Productivity improvement under manufacturing environment using Shainin system and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process: a case study

  • Kapil Mittal
  • Puran Chandra Tewari
  • Dinesh Khanduja
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 154 Downloads

Abstract

“Productivity is never an accident, it is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused approach,” the phrase by Paul J. Meyer, an American businessman, has everything explained within it. Various quality improvement tools and techniques along with their integration have been attempted in the past for enhancing productivity levels in large-scale organizations across the globe. Similarly, new unification of these techniques can bring positive results even in a small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME). Authors, in this case study, use the synergy of two approaches, namely, “Shainin system” and “fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP)” to enhance the productivity of a system. Shainin system stands close to a set of instruments that are clear to understand and easy to be applied, whereas AHP technique has a proven potential in decision-making and evaluation. Results, after successful implementation, indicate a monetary saving of $100,000, which is substantial for a SME. Emphasis is put on a coherent step-wise implementation of both the strategies and linking them together to inculcate the best potential outcomes.

Keywords

Shainin system Fuzzy logic AHP Quality management Productivity improvement 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Akao Y (1997) QFD: past, present, and future. In: International Symposium on Quality Function Deployment. p 19Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aksu B, Baynal K (2010) Shainin and Taguchi methods and their comparison on an application. In: International Symposium on Computing in Science & Engineering. pp 801–809Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antony J (1999) Spotting the key variables using Shainin’s variables search design. Logist Inf Manag 12:325–331. doi: 10.1108/09576059910284140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arshinder, Kanda A, Deshmukh SG (2007) Coordination in supply chains: an evaluation using fuzzy logic. Prod Plan Control 18:420–435. doi: 10.1080/09537280701430994 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balan S (2015) Multi-response optimisation using Grey relational analysis and Shainin design of experiments Srinivasan Balan. Int J Qual Eng Technol 5:57–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beg J, Shunmugam MS (2003) Application of fuzzy logic in the selection of part orientation and probe orientation sequencing for prismatic parts. Int J Prod Res 41:2799–2815. doi: 10.1080/0020754031000095130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhote K (1999) World class quality: using design of experiments to make it happen, 2nd edn. AMACOM Div American Mgmt AssnGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bilgen B, Şen M (2012) Project selection through fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and a case study on six sigma implementation in an automotive industry. Prod Plan Control 23:2–25. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2010.537286 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boaden R (1997) What is total quality management… and does it matter. Total Qual Manag 8:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang C, Wu C, Chen H (2008) Using expert technology to select unstable slicing machine to control wafer slicing quality via fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst Appl 34:2210–2220. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2007.02.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen C (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen C, Klein C (1997) An efficient approach to solving fuzzy MADM problems. Fuzzy Sets Syst 88:51–67MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen JK (2007) Utility priority number evaluation for FMEA. J Fail Anal Prev 7:321–328. doi: 10.1007/s11668-007-9060-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen LH, Kao C, Kuo S et al (1996) Productivity diagnosis via fuzzy clustering and classification: an application to machinery industry. Omega 24:309–319. doi: 10.1016/0305-0483(96)00002-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cigolini R, Rossi T (2008) Evaluating supply chain integration: a case study using fuzzy logic. Prod Plan Control 19:242–255. doi: 10.1080/09537280801916249 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cox S, Garside J, Kotsialos A (2012) Concise process improvement—a process variation diagnosis tool. In: International MATADOR Conference. pp 1–5Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cox S, Garside J, Kotsialos A, Vitanov V (2013) Concise process improvement definition with case studies. Int J Qual Reliab Manag 30:970–990. doi: 10.1108/IJQRM-03-2012-0029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Danijela T, Alev Taskin G, Slavko A et al (2013) An evaluation of quality goals by using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 25(3):547–556MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Mast J, Schippers W, Does RJMM, Van den Heuvel E (2000) Steps and strategies in process improvement. Qual Reliab Eng Int 16:301–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fazil BM, Kesavan R (2014) Vendor selection in supply chain management using ISM and ANP. IOSR J Mech Civ Eng 81–89Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goodman J, Wyld DC (2001) The hunt for the red X: a case study in the use of Shainin design of experiment (DOE) in an industrial honing operation. Manag Res News 24:1–17. doi: 10.1108/01409170110782919 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gupta H, Garg D, Gupta R (2011) Applicability of just in time in technical institution: a survey. J Eng Technol 1:31–36. doi: 10.4103/0976-8580.74564 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gupta R, Verma PL, Manoria A, Bajpai L (2016) Simplifying six sigma methodology using Shainin DOE. Int J Adv Eng Res Dev 3:363–368Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hwang C-L, Lai Y-J, Liu T-Y (1993) A new approach for multiple objective decision making. Comput Oper Res 20:889–899. doi: 10.1016/0305-0548(93)90109-V CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Inman RR, Blumenfeld DE, Huang N, Li J (2003) Designing production systems for quality: research opportunities from an automotive industry perspective. Int J Prod Res 41:1953–1971. doi: 10.1080/0020754031000077293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jegadheeson AJ, Karunamoorthy L, Arun Kumar N et al (2012) Evolutionary approach in process improvement—a case study in auto electrical alternator manufacturing. J Adv Manuf Syst 11:27–50. doi: 10.1142/S0219686712500035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaushik P, Khanduja D, Mittal K, Jaglan P (2012) A case study: application of six sigma methodology in a small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprise. TQM J 24:4–16. doi: 10.1108/17542731211191186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaushik P, Mittal K (2015) A general model for problem solving in manufacturing or service organizations. J Eng Technol. doi: 10.4103/0976-8580.158566 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kuhlang P, Edtmayr T, Sihn W (2011) Methodical approach to increase productivity and reduce lead time in assembly and production-logistic processes. