Construction Office Design with Systematic Layout Planning

SML745 “Operations Management” Course Coordinator Prof. D. K. Banwet TERM PROJECT: Construction Office Design with Systematic Layout Planning Submitted By GROUP 1 Sunil Joshi (2010SMN6871) Dr. BV Subramanium (2010SMN6891) Tajinder Singh (2010SMN6879) Abhishek Saxena (2010SMN6900) Rahul Dubey (2010SMN6935) Construction Office Design with Systematic Layout Planning Pride India Construction Company is a small to medium sized business working in the private sector. Today the firm is successfully competing in the construction sectors. The firm builds high quality, competitive priced buildings.

The layout project was an outgrowth of the strategic planning process. During this process the firm set out its objectives for the mid-term future. ? ? ? ? ? To increase annual revenue by 10% or more. To increase annual profits by 10% or more. To provide an annual contribution to the company’s profit sharing plan. To achieve and maintain a safety record of no lost work days. To maintain job security for its work force. It became clear that one key element to achieving their strategic goals was to become much more efficient in the office.

The flow of staff and paper was seen by all individuals working in the office as cumbersome. Files and critical papers were not available in a timely fashion. Project managers and staff found themselves walking the length of the office frequently adding no value to the projects and using time better placed on value added activities. Layout Procedures Layout problems may be solved from a number of approaches. There are quite a number of heuristic procedures that are available (Raott & Rakshit, 1993). A few examples are CORELAP, ALDEP and CRAFT.

The features of these procedures are summarized in Table 1. Table 1 Features of Selected Layout Procedures Procedure CORELAP PLANET ALDEP CRAFT Simulation Primary Objective Maximize Closeness Minimize Cost Maximize Closeness Minimize Cost Maximize Closeness Data Type Relationship Chart Relationship Chart or From-to-Chart Relationship Chart From-to-Chart From-to-Chart Construction Square-shaped departments if possible Square-shaped departments if possible Rectangular strips put adjacent to each other No specified shape Square Shapes

Adapted from Hassan (1994):498-99 For the relatively small office layout found at Pride India Construction, all these methods were seen as too complex by both management and staff. The administrative staff and leadership wanted a hands-on technique that everyone would understand and be able to participate actively in resolving. Systematic Layout Planning Pride India Construction turned to Systematic Layout Planning (SLP) developed by Richard Muther (1961; 1973).

SLP rests on a foundation of five important pieces of information: material (what is being produced), quantity (volume of transactions), process (sequence of transformation), services required (staff or supplier support), and time (when is output needed) (Muther, 1973). The layout solution process follows a four-stage macro process: location of area to be laid out, general overall layout for area, detailed layout plans (for all offices and equipment in this case), and installation (Muther, 1973). A five-step procedure was used for the re-layout of offices and equipment at Pride India Construction.

Following the advise of Muther and Hales (1977) and Mohr and Willett (1999), a plan of action was devised (Figure 1). Figure 1 Systematic Layout Planning Macro Map Pride India Construction Company Layout Inputs: Data Gathered on Work & Information Flows, Volume of work flows, Sequencing of work, and Critical Timing Issues of work Work Flows (Work & Information Flows, Volume of work flows) Activity Relationships (Sequencing of work, and Critical Timing Issues of work) Relationship Diagram i Space Requirements i Space Available i Space Relationship Diagram i Modifying Considerations Practical and Human Limitations Selected Layout i Based on these flowcharts and the detailed knowledge of the operations of the leadership and staff, the systematic layout planning process was initiated. The first activity was developing a detailed activity relationship chart. Relationship Diagram Any effective layout needs to start with an in-depth discussion of work relationships. In this case, the primary focus of the discussions surrounded the issue closeness. Each of the major office tasks was listed on the left side of the relationship chart (Figure 2). Each task was related to every other task in the office.

In the relationship chart, these closeness values were placed in the corresponding diamond based on the following scale: A = Absolutely Necessary E = Especially Important I = Important U = Unimportant X = Undesirable As an illustration, examine the intersection of tasks 5 (job cost) and 11 (Project manager), we see that it is especially important that these activities be close together. While the work of the job estimator (6) and the office manager (16) need not be physically close together. Fig. 2 Relationship Diagram Payal Payal Pride India Deepak Deepak Mayank Dinesh Rakesh

Dinesh Mathew Pooja Pooja Mayank Pooja Kant Kant Space Requirements for People and Tasks Once work relationships were worked out to the satisfaction of all involved, the process of space requirement of each individual is worked out. Table 2 shows the final output for this process in square feet of space desired for maximum productivity for each person. Table 2 Physical Space Requirements for Maximum Productivity Task/Individual Reception/Office Asst. Accounting/Job Costing Estimator Program Manager (Charlie) Program Manager (TBA) Office Manager Conference Room Area in Sq.

