12). Additionally, the plumbing system enters through the west wall, complicated further by the restriction that restrooms must be located within zones 1 through 4. Since the company plans to have restrooms in both the front office and the production office, these two must be located within the first four zones.

Next, proximity ratings between departments guide the placement to reduce internal transportation—represented by a closeness rating scale from 'A' (most desirable) to 'X' (least desirable). Assignments should prioritize high closeness scores for departments with significant interaction, such as the production area and storage, or the office and design departments. For instance, the wine rack manufacturing units and storage should be located near the shipping and lumber areas, reducing transportation time and costs. Conversely, departments with less interaction, such as the front office and the demo cellar, should be positioned further apart if needed.

From a strategic perspective, the layout should place the front office and demo cellar in zones 1-4 to satisfy restroom and entrance restrictions. Zones 11 and 12 are designated for the shipping department and lumber storage, respectively, due to the external loading bays. The storage areas and manufacturing units are ideally grouped to facilitate raw material flow, with minimal cross-traffic. This could mean situating lumber storage near the production areas to streamline material movement, while office areas are clustered to support administrative functions.

Considering the cost implications of utilities, plumbing lines and sewer drains are best minimized by avoiding widespread internal piping. By positioning restrooms within zones 1-4 and aligning other water-dependent needs accordingly, utility installation costs are contained. This layout minimizes the need for extensive plumbing work across the building, thereby controlling expenses. Also, placing the administrative offices centrally within zones 1-3 can serve as a hub connecting production, storage, and shipping efficiently.

Applying a systematic approach—such as using a scoring model that accounts for the closeness ratings, restrictions, and utility considerations—helps identify the most balanced and efficient layout. Optimally, high-importance departments with frequent interactions should be assigned to zones with the highest scores among neighboring zones, with the least interactional departments assigned elsewhere. For instance, the wine racking production workspace and the wine display storage should be adjacent, while ensuring they are close to shipping for dispatching finished products.

Such an arrangement might be as follows: assign the front office, demo cellar, and administrative support within zones 1-4, ensuring restroom and entrance constraints are satisfied. Place lumber storage and shipping in zones 11 and 12, close to exterior doors, to facilitate loading. Position production work centers between these, possibly in zones 5-8, with high closeness ratings to both storage and shipping, reducing internal transport. The remaining zones can accommodate less interconnected functions such as display or miscellaneous storage, ensuring the entire layout fosters smooth flow and operational efficiency.

To evaluate the effectiveness of this initial layout, calculating a total score based on the closeness ratings helps determine if the arrangement meets the desired operational criteria. Sums of product closeness scores between highly interacting departments should be maximized, while those between less related areas should be minimized, aligning with the company's workflow requirements. This scoring system serves as a quantitative measure to compare alternative layouts or optimize the initial design further.

In conclusion, designing an effective layout for Cooper Wine Racking involves balancing restrictions, utility considerations, and departmental interrelationship needs. By strategically positioning departments within zones 1 through 12—prioritizing high interaction scores, restricting placement based on external doors and utility lines, and minimizing construction and utility costs—the company can achieve a layout that enhances operational flow, reduces expenses, and supports future growth seamlessly.

References

• Baker, P. (2020). Facilities Planning. John Wiley & Sons.
• Bartholomew, D. (2019). Layout Design in Manufacturing. Manufacturing Journal, 45(3), 22-29.
• Grosvenor, R. (2021). Space Planning and Design. Design Quarterly, 78, 50-65.
• Heizer, J., Render, B., & Munson, C. (2017). Operations Management. Pearson.
• Jacobs, F. R., Chase, R. B., & Aquilano, N. J. (2015). Operations Management for Competitive Advantage. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Krajewski, L. J., Ritzman, L. P., & Malhotra, M. K. (2019). Operations Management: Processes and Supply Chains. Pearson.
• Montgomery, D. C. (2009). Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley & Sons.
• Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A., & Burgess, N. (2022). Operations Management. Pearson.
• Stevenson, W. J. (2021). Operations Management. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Stuart, J., & Chen, W. (2018). Facility Layout and Design. Engineering Management Journal, 30(4), 220-232.