Lean Manufacturing Concept: The Main Factor in Improving Manufacturing Performance - A Case Study
Lean Manufacturing Concept: The Main Factor in Improving Manufacturing Performance - A Case Study
Lean Manufacturing Concept: The Main Factor in Improving Manufacturing Performance - A Case Study
net/publication/220572994
CITATIONS READS
15 5,964
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Muhamad Zameri Mat Saman on 07 April 2016.
N. Zakuan*
Lecturer, UTHM, Parit Raja,
Johor 86400, Malaysia
E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding author
1 Introduction
The performance of a company can be defined as the sum of each strategy of its
component functions such as manufacturing, finance, marketing, service, research and
development, etc. In a successful firm, these strategies interlock to provide maximum
competitive advantage of which the firm is capable (Chin and Mat Saman, 2004).
In many manufacturing companies, employees both inside and outside the manufacturing
function realise that manufacturing is struggling to provide what the company needs to
be successful in this ever-competitive marketplace. The reality is the company that can
deliver a high quality and low cost product at the right time to the marketplace will win
the most market share. Hence, getting company to meet market expectations can be
accomplished only by realigning manufacturing system, continuous improvement,
increasing manufacturing capabilities and simultaneously seeking to reduce waste in the
system. This paper begins with the analysis of the current situation of the company’s
production system and then followed by a proposed recommendation of the production
system. Following this, several elements involved in the proposed recommendations are
elaborated. Lastly, discussion and conclusions are briefly described.
2 Literature review
Productions systems can be categorised into four main groups that is, craft, mass, agile
and lean. Womack et al. (1991) published their output on the research of the world
automotive industry in The Story of Lean production. It was a research under the
International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), which spend five years and USD$5 millions to complete. The researchers of the
programme comprised of a worldwide team with diverse professional background. The
team visited 90 automotive assembly plants in 17 countries around Europe, Northern and
South America, Japan, Korea and Australia (Womack and Jones, 1996).
Generally, lean operations are characterised by five key principles (Robertson and
Jones, 1999),
1 Value: Specify value by specific product based on customer requirements.
2 Value Stream: Identify the route of each product that is from raw material to the
customer.
3 Flow: Develop a value flow of the process, which can provide a short lead time,
high quality and low cost.
4 Pull: Develop a pull system (Just in Time (JIT) concept). The flows of the
process are driven by the customers.
5 Perfection: Implementation of the continuous improvement concept at all time
in order to produce good results.
A success implementation of the lean operations system has been proven by Davidson
Instrument Panels Company (Miltenburg, 1995). Davidson Instrument Panels in
New Hampshire had changed its batch flow production system to a physical flow JIT
production system. The layout and material flow was changed from a functional layout to
a product focused lines. As a result, setup times are reduced from 8 hr to just 10 min.
Production rate for each line can be synchronised with customer requirements and
Lean manufacturing concept 355
products can be produced and shipped JIT. The result is decrease in manufacturing cost,
an improvement in quality and a drop in manufacturing Cycle Time (CT). Inventory
turns increased from 7.5 to 28 turns per year over the four-year period. Result of study
by Standard and Davis (1999) (Table 1) illustrated a significant improvement gained
by companies that embraced the lean Concept.
Result from this study indicated that about 60% of lean companies improved their
competitive advantages in the area of lead time, pricing and market share. In the area of
time to launch new product and product diversity, respectively, 39% and 24% of lean
companies claimed to experience improvement after switching to lean approach.
All these improvements significantly increase their competitiveness. Another study done
on companies in the UK also indicated a direct relation between the improvements in
company performance and the adoption of lean approaches (London Business
School, 1993).
The case study of this project is an automotive component (a car seat) (Coventry
University, 2005). Based on company production data, a product family containing two
parts, that is AL123 (Left-Hand Side (LHS)) and ARE124 (Right-Hand Side (RHS)).
A car seat consists of two LHS, AL123 and two RHS, ARE124. ARE124 has an
additional electronic subassembly. The company manufacturing facility is a mass
production principle. The process includes conventional machining and electronic
assembly and final assembly. The production starts with sawing of bars to size in the raw
material stores. The product is transferred in a batch size of 400 to a conventional lathe,
followed by deburing. Next process is for CNC machining operations which define LHS
and RHS features. Then, in batches 1000, heat treatment process is carried out. After
that, grind process to be done for the finishing face. At this phase, the products are split
to different operations. AR is transported to operation 8, where electronic subassembly to
be added while AL being transported directly to operation 9.
The electronic subassembly is produced in a manual assembly in an adjacent
building, where 3 operations are carried out. The final electronic subassembly product is
transported to manual assembly and combined with AL product to operations 9 and 10.
Finally, the finished assemblies are then loaded to the LHS and RHS designated carriers
and ready for shipment. This gives the overall picture of the company’s operation in
producing its high volume runner products. Based on initial observations, it shows that
there are several waste areas that can be improved such as waiting, overproduction,
356 N. Zakuan and M.Z. Mat Saman
rework, motion, processing, inventory and transportation. Then, the following analysis
looks at the overall operations from lean manufacturing approach to cut waste throughout
the operations and subsequently lowering operational cost and maximising company
profit.
where
Available production time = (7 × 3) × 60 × 60 = 75,600 sec
and
⎛ 4200 ⎞
Total daily quantity required = ⎜ ⎟ × 4 = 840 parts required
⎝ 20 ⎠
so
75,600
Takt time = = 90 sec
840
Therefore, ratio of lead time to value added time for main production,
948.96/6.38 = 148.7.
The ratio of lead time to value added time is 148.7. This ratio is a comparison
between the total time for the whole process from raw materials to finished products and
the total of operation time. A smaller ratio is the best value to illustrate the productivity
Lean manufacturing concept 357
of the company. Based on the lead time and the ratio calculated, the company has to take
further action to improve this situation in order to satisfy customer demand and remain in
competitive market. The company has to investigate.
1 Long lead time: the production lead time, consists of three components which
are processing time for supply lots, waiting time and conveyance time between
processes (Monden, 1997). Basically, the components of production lead time
are queue time before processing, setup time, run time, waiting time after
processing and moving time (Tapping et al., 2002). Lead time can be reduced
by shortening processing time, for example introducing single-unit production
and conveyance system especially at assembly and subassembly production.
Even if a process does not involve single-unit production, the operation is still
limited to a small production lot size. To achieve this, multiprocess holding by
multifunction workers is efficient. The layout needs to change so that each
worker could handle several different types of machines at the same time.
With this method, only one item of stock is involved in the work in process
in each machine. The inventory level is minimised and production lead
time is reduced.
2 High batch/lot size and setup time: lead time can be reduced by shortening
process time through small sized lot production. In this case study the CT
per unit of operation 2 (lathe) is 1 min and the lot of size is 400, then the total
processing amount to 6.6 hr. However, by reducing the lot size to 100, its CT is
only 1.6 hr. For example, the processing of operation 2 (lathe) has decreased to
1.6 hr from 6.6 hr just by reducing the lot size. This simple logic is basic to
shortening the lead time by reducing the lot size. However, from current state
mapping, it is visualising that for heat treatment process, the CT is too long
which took 4 hr complete.
If the setup time in changeover of the lots is kept constant, the total setup time will
increase in proportion to the increased number of changes of the lots. Therefore, the
setup time must also be shortened when lot of size is reduced. Based on current state
mapping, it can be seen that setup time in changeover of each process is too
high. For example, the changeover time for the grinding process is 45 min. Further
study needs to be carried out to reduce the changeover time.
3 High inventory and waiting time: high inventory will increase the production
lead time and waiting time as well. As for waiting time, the first type of waiting
time is often caused by a delay in a preceding process making the subsequent
process. The second is often caused by a delay in a subsequent process making
the preceding process wait. Therefore, both causes are the result of unbalance
production time between processes and resulted high in inventory.
Based on the current state mapping, unbalance line can be figured out as shown
below. To construct operator balance chart, it is focused to the main assembly line
which involve operation 1 until operation 10 except heat treatment process.
However, electronic subassembly line in not consider in the main assembly line.
So, the CT is,
4 Rearrange the layout: as discussed earlier, the lead time can be reduced by
rearranging the layout. The purpose of rearranging the layout is to reduce the
travel distance. The material flow for current situation is not smooth.
Lean manufacturing concept 359
For example, after the CNC process, the next process is heat treatment but
location of heat treatment is quite far and it is affected to the lead time because
after that the product needs to proceed to grinding process which makes
material flow not consistent. Rearranging the layout will give a better flow of
the material.
4.3 Summary
As a summary, current state mapping can help to promote good visual management on
the factory floor. Mapping material and information flow will allow to,
Based on the analysis that have been carried out, the current manufacturing situation
need to improve to ensure the company satisfy customer demand and remain in the
competitive market. The subsequent section will discuss on the evaluation of future state
mapping.
