System Approach to the Mass Production Improvement

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 644)

Abstract

The ways of increasing the efficiency of production processes in automotive industry are presented in the article. These ways can be realized by modern optimization methods and tools. Analysis of activity of enterprises implementing strategies of production development, shows that only comprehensive solutions can lead to real improvements. The results of simulation experiments revealed the best combination of input factors values that helped to improve each of factors, compared to existing solutions.

Keywords

Mass production System approach Simulation Modeling Optimization of technological processes Assembly line 

References

  1. 1.
    Volling, T., Matzke, A., et al.: Planning of capacities and orders in build-to-order automobile production: a review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 224, 240–260 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lemessi, M., Rehbein, S., et al.: Semi-automatic simulation-based bottleneck detection approach. In: Proceedings of IEEE WSC, 9–12 December 2012Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gundogar, E., Sari, M., et al.: Dynamic bottleneck elimination in mattress manufacturing line using theory of constraints. SpringerPlus 5(1), 1276 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gopalakrishnan, M., Skoogh, A., et al.: Simulation-based planning of maintenance activities by a shifting priority method. In: Proceedings of IEEE WSC, 7–10 December 2014Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tortorella, G.L., Vergara, L.G.L., et al.: Lean manufacturing implementation: an assessment method with regards to socio-technical and ergonomics practices adoption. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 89(9–12), 1–12 (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McLean, R.S., Antony, J., et al.: Failure of continuous improvement initiatives in manufacturing environments: a systematic review of the evidence. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 28, 219–237 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rane, A.B., Sunnapwar, V.K.: Assembly line performance and modeling. J. Ind. Eng. Int., 1–9 (2017). First Online: 02 March 2017Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Santos, E.F., Santos Nunes, L.: Methodology of risk analysis to health and occupational safety integrated for the principles of lean manufacturing. In: Advances in Social & Occupational Ergonomics. AISC, vol. 487, pp. 349–353 (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gambatese, J.A., Pestana, C., et al.: Alignment between lean principles and practices and worker safety behavior. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 143, 04016083 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zare, M., Croq, M., et al.: Does ergonomics improve product quality and reduce costs? Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 26, 205–223 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kara, Y., et al.: An integrated model to incorporate ergonomics and resource restrictions into assembly line balancing. Int. J. Comp. Integr. Manuf. 27, 997–1007 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Perez, J., Looze, M.P., et al.: Discrete event simulation as an ergonomic tool to predict workload exposures during systems design. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 44, 298–306 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Garcia-Herrero, S., et al.: Working conditions, psychological/physical symptoms and occupational accidents. Bayesian Netw. Model. Saf. Sci. 50, 1760–1774 (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Regazzoni, D., Rizzi, C.: Digital human models and virtual ergonomics to improve maintainability. Comput. Aided Des. Appl. 11, 10–19 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vinodh, S., Ramesh, K., et al.: Application of interpretive structural modelling for analysing the factors influencing integrated lean sustainable system. Clean Techn. Environ. Policy 18, 413–428 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dombrowski, U., Reimer, A., et al.: Occupational stresses on employees in lean production systems. In: Advances in Social & Occupational Ergonomics. AISC, vol. 487, pp. 215–226 (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Widyanti, A., Larutama, W.: The relation between performance of lean Manufacturing and employee’ mental workload. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on IEEM, 4–7 December 2016Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nadadur, G., Parkinson, M.B.: The role of anthropometry in designing for sustainability. Ergonomics 56, 422–439 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Han, S.U., Achar, M., et al.: Empirical assessment of a RGB-D sensor on motion capture and action recognition for construction worker monitoring. Vis. Eng. 1, 6 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zunjic, A., Milanovic, D.D., et al.: Development of a tool for assessment of VDT workplaces – a case study. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 42, 581–591 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irina Makarova
    • 1
  • Vadim Mavrin
    • 1
  • Ksenia Shubenkova
    • 1
  1. 1.Kazan Federal UniversityNaberezhnye ChelnyRussia

Personalised recommendations