Ft. 230 120 192 210 192 120 196 Task/Individual Filing Cabinets Job Costing/Secretary Estimator Program Manager (Jim) Payroll Finance/Insurance President/Sr. Program Mgr. Area in Sq. Ft. 80 160 193 210 120 140 192 With the closeness relationships and space requirements developed for each major task, the systematic layout planning process continued with the development of the activity relationship diagram. Activity Relationships Diagram Using flip chart paper for all draft diagrams allowed for easy changes in the activity relationships diagram.

With the active input of the entire office contingent the diagram was designed and approved in just five hours over several weeks. The time delay from session to session was very helpful as many times new ideas occurred to people during the week. These insights added greatly to the final layout. The first task in developing the activity relationship diagram was to bundle jobs based on the individual who performed the tasks. For example, the Chief Financial Officer also handles insurance and some human resource functions. This bundling of responsibilities is illustrated in Figure 3.

Based on this initial cut of the activity diagram, each activity was related to all other activities based on the closeness value developed in the relationship chart (Figure 3). Four lines between activities indicate that it is absolutely necessary that these activities be close together. Three lines show an especially important closeness relationship. Two lines illustrate that it is important that they be in the same building and floor. In this layout project there were no situations where it was undesirable to have activities close together.

If this situation did exist we would see a line broken with two hash marks indicating this undesirable closeness situation. Figure 3 Initial Relationships Diagram with Bundled Tasks Dinesh Payal Kant Deepak Rakesh TBA Pooja Mathew Draw Space Relationship Diagram Using a blank diagram of the office building with walls, rest rooms, and the like indicated, the layout team was able to continue the process of moving toward a more efficient office layout by placing the activity relationship diagram over the existing office structure blueprint.

Figure 4 shows a view of this step with the highest (four line) relationships placed in the center of the space and the lower (two-line) relationships placed around the perimeter. Final Systematic Layout Planning Design After several alternative diagrams were discussed and evaluated, the final layout is shown in Figure 5. The systematic layout planning endeavor to this point was considerable in terms of time and effort. Detailed Layout Plan The final meetings of the layout team focused on each individual spelling out in detail what they needed to be efficient and effective in their various roles and responsibilities.

Every member of the layout team presented and defended their list of equipment. Table 3 illustrates detailed lists for two members of the team. Figure 4 Final Activity Relationship Diagram Dinesh Payal Kant Deepak Rakesh TBA Pooja Mathew Figure 5 Final Overall Office Layout DINESH TBA DEEPAK POOJA RAKESH MATHEW TBA KANT PAYAL Table 3 Illustrative Lists for Two Functions Chief Financial Officer Desktop Computer & Monitor Printer Desk Desk Chair Guest Chair (2) Fireproof File Cabinet (2) Calculator w/printer Electric Stapler Work Table (36 X 72)

Job Costing Desktop Computer & Monitor Printer Printer Stand Desk Desk Chair Guest Chair Fireproof File Cabinet Plan Holding Boxes Photocopier Conclusions The case study of Systematic Layout Planning at the Pride India Construction Company illustrates that small to medium firms can successfully layout and re-layout their facilities with this easy to use technique. By combining a series of logical steps that are transparent to the individuals in the firm we achieve a consensus layout. This layout does not completely satisfy all users but does show all why decisions were made.

The Pride India Construction Company discovered that the SLP process was as valuable as the final layout. Along the way many aspects of the business previously hidden came to light. References Finch, B. J. & R. L. Luebbe. (1995). Operations Management: Competing in a Changing Environment. Orlando, FL. Hassen, M. D. (1994). Computer-Aided Plant Layout. Manufacturing Facilities: Location Planning and Design. D. R. Sule. Heizer, J. & B. Render. (2004). Operations Management. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Education, Inc. Luxhoj, J. T. (1990). “A Methodology for the Location of Facility Ingress/Egress Points. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 11(5): 6-21. Mohr, J. & M. Willet. (1999). Simplified Systematic Plant Layout. CIRAS News. 34: 5-10. Muther, R. (1961). Systematic Layout Planning. Boston, CBI Publishing Company, Inc. Muther, R. (1973). Systematic Layout Planning. Boston, CBI Publishing Company, Inc. Muther, R. (1977). Six Steps to Making an Office Layout. The Office. 85: 28. Raoot, A. D. & A. Rakshit. (1993). “An Experimental Comparison of Systematic Placement Procedures for Facility Layout Design. ” International Journal of Production Research 31(7): 1735-1756.

November 16, 2017