Units| Total Lab| Avg Lab| Learning | | | | |
| Hours| Per Unit| Rate| | | | |
1| 6| 6| ***| | | | |
2| 10.8| 5.4| 10%| | | | |
4| 19.2| 4.8| 11.10%| | | | |
8| 35.2| 4.4| 8.33%| | | | |
16| 64| 4| 9.09%| | | | |
32| 115.2| 3.6| 10%| | | | |
64| 211.2| 3.3| 8.33%| | | | |
128| 384| 3| 9.09%| | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | 0.6594| -| | | |
overall average improvement rate:| 9.42% or| Approximately = | 9%| | Applicable learning curve:| 90.58% or | Approximately =| 91%| | | | | | | | | |
1. See above.
2. See above.
Please note that I was going to average at 10% and 90% but wasn’t sure at how general you we should average. 3. See X-Y chart below.
4. I believe that the gains from learning were realized earlierr in production.
5. The learning curve differs from the experience curve because a learning curve applies to the average direct labor required to produce a unit of output, whereby, an experience curve refers to the longer term factors of production that systematically reduce production cost. These factors include the shorter term labor components along with longer term product and process modifications.
6. Some factors that might prohibit a supplier from realizing learning curve gains are high workforce turnover thereby causing the workforce to not demonstrate the anticipated rate of learning/or creating an inconsistent rate of learning. The supplier will be unable to realize labor efficiency that may be factored into the sales price of the unit produced. Another factor may be the inaccurate collection of cost and labor data during the early stages of production of a unit. Another factor may be not demonstrating any process changes which would realize...