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 4:24–32. doi: 10.1016/j.cirpj.2011.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee A, Chen W-C, Chang C-J (2008) A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Syst Appl 34:96–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Liu H, Liu L, Liu N, Mao L (2012) Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 39:12926–12934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Logothetis N (1990) A perspective on Shainin’s approach to experimental design for quality improvement. Qual Reliab Eng Int 6:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lu LYY, Wu CH, Kuo T (2007) Environmental principles applicable to green supplier evaluation by using multi-objective decision analysis. Int J Prod Res 45:4317–4331. doi: 10.1080/00207540701472694 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Luthra S, Mangla SK, Xu L, Diabat A (2016) Using AHP to evaluate barriers in adopting sustainable consumption and production initiatives in a supply chain. Int J Prod Econ. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.04.001 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mangla SK, Kumar P, Barua MK (2015) Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach: a case study. Resour Conserv Recycl 104:375–390. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Michalos G, Fysikopoulos A, Makris S et al (2015) Multi criteria assembly line design and configuration—an automotive case study. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 9:69–87. doi: 10.1016/j.cirpj.2015.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mittal K, Khanduja D, Kaushik P (2011) Leveraging APQP methodology to drive improvement in SME: a case study. Int J Contemp Pract 1:38–51Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mittal K, Tewari PC, Khanduja D, Kaushik P (2016) Application of fuzzy TOPSIS MADM approach in ranking & underlining the problems of plywood industry in India. Cogent Eng 3:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mooren J, de Mast J, Does RJMM (2012) Quality quandaries*: the case of premature drill wear out. Qual Eng 24:354–359. doi: 10.1080/08982112.2011.652584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mourtzis D, Papakostas N, Makris S et al (2008) Supply chain modeling and control for producing highly customized products. CIRP Ann - Manuf Technol 57:451–454. doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2008.03.106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Onut S, Kara SS, Mert S (2009) Selecting the suitable material handling equipment in the presence of vagueness. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 44:818–828. doi: 10.1007/s00170-008-1897-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Opricovic S, Tzeng G-H (2004) Compromise solution by MCDM methods: a comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. Eur J Oper Res 156:445–455CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Prashar A (2016) Using Shainin DOE for six sigma: an Indian case study. Prod Plan Control 27:83–101. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2015.1078515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Prashar A (2015) Using Shainin DOE for six sigma: an Indian case study. Prod Plan Control 27:83–101. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2015.1078515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rathi R, Khanduja D, Sharma SK (2015) Six sigma project selection using fuzzy TOPSIS decision making approach. Manag Sci Lett 5:447–456. doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2015.3.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rowlands H, Wang LIREN (2000) An approach of fuzzy logic evaluation and control in SPC. Qual Reliab Eng Int 16:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Saaty T (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Saaty T (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1:83–98MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Shainin P, Shainin R (1997) Managing statistical engineering. In: 51st Annual Quality Congress Proceedings. pp 818–832Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shainin R (1993) Strategies for technical problem solving. Qual Eng 5:433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shanmugam B, Kalaichelvan K (2014) Rejection reduction of vacuum pump type alternator assembly. IOSR J Mech Civ Eng 3:51–58Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Singh RK, Khilwani N, Tiwari MK (2007) Justification for the selection of a reconfigurable manufacturing system: a fuzzy analytical hierarchy based approach. Int J Prod Res 45:3165–3190. doi: 10.1080/00207540600844043 CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Steiner S, MacKay R (1997) Strategies for variation reduction. Qual Eng 10:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Thomas A, Antony J (2004) Applying Shainin’s variables search methodology in aerospace applications. Assem Autom 24:184–191. doi: 10.1108/01445150410529973 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Verma AK, Srividya A, Mannikar AV et al (2004) Shainin method: edge over other DOE techniques. IEEE Int Eng Manag Conf 3:1110–1113. doi: 10.1109/IEMC.2004.1408864 Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yadollahi Farsi J, SiahkaliMoradi J, Jamali B (2012) Which product would be chosen? A fuzzy VIKOR method for evaluation and selection of products in terms of customers’ point of view; case study: Iranian cell phone market. Decis Sci Lett 1:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yin KH, Choo HL, Halim D, Rudd C (2013) Multi-response parameters optimisation for energy-efficient injection moulding process via dynamic Shainin DOE method. Key Eng Mater 554–557:1669–1682. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.554-557.1669 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Zadeh L (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning—I. Inf Sci (Ny) 8:199–249MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zammori F, Gabbrielli R (2012) ANP/RPN: a multi criteria evaluation of the risk priority number. Qual Reliab Eng Int 28:85–104. doi: 10.1002/qre.1217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of TechnologyKurukshetraIndia

Personalised recommendations