The next step is to design future state mapping. The process for mapping the future state
mapping takes place in three stages which are customer demand stage, flow stage and
levelling stage. Figure 2 shows the future states mapping which highlighted the
involvement of lean operations such as cell design and supermarket kanban systems.
The result, six cells have been identified which are; Cell 1 combining 3 operations.
The operations are saw, lathe and deburing. Cell 2 is combining 2 operations which are
CNC1 and CNC2. In order to balance the work load, the company have to invest an
additional machine each for CNC1 and CNC2. Cell 3 is only 1 operation which is heat
treatment and Cell 4 is only 1 operation which is grinding. Cell 5 is combining assembly
Lean manufacturing concept 361
335
Number of operator = = 3.7
90
Its need 3.7 people, with continuous improvement and CT reduction, its can reduced to 3
people. Three people working at a 98% efficiency gives a CT, CT = 98% × 90 = 88.2 sec
and
Total Work Content (TWC) = 88.2 × 3 = 265 sec
Furthermore, for the lead time, it is assumed that the lead time for each process is one
day except raw material lead time, 1.5 days.
So that
Total lead time = 11.5 days
Therefore, the ratio of lead time to value added time for main production,
Lead time = 11.5 × 24 = 236 hr
So
236
Ratio = = 40.27
5.86
6 Discussion
The benefits of lean operations can be quite dramatic, and this explains why so many
companies are undertaking the difficult transition. In an increasingly competitive
environment, lean operations can provide advantages that are not easily duplicated by
rival companies.
Based on the analysis, compared to current state mapping, the main assembly line
shows a 70.9% reduction of total lead time, a 21.8% reduction in value added time and
for the electronic subassembly line, a 33.7% reduction in total lead time and a 51.3%
reduction in value added time as shown in sample calculation below.
Main Assembly Line:
Current state: Total lead time = 39.54 days and Value added time = 859 sec
Future state: Total lead time = 11.5 days and Value added time = 671 sec
⎡ (39.54 − 11.5) ⎤
Total lead time reduction = ⎢ ⎥ × 100% = 70.9%
⎣ 39.54 ⎦
Comparing to current state mapping, instead of making every part every two weeks, the
company target is now changing to making every part every day. Even though, it has
been in business for 40 years, the company will gain a significant benefit by
implementing lean operations.
7 Conclusion
From the presentation of this paper, the company have to redesign the manufacturing
environment in order to satisfy the market demands and also to become a world class
manufacturing. Without changing the manufacturing environment, the company will not
Lean manufacturing concept 363
be able to stay in competitive business in the next few years. Based on the analysis, this
company has a potential to become a more competitive manufacturer through adaptation
of lean operations concept. Successful implementation of this concept can help the
company improve customer satisfaction, improve quality, reduce costs, reduce inventory,
reduce delivery time and eliminate the wastes. Generally, the proposed future state
developed using lean manufacturing approach offers significant operational benefits that
will improve company’s competitiveness. Besides that, to ensure the success of future
state mapping, detail proposed implementation methodology need to be carried out.
There are a few methods of lean operations that can be implemented. These are
continuous flow, work cell, Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED), in-process
supermarkets, kanban system, first in first out rule and 5S.
References
Chin, H.G. and Mat Saman, M.Z. (2004) ‘Proposed analysis of performance measure for a
production system’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp.570–583.
Coventry University (2005) MSc Programme: Lean Operations Module (Case Study), UK.
London Business School (1993) Made in Britain: The True State of Britain’s Manufacturing
Industry, London.
Miltenburg, J. (1995) Manufacturing Strategy, Portland Oregon: Productivity Press.
Monden, Y. (1997) Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to Just-in-Time,
3rd edition, USA: Engineering and Management Press.
Robertson, M. and Jones, C. (1999) ‘Application of lean production and agile manufacturing
concepts in a telecommunications environment’, International Journal of Agile Management
System, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.14–17.
Standard, C. and Davis, D. (1999) ‘Running today factory: a proven strategy for lean
manufacturing’, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, USA.
Tapping, D., Luyster, T. and Shuker, T. (2002) Value Stream Management: Eight Steps to
Planning, Mapping and Sustaining Lean Improvements, New York, USA: Productivity Inc.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996) Lean Thinking, New York: Simon and Schuster.
Womack, J.P., Roos, D. and Jones, D.T. (1991) The Machine that Changed the World, New York:
Simon and Schuster.