Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A framework for choosing among different lean-based improvement programs

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper proposes a practical framework for choosing among different lean-based improvement programs in a one-machine environment and applies it in a company in the aeronautics industry. For the studied environment, i.e., a single machine and machining process bottleneck, the application of the proposed framework resulted in a potential 84.63 % improvement in lead time, which can be obtained by improving the mean time between failures by 1373 % and requires an effort of 5880 h. Alternatively, a 34.76 % reduction in lead time is also possible through a 1960-h investment in labor; this improves the coefficient of variation of repair time by 72 %. It is believed that the model proposed here can help managers in practice to quantify and choose between different options of lean-based improvement programs in single-machine or single-cell environments with flowshop standards and a predominant machine, which is typical of lean manufacturing systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Agrell PL, Wikner J (1996) An MCDM framework for dynamics systems. Int J Econ 45:279–292

    Google Scholar 

  2. Almin MA, Karim MA (2013) A time-based quantitative approach for selecting lean strategies for manufacturing organisations. Int J Prod Res 51(4):1146–1167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barad M, Dror S (2008) Strategy maps as improvement paths of enterprises. Int J Prod Res 46(23):6627–6647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barratt M, Choi TY, Li M (2011) Quantitative case studies in operational management: trends, research outcomes, and future research implications. J Oper Manag 29:329–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Danese P, Romano P, Vinelli A (2006) Sequences of improvement in supply networks: case studies from the pharmaceutical industry. Int J Oper Prod Manag 26(11):1199–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. Productivity Press, Portland, 464p

    Google Scholar 

  7. Godinho Filho M (2012) Effect of lot-size reduction and continuous improvement programmes on work in process and utilisation: a study for single-machine and flowshop environments. Int J Logist-Res App 15(5):285–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Godinho Filho M, Uzsoy R (2011) The effect of shop floor continuous improvement programs on the lot size–cycle time relationship in a multi-product single-machine environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 52:669–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Godinho Filho M, Uzsoy R (2013) The impact of simultaneous continuous improvement in setup time and repair time on manufacturing cycle times under uncertain conditions. Int J Prod Res 51(2):447–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Godinho Filho M, Guimarães AA, Oprime PC (2013) Guiding improvement programs towards LT reduction in a single-machine environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 66(9–12):1987–1998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Grutter AW, Field JM, Faull NHB (2002) Work team performance over time: three case studies of South African Manufacturers. J Oper Manag 20(5):641–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Heijnen P, Lukszo Z (2006) Continuous improvement of batch wise operation—a decision support framework. Prod Plan Control 17(4):355–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hong J, Hayya JC (1995) Joint investiment in quality improvement and setup reduction. Comput Oper Res 22(6):567–574

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Hong J, Xu SH, Hayya JC (1993) Process quality improvement and setup reduction in dynamic lot-sizing. Int J Prod Res 31(11):2693–2708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hopp WJ, Spearman ML (2008) Factory physics: foundations of manufacturing management, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill Higher Education, Nova York, 720p

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hopp WJ, Iravani SMR, Shou B (2007) A diagnostic tree for improving prodution line performance. Prod Oper Manag 16(1):77–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hu G, Wang L, Fetch S, Bidanda B (2008) A multi-objective model for project portfolio selection to implement lean an Six Sigma concepts. Int J Prod Res 46(23):6611–6625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jaber MY, Bonney M (2003) Lot sizing with learning and forgetting in setups and in product quality. Int J Prod Econ 83:95–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Khang DB, Myint YM (1999) Time, cost and quality trade-off in project management: a case study. Int J Proj Manag 17(4):249–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liker JK (2004) The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mauri F, Garetti M, Gandelli A (2010) A structured approach to process improvement in manufacturing systems. Prod Plan Control Manag Oper 21(7):695–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mohanty RP, Deshmukh SG (2001) Reengineering of materials management system: a case study. Int J Prod Econ 70:267–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. More RA (1988) Supplier/User interfacing in the development and adoption of new hardware/software systems: a framework for research. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 35:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Oliva R, Watson N (2011) Cross-functional alignment in supply chain planning: a case study of sales and operations planning. J Oper Manag 29:434–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. PORTEUS EL (1986) Optimal lot sizing, process quality improvement and setup cost reduction. Operations Research, 34: 137-144.

  26. Ramesh V, Kodali R (2012) A decision framework for maximizing lean manufacturing performance. Int J Prod Res 50(8):2234–2251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sezen B, Karakadilar IS, Buyukozkan G (2013) Propositions of a model for measuring adherence to lean practices: applied to Turkish automotive part suppliers. Int J Prod Res 50(14):3878–3894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stenger AJ (1996) Reducing inventories in a multi-echelon manufacturing firm—a case study. Int J Prod Econ 45:239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irvwin McGraw- Hill, Boston, 982p

    Google Scholar 

  30. Suri R (1998) Quick response manufacturing: a companywide approach to reducing LTs. Productivity Press, Portland, 545p

    Google Scholar 

  31. Suri R (2010) It’s about time: the competitive advantage of quick response manufacturing. Productivity Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Thawesaengskulthaia N, Tannocka JDT (2008) A decision aid for selecting improvement methodologies. Int J Prod Res 46(23):6721–6737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Treville SD et al (2004) From supply chain to demand chain: the role of LT reduction in improving demand chain performance. J Oper Manag 21:613–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Womack JP, Jones DT (1998) A mentalidade Enxuta nas empresas. Campus

  35. Wu Z, Choi TY (2005) Supplier–supplier relationships in the buyer–supplier triad: building theories from eight case studies. J Oper Manag 24(1):27–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yin R (1994) Case study research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federal University of São Carlos, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil

    Moacir Godinho Filho & Clarissa F. Barco

Authors
  1. Moacir Godinho Filho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clarissa F. Barco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Moacir Godinho Filho.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Godinho Filho, M., Barco, C.F. A framework for choosing among different lean-based improvement programs. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 81, 183–197 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7181-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7181-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation