Applying Lean Production in Factory Homebuilding PDF

Applying Lean Production in Factory Homebuilding
Author(s): Jordan Dentz, Isabelina Nahmens and Michael Mullens

Source: Cityscape, Vol. 11, No. 1, Lessons for the United States From Asian Nations (2009), pp.
81-104
Published by: US Department of Housing and Urban Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20868691
Accessed: 16-08-2014 14:36 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Cityscape.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 94.200.175.246 on Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:36:14 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Lean Production
Applying
in Factory Homebuilding
Jordan Dentz
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance
Isabelina Nahmens
Louisiana StateUniversity
Michael Mullens
Housing ConstructabilityLab
Abstract
This article serves as a resource tofactory home builders seeking touse lean
thinking
to slash waste from their
production operations. Lean refersboth toa general way
and tospecific
(time,
of thinking
practicesthatemphasize
usinglessofeverything
money, materials, and soforth) to satisfy the customer by delivering thehighest qual
ityproduct at the lowest cost in the shortest time.While providing an overview of lean
production, thisarticle focuses on twofundamental lean tools:Value Stream Mapping
(VSM) and Rapid Process Improvement (RP1) events. This researchfollows a case
study approach todocument theapplication and benefits of lean production in thefac
toryhomebuilding industry.The targetpopulation for these case studieswas a group
of nine manufactured and modular homebuilding plants that initiated lean produc
tionefforts
in2006. VSMwas used toidentify
wasteand totarget
portionsof
specific
theproduction process for improvement.RPI eventswere then conducted in

targeted
areas. The resultswere dramatic. Labor
efficiencieswere increased by 10 percent to
more than 100 percent. Defects in
finished drywall were reduced by 85 percent. Taken
as a whole, lean
production activities were shown to increase the efficiencyand quality
of building operations, boost worker morale, and improve communication between
management and workers.
Cityscape: A Journal ofPolicyDevelopment and Research

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Volume 11,Number 1 2009
Office of Policy Development
and Research
Cityscape 81
Dentz, Nahmens, and Mullens
Introduction
In 2007, approximately 11 percent of all newly built single-familyhomes in theUnited Stateswere
factorybuilt (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). Although factory-basedhome construction approaches
relocatemany of thefield operations to amore controlled factoryenvironment, the construction

techniques sharemany similaritieswith those employed in traditionalsitebuilding. Although
automotive, electronics, andmany othermanufacturing industrieshave reporteddramatic

with the introductionof lean techniques, examples of such
improvements inproduction efficiency
in
improvements factoryhomebuilding are only beginning to emerge.One of thefirstof these
lean effortsin factoryhomebuilding was conducted by theManufactured Housing Research Alli
ance (MHRA) with sponsorship fromtheU.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development's
(HUD's) Partnership forAdvancing Technology inHousing program, theNew York State Energy
Research and Development Authority, and the factory-built

housing industry.The goal of this ef
was to transformtheway homes aremanufactured, thus reducing housing cost and improving
fort
was to reducewaste through the
The strategy
quality, safety,productivity,and design flexibility.
This
article
showcases theuse of these
lean
tools
and
of
techniques.
production
implementation
to the factory-built
techniques in threeof thenine plants studied and demonstrates theirvalue
housing industry.
Lean ProductionOverview
Koskela (1993) firstapplied lean production principles to construction, emphasizing production
process flowand the conversion of inputs intofinished products. Picchi and Granja (2004)
presented five lean principles used in the construction industry:value, value stream, flow,pull,
and perfection.Value is value as perceived by thehomebuyer; value stream referstomapping of
materials and information;flow refersto creating continuous flow;pull refersto pulling services,
to
components, andmaterials onlywhen necessary; and perfection refers high-quality systems
Zimmer
and
Salem
of
immediate
detection
(2005) identifiedfivemajor lean
problems.
designed for
customer focus, culture/people,workplace standard
principles applicable in thehousing industry:
ization,waste elimination, and continuous improvement/built-in
quality.Waste is any activity that
consumes
resources
but
creates
no value
for the customer.
Lean production, which began with theToyota Production System (Ohno, 1988), was the result of
decades of development by automobile manufacturers,who reduced average laborhours per ve
hicle bymore than one-halfwith one-third thedefects (Caldeira, 1999). Other industries followed
the automobile industry'slead, achieving similar results (Womack and Jones, 1996). Lean produc
what the customer values; (2) identifythe
tion is based on five fundamentalprinciples: (1) identify
value stream and challenge allwasted steps; (3) produce theproduct when the customerwants it
and, once started,keep theproduct flowingcontinuously through thevalue stream; (4) introduce
is
and (5) manage towardperfection
pull between all stepswhere continuous flow impossible;
(Womack and Jones, 1996).
The goal of lean production is to satisfythe customer by delivering thehighest quality at the lowest
cost in the shortest time.This goal is accomplished by continuously eliminatingmuda, orwaste.
82
RefereedPapers
Applying Lean Production inFactory Homebuilding
Ohno (1988) coined the sevenwastes targetedby lean production initiatives:(1) defects (activities
toomuch at a particular
involving repair or rework), (2) overproduction (activities thatproduce
movement
ofmaterials),
in
time), (3) transportation(activities involvingunnecessary
point
next
an
(4) waiting (lack of activitythatoccurs when
operation butmust
operator is ready for the
remain idle until someone else takes a previous step), (5) inventory(inventorythat isnot directly
required to fulfillcurrentcustomer orders), (6) motion (unnecessary steps takenby employees and
or activityin themanufacturing process).
equipment), and (7) processing (extra operation
Factory homebuilding is an industrialized approach tohomebuilding, which relocatesmany field

operations to amore controlled factoryenvironment.Factory homebuilding includesmanufac
tured andmodular homes. Manufactured homes are built to the federalManufactured Home
Construction and SafetyStandards promulgated by HUD (HUD, 2006), whereas modular homes
are built to local building codes similar to site-builthomes. Both typesofhomes are composed
of three-dimensional sections thatare typically95-percent finishedwhen they leave the factory

(Carlson, 1991). A typicalproduction line is setup either in a side-saddle configuration (width
wise sectionmovement) or in a linear configuration (length-wise sectionmovement) with floors,
ceilings,walls, and other components being fed to themain line fromoffline,subassembly stations.
Upon completion in the factory,these sections are transported to the construction site, then lifted
by crane or rolled onto a foundation.While thehouse is being built at theplant,workers do the
needed sitework and prepare a foundation, ifrequired. The resultinghome is often indistinguish
able fromnearby conventional site-builthousing (Mullens, 2004).
Mullens (2004), who studied production process flow in factoryhomebuilding, found that the ease
of process flow is largelydefined by thehomebuilding factoryconfiguration,particularlywhen
considerable product variation exists.Mullens (2006) identifiedsome unique characteristicsof the
homebuilding factorythataffectprocess flow: (1) complex product has large components; (2) few
small and fixedworkstations are located alongside themain production line (that is,plumbing);
(3) few large and fixedworkstations are located alongside themain production line (that is,wall
build); (4) labor andmaterial flow to theproduct while theproduct flowscontinuously on the
main production line; (5) some activities can stop productmovement on themain production
linebecause theyneed tohappen at certain locations (that is, large components need a crane);
(6) multioperator teams perform specialtywork (that is, trades),making itdifficulttomeasure
work content and cycle time foreach unit; and (7) littlequeuing occurs due to lack of space. He
found thatqueuing availability and the flexibilityforwork tomigrate upstream/downstreamcan

mitigate some of the inefficienciesresulting fromhigh product variation. Informationtechnology
can enable betterplanning and management under conditions of high product variation.
Early
studies have also suggested that lean improvementscan slash the time required to set and finish
modular housing on the construction site (Mullens and Kelly, 2004).
Lean Tools:Value StreamMapping and Rapid Process

Events
Improvement
Lean thinkinguses tools, techniques, and practices and combines them as a set into a system to
eliminatewaste. This article focuses on two fundamental lean tools:Value StreamMapping (VSM)
Cityscape 83
Dentz, Nahmens,
and Mullens
and Rapid Process Improvement (RPI) events. Typically, in a lean implementation,a high-level
VSM (forexample, door-to-door plant level) isused to document the current situation and to
wasted activities so theycan be challenged and eliminated throughRPI events.During the

identify
RPI event, a detailed VSM (forexample, of a specificproduction process such as thewall build
area) can be developed fora betterunderstanding of theprocess. The main goal ofVSM (both high
level and detailed) is to identify
waste, whereas theRPI events improve theprocess throughwaste
elimination.
Lean production methods focus on thevalue stream, the set of activitiesused to create a product
or service fromrawmaterial until it reaches the customer (Womack and Jones, 1996). VSM
documents all activities in the currentproduction process, as well as the associated material and
informationflows.VSM allows theuser to easily visualize the currentprocess, recognize sources of

waste, and eliminate nonvalue-added activities.Because lean thinkingfocuses on value as defined
by the end customer,VSM should question any activities thatdo not add value to the customer.
Pyzdek (2003) highlighted the role ofVSM in the overall context of lean philosophy as (1) defining
value from the customer's view, (2) mapping the current state of thevalue stream, (3) applying
waste in the currentvalue stream, (4) mapping the future-stateprocess,
the lean tools to identify
(5) developing a transitionplan, (6) implementing theplan, and (7) validating thenew process.
The key outcome ofVSM is the identificationof opportunities for improvementand activities
thatconsume resourceswithout adding value. VSM can be performed at differentlevels of the
organization?specific production process, door-to-door plant level, enterprise level?and across

organizations
to
suppliers
and
customers.
The implementationof lean production principles often takes the formof a kaizen, "theplanned,
organized and systematicprocess of on-going, incrementaland company-wide change of existing
practices aimed at improvingcompany performance" (Boer et al., 2000). In contrast to traditional
management approaches thatsplit employees into "thinkers"and "doers,"kaizen assumes that
all employees canmake a contribution to problemsolving and innovation (Bessant,Caffyn,and

as an RPI event) takes the same improve
Gallagher, 2001). The kaizen blitz (also referredtoherein
ment philosophy and applies it in a brief,but intense,attack on production waste and inefficiency
(Laraia,Moody, and Hall, 1999). Both kaizen methods (kaizen and kaizen blitz) follow a structured
approach that includes the followingsteps: (1) document the currentprocess, (2) identifyall forms
ofwaste, (3) develop lean options to reducewaste, (4) pilot test the options, and (5) institutional
ize the changes and continue to improve.RPI events eliminatewaste by empowering employees
with the responsibility,time, tools, and methodologies to uncover areas for improvementand to
teambased and should involve employees from
plan and implement change. This typeof activity is
differentlevels of the organization. The firststep in an RPI event involves thedevelopment of two
typesof process documentation: baseline performancemetrics (forexample, quality, cycle time,
activities.Waste is
a
productivity) and detailed VSM indicatingvalue-added and nonvalue-added
and
as
current
is
the
(for
documented,
example, nonvalue
analyzed
process observed,
exposed
added activities are discovered).When waste is identified,potential process improvementsare
are pilot tested in theprocess and
developed using lean principles. Selected lean improvements
fine tuned to optimize impact.As the successful changes are institutionalized,the continuous
a
improvementprocess is repeated in never-ending cycle.
84
RefereedPapers
LeanProductioninFactoryHomebuilding
Applying
Methodology
in the early 21st century, the industrialized
Responding to criticalhomebuilding challenges
Led
to
housing industrylaunched amultiyear, industrywideeffort boost production performance.
the
first
documented
The
of
several
consisted
effort
the
the
MHRA,
industry's
phase
phases.
by
currentproduction performance. In 2005, a comprehensive surveywas distributed to 275 U.S. and
Canadian housing factories.The survey included questions concerning product offerings,produc
tion levels,productivity,worker satisfaction,and customer satisfaction.More than 50 percent of

the factoriesresponded. Results were published (MHRA, 2005) and disseminated toprovide an
industrybaseline, allowing the industryto track improvements industrywideand encouraging each
factorytobenchmark itselfagainst competitors.The second phase of this effort,called the lean

initiative,began inMarch 2006 and was conducted over an approximately 12-month period. The
are described in the followingparagraphs.
project plan included fivemajor tasks,which
Task 1. Select Plants

a
Drawing fromresults of thephase one benchmarking study, researchers selected plantswith mix
of characteristics thatcould affectproduction efficiencyand yield a variety of lean approaches. The
characteristics included the following (MHRA, 2007):
Current performance (efficientand inefficientoperations).
Home price point (low-,medium-, and high-priced homes).
Productmix (forexample, single-section andmultisection, HUD-code
andmodular).
Geographic location to capturemarket and design variations.

Company size (based on totalproduction capacity).
Nine plantswere selected on a competitivebasis. Each plant was required to cover part of the
costs of the research and make a significantin-kind contribution,which included the following
investments: (1) upper management commitment to lean production methods, (2) a lean advocate
tohelp carryout project tasks,and (3) resources (people, time,materials, and so forth)to carryout
tasks.The plants thatwere selected forparticipation in the lean initiativeare shown in exhibit 1.
All produced single-family,detached, residential,wood-frame buildings.
Task 2. Select and Train Lean Advocates

members as their lean advocate(s). Because thenine
Each plant selected one ormore key staff
were
new
to
lean
the
advocates
plants
production,
participated in a 1-week lean trainingsession in
April 2006. The trainingcovered basic lean concepts and techniques, includingVSM and RPI. The
material in this trainingwas tailored to the factory-built
housing industryand addressed the chal
lenges of implementing lean in the industry.The trainingequipped advocates with theknowledge
to identify
waste, develop new lean approaches, and implement and sustain change.
Cityscape 85
CD
N
CO
>
c
CO
a
E
o
O
i8
t?
i?
CO
lO
o
CO
LO
in
CO
fa
ss
CO
CO
E
CD N
o
o
E
3
CD
CO
E
CO
CO
E
CO
+
O
o
0
a
CO
0)
CO
0
U)
CO
i_
CD
3
C\JO
E
3
X
r- o>
"8
aCD
o
CO
O
E
o
X
S *
.2 cb ?i.2^
?i c
o
tS
a)
0
co
CO
c
CO
86
ICO
<D
8
o
c
o
CD
O
O
-I
TJ
CCO
cCD
"8
O
i
Q
D
I
.35
t !?
O "D
*-Pc
O CO
.2 ci> .2 cb ?
i 2 ?
o
2
to
CD
E
o
X o
^z
is
3 of I
CD?
I*.
.2 C
3 O
3
E
li
il
??
IS c
O <
CO
c
o
+= Q
8?
C CO
CO
CD
cCO "D CD
I i T3
Q
CD
CD C "D
D
"D X o"O
o
o >? oi 2 8
Qi
Q
O X
D
X 2I
X 2
a
O)
c
is
'5
CO
5O C*
o ?o
O
to
.2 o
1 3jiX
? ^
1? i"
0
as
.c
O
c
g
CD
c
o
c
<=i
%8?
CO to
8Cp8CO
CO
"D CD
?i- O
O
CO '
"D
O 2
X
_P3
3
"O
o
oi
Q
D
X
O)
c
CO
3
o
X
O)
c
g -x1z
SI
Jo
u_ 2
m
if)
0
E
o
CD
E
o
o
u
15
I
f
ll
0- <
Q.
3
2
o
O)
c
CO
-e *
CO .-^ is
=
uT
X o
CD CD
CO
CD
E
o
X
E>
CD
C _|
LU<
E c
< i SCD |O3

DCQ
8
~0
CO<
"D
CO
RefereedPapers
Task 3. Conduct Value Stream Mapping and Data Collection

After the lean trainingsession, theplants initiatedeffortsto apply the lean concepts and tools learned.
Task 3.1. Collect
Plant-Level
Data
Each plant collected informationdescribing currentplant performance, including production

levels, labor productivity,cycle and lead times, inventorylevels, and quality levels.
Task 3.2. Develop
a High-Level
Value
Stream Map
Each plant developed a high-level value streammap of plant operations (forexample, door-to-door
plant level).
Task 3.3. Identify Areas
of High Opportunity
Each plant identifiedareaswith high opportunity for improvement fromthehigh-level value

streammap (forexample, bottleneck areas).
Task 3.4. Select an Area
for Lean
Improvement
Each plant selected a specific area or operation for lean implementation.

Task 3.5. Develop
a Future-State Value
Stream Map
value streammap focusingon lean improvements.

Each plant developed an initial future-state
Potential improvements includedworkplace organization and standardization (5Ss?sort, set in
order, shine, standardize, and sustain?a workplace organizationmethodology inwhich emphasis
isplaced onmaximizing space andminimizingmovement/travel); labor optimization (line balancing
and production leveling); better tools and equipment (including devices tominimize liftingand
materials); procedures (kanban replenishment,a stocking technique using
carryingof large/heavy
containers,cards, and electronicsignals tomake production systemsrespond to realneeds and not pre
dictions and forecasts);and informationsystems(use ofbar code/RFID [radiofrequencyidentification]).
Task 4. Conduct Rapid Process ImprovementEvents

RPI eventswere planned tomove theproduction process closer to the future-state
VSM (Task 3.5).
over
at
RPI
events
course
Each plant conducted
least threemajor
the
of 8 months. Selected RPI
events are described in the case study results later in this article.
Task 4.1. Develop
RPI
Implementation
Strategy
The plant performed extensive observations and initialdata collection on the selected area by
creatingdetailed process flowmaps, developing detailed current-statevalue streammaps of the
area, and collecting quantitative data to support theiranalysis and document waste. They then
developed an implementationplan, structuredas an RPI event. Both floorsupervisors and opera
torsdeveloped theplan for the lean implementation (for
example, RPI event),which included a
was
to
was tobe conducted, what resources
of
what
event
be
how
the
description
accomplished,
were
tobe required,what plant personnel were to be involved, and how the out
and materials
come was going tobe measured (typically,by comparing relevantbefore-and-after
metrics).
Cityscape 87
Dentz, Nahmens,
and Mullens
Task 4.2. Conduct
the RPI Event
Each plant implemented itsRPI plan and resulting lean improvements.

Task 4.3. Document
Results
of the RPI Event
RPI leaders documented and evaluated theRPI results, includingRPI accomplishments, factors
that limitedRPI success, barriers that inhibited thedevelopment of a lean culture, and further
opportunities for improvingproduction.
Task 5. Disseminate Results and Lessons Learned

At the conclusion of the study, representativesfrom thenine plants reconvened to share experi
ences in an open, industrywidesymposium.
Case StudyResults
MHRA researcherswere involved in threeRPI events at each of thenine plants?a totalof 27 RPI
events. This articledescribes lean effortsand results in threeof thenine plants, focusingon one of
themore successful RPI events at each plant. These plants and RPI eventswere selected for inclu
sion here because theydemonstrate a variety of successful approaches, illustrategood examples
of fundamental lean principles, yielded measurable results,and were well documented. Some less
successful effortsare discussed in contextwith the firstcase study.
Plant 1. Chelsea Modular Homes

At the time of this study,Chelsea Modular Homes operated an 118,000-square-foot production
facilityconfigured as a centralprogressive assembly line (side-saddle type) fedby adjacent sub
to the lean initiative

assemblyworkstations thatbuild floors,walls, and roofs.Chelsea's approach
was to appoint an individual tohave thedual responsibilityof lean advocate and safetymanager
and to conduct a series of leanworkshops with production workers, supervisors, and officeem
a
ployees. Eight employees participated in the firstleanworkshop: the lean advocate, production
foreman,
the receiving
supervisor,
the quality
control manager,
representative
from engineering,
Chelsea's
and threeproduction workers fromvarious departments. Throughout their lean efforts,
and
lean advocate enjoyed strong support fromplant
corporatemanagement.
The following section discusses how theChelsea plant conducted tasks 3 and 4.
Task 3. Conduct Value Stream Mapping
and Data
Collection
Task 3.1. Collect Plant-Level Data. The Chelsea lean team gathered plant-level data such as the
customization (80 percent of
company's production rate (three to fourmodules per day), level of
homes
of
were
20
homes produced
percent
produced were totallycustom),
highly customized and
rate (3 percent average per
employee turnover(10 percent average per year), and absenteeism
on
the
team
data
In
the
process,
addition,
includingmaterial shortage
production
gathered
year).
on
to
time
reworkdue to errors, time
on
due
rework
time
spent
spent
change orders,
frequency,
out
to
of assigned line station, and
times
work
forced
of
spent idlewaiting for linemoves, number
88
RefereedPapers
at the component
average and maximum time spent on amodule. The team collected thesedata
level (forexample, rough plumbing, wall build, and so forth),as opposed to theworkstation level,
over themost
on
by interviewingtheprocess lead operators and focusing production experience
on
modules
were
data
thenverifiedby collecting
recent2-week period. These data
completed
team collected 3 weeks of data on line pulls (when all
the
a
In
1-month
addition,
during
period.
modules are simultaneously pulled down the line from theircurrentworkstation to thenextwork
station). Combined, these data helped the team tovisualize theproduction process and identify
opportunities for improvement.
Task 3.2. Develop a High-Level Value Stream Map. The teamworked for3 days to develop a
current-statevalue streammap for the entireplant. First, the teamwalked the floorand observed
a
thevalue streammap, includ
production activities.Next, the team constructed rough outline of
team then collected perfor
The
locations.
ingmaterial and informationflowsandmajor inventory
mance data to quantifyproduction performance and waste (forexample, average and maximum
process timepermodule, material shortages, rework due to change orders and errors, idle time
out of assigned workstation).
to
waiting forbottlenecks, and number of times forced work
Areas of High Opportunity. The teamused the current-statevalue streammap

Task 3.3. Identify
(exhibit 2) and performance data gathered inTask 3.2 to identifyproblem areas and opportunities
for improvingoperations. They identifiedseveralRPI opportunities: (1) spread out finish activities
clustered at the end of theproduction line to fillin empty slots earlier on theproduction line;
(2) create a scheduling reviewmeeting and have engineering and production jointly reviewhouse
and
plans 2 weeks rather than 2 days before production; and (3) improve efficiency,flexibility,
flow in the floor,wall, roof,and ceiling framingareas.
In addition to experiencing the tangible results of theVSM exercise, participants reported that they
as a system rather than as a series of individual operations
began to thinkof theproduction line
and thevital importance of takttime as theheartbeat of the line. (Takt is theGerman word for
pace. Takt time equals available worktime per day divided by thedaily required demand in parts
per day.)
Task 3.4. Select an Area for Lean Improvement. The teamdetermined that spreading out
finish activities to fill empty slots on the linewas themost critical opportunity for improvement.
was critical to stabilizing the line flow

Spreading out finish activities to theirappropriate stations
and a necessary precursor to addressing the individualworkstation issues. Stabilityof production
is essential to an efficientprocess flowand a prerequisite for implementingmore advanced lean
a
techniques. This firstRPI was conducted inMay 2006 and was followed by second RPI in the
wall department in July2006.
These earlyRPIs met with limited success. Although theyproduced positive results immediately
afterimplementation, the gains subsided because of the lack of a strong sustainabilityplan and
unclear assignments of responsibilityfor institutionalizingthe changes, and because the lean initia
tive's resourceswere sapped due to other priorities.After employeeswitnessed thebacksliding
following the initialRPIs, the lean initiativewas in danger of losing thebroad-based employee
support ithad enjoyed and needed a high-visibilitysuccess tomotivate the lean team and engage
all employees in the lean initiative.
Cityscape 89
90
RefereedPapers
In a change of focus,management selected the spackling department for thenext RPI. Spackling
is the finishingof joints, cracks, and fastenerpenetrations in drywallwith spackle (drywallpaste).
Spackling was not identifiedin the initialplant VSM exercise; however,management noted that
numerous, small cross-departmental issues contributed tomajor quality problems in thisdepart
ment, resulting in poor quality at inspection, requiring expensive rework,and bottlenecking
the rework area. The remainder of thiscase study focuses on the spackling RPI conducted in
September 2006.
Task 4. Conduct Rapid Process
Improvement Events
The spackling RPI was conducted during a 4-day period in September 2006. The drywall finishing
operations employed a crew of four tapers, two sanders, and two painters distributed among five
line stations.The RPI also encompassed three touchupworkers, working fartherdown the line,
who reported to a differentgroup leader.
Task 4.1. Develop RPI Implementation Strategy. The objective of thisRPI was to increase the
quality ofwork delivered at inspection and reduce delays caused by rework.Chelsea managers
were aware thatspackling had numerous problems thatcontributed topoor

productivityand low
initialquality, such as the following:
Poor
communication
cooperation.
Issues
across
and
departments
discovered
downstream
a lack of
were
not
cross-departmental
communicated
thatcontributed to them.
to
coordination
upstream
and
departments
Lack of accountability.Even when issueswere communicated, teams did not take responsibility
forthequality of theirwork. Rigidmindsets regardingresponsibilitiesled to a "notmy job" attitude.
Numerous seeminglyminor process and product issues thatcontributed tomajor problems at
the end of the line.
No systematicprocess to address and solve these issues.
The lean teamdeveloped a plan that included the followingelements: a presentation to the team
inwhich theplantmanager reviewed the goals and expectations for theRPI; a brief
trainingon
basic lean tools; a process walkthrough; identificationof issues and root causes; development of
recommendations
for improvement;
and
implementation
of
improvement
recommendations
and
assessment of results. Six employees participated on theRPI team: the lean advocate, the
spackling
team leader, the foremanover the spackling area, a production worker from the sidewall
depart
ment, amember of the touchup crew, and theyard supervisor,who was also responsible forfinal
quality checks.
The success of thisRPI was tobe measured by the effecton wall finish
quality as reportedby
at
the
station
in
and
the storageyard. The primarydata would be in
quality inspectors
inspection
the formof thenumber ofhours spent on rework (to repairwalls and
ceilings) before and afterthe
of
the
recommendations.
implementations
improvement
Task 4.2. Conduct the RPI Event. The firstday of theRPI, managers
presented theRPI goals
and expectations, and briefly trained theRPI team on basic lean tools (for
example, the 5Ss, the
Cityscape 91
Dentz, Nahmens,
and Mullens
sevenwastes, and VSM). On the second and thirddays, theRPI team conducted a walkthrough of
thedrywall finishingoperations, identifiedand researched problems identifiedon the floor,and
discussed preliminary solutions. Problems identifiedincluded the following:

Drywall installation in themodule not completed on time.
Poor quality of drywall coming into the spackling department (missing or damaged wallboard,
large crude punch-outs forceiling penetrations, screws not fullyset, screws not hitting studs,
glue seeping throughseams in ceiling).
Tapers using a hammer rather than a screwdriver to recess raised screw heads, causing damage
to thewall.
Insufficientdrying time (the departmentwas designed tohave fivededicated workstations
but thenumber had been reduced due to early shipping
fordrywall finish/sand/paint,
commitments).
Lumps ofmud inbottom of corners caused bywiping spackling compound (mud) "up to down."
Inconsistent
mud
mix.
Line workstation assignmentsnot being adhered to.

Attitude issues (notmy job).
Lack of unity and team spirit in thedepartment.
Lack
of communication
between
workers
and
supervisors.
Congestion inmodules where sanding and paintingwere done (often simultaneously).

Inadequate
Untrained
and uneven
sanding
and unmotivated
in corners.
workers.
On the fourthday, theRPI team presented recommendations to theplantmanager and company

forchanges, including
president. The spackling RPI teammade 22 specific recommendations
to
as
wider
such
tape prevent glue seepage throughdrywall joints;main
using
product changes,
not already inuse, switching to electricalboxes
a
taining supply of 1/4-inchdrywall; and, where
suitable for installation inwalls already drywalled. They also suggested process changes, including
set on and using a hole-saw rather
to
routingwall tops to ensure a flushsurface for the ceiling be
than a hammer tomake holes forplumbing vents. Equipment improvements suggested by the
teamwere minor, but important;padding on racks and carts to reduce damage were themost im
were inwork rules:making departments responsible

portant. Some of themost significantchanges
forquality and correctingmud defects before painting. The team recommended standardizing the
mud mix procedure bymarking water levels on themud mix barrels and making organizational
the area team leader to come
changes tobetter align responsibilitywith accountability and permit
down offhis stiltsso he could more easilymove about theproduction floor to supervise his team.
The RPI team implemented the recommended changes over the course of thenext fewweeks.
92
RefereedPapers
Chelsea Modular Homes did not use a detailed value streammap for thisRPI. Instead,while col
at theplant level, theRPI team discovered thatmost of the
lectingdata on theproduction process
rework timewas being spent on fixingdamaged drywall on walls and ceilings. The teamused root
cause analysis touncover causes of thedamage. Root cause analysis is a problemsolving approach
thatentails investigatingand drilling down to the fundamentalunderlying causes of a problem. In
this case, a host of small but significantproblems with finishingoperationswere found tobe the
usual root cause of drywall rework. Likewise, theRPI team did not develop a future-statevalue
streammap during thisRPI.
Task 4.3. Document Results of the RPI Event. Results from the spackling RPI were dramatic.
Defects and rework at the inspection stationwere reduced by 85 percent (based on time required
to repairwalls and ceilings at the inspection station and in the storage yard). Often, only one of
the three touchupworkers was required, freeingthe other twoworkers toperform other tasks.
The quality inspectorwas able to focus on other quality issues thathad previously been ignored.
Workers gained an
In addition to the gains in product quality,mindsets were positively affected.
as
a
more
realized
how
and
of
system
cutting corners in one area
fully
understanding production
can adversely affectanother area (forexample, not fullysettingscrews or punching oversized vent
holes with a hammermade themudder's job difficult).Better communication and active involve
ment by employees in problemsolving resulted in improvedmorale and amore positive work
attitude (as reportedby anecdotal comments fromemployees and management).
Plant 2. R-Anell Housing Group, LLC

R-Anell Housing produces modular residential and commercial structures.At the timeof this
study, the company's production operations employed about 240 people working in two adjacent
facilities,each containing a portion of theproduction line.R-Anell approached its lean initiativein
a
comprehensive
manner,
developing
an
overarching
lean management
strategy,
rigorous
educa
tion campaign forbothmanagement and production associates, a comprehensive 5S campaign,

and a highly structuredprocess forconductingmajor RPI events. In addition, a unique character
was the involvementof a lean engineer,who was responsible forall
isticof R-Anell's lean strategy
aspects of lean implementation.A director of process development oversaw the lean initiativeand
reported
directly
to senior management.
was unique in that the team focused on developing managerial guidelines to

R-Anell's lean strategy
sustain the lean initiative,including a set of internalguidelines on organizing and conducting RPIs
called "The 12 Steps ofKaizen Event Planning." These steps provided general guidelines forevent
planning and a template fordeveloping a detailed timeline fora specific event.
The followingsection discusses how thisplant conducted tasks 3 and 4.

and Data
Collection
Task 3.1. Collect Plant-Level Data. The lean team gathered data on theproduction process at the
plant level,which includedmaterial shortages, listof steps in theprocess, space constraints,walk
ingdistances, and other performance data.
Cityscape 93
Dentz, Nahmens,
and Mullens
Task 3.2. Develop a High-Level Value Stream Map. The lean teambegan the lean implementa
tionwith a high-level value streammap that identifiedareas thatconstrained production flow.
Task 3.3. Identify
Areas of High Opportunity. Managers used thehigh-levelVSM to identify
futureRPI events, including (1) implementing the 6Ss (R-Anell added a sixth S forsafety) through
out theplant and (2) improvingefficiencyand flexibilityin thedormer area and flow from the
dormer area to themain line.
Task 3.4. Select an Area for Lean Improvement. The team conducted the 6Ss RPIs throughout
theplant,with a firstpass througheach area completed by the summer of 2006. Area supervisors,
who were trainedduring the firstevent held in theplant, ran 6S events. R-Anell began with the
6Ss because their implementation is critical tomaintaining an efficientand effective
workplace. In
July2006, the team conducted thedormer area RPI. The remainder of this case study focuses on
thedormer RPI.
Improvement Events
R-Anell's first
major RPI eventwas in thedormer area. Dormers are structuralelements of a build
ing thatprotrude from theplane of a sloping roof surface to expand living space under the roof.
This areawas chosen forseveral reasons: itwas notmeeting daily production requirements; itwas
using excessive overtime; areaworkers were open tonew improvement ideas; and itwas an offline
operation thatcould be interruptedwith minimal impact to themain production line.
Task 4.1. Develop RPI Implementation Strategy. The objective of thedormer RPI was to
improveproductivity and provide space for largedormers (also called gable dormers) to be built
in theplant. The common smaller dormerswere built in theplant, but largerdormers (more
than about 8 feetwide) were built on site, lengthening the constructionprocess. The dormer RPI
adhered toR-Anell's 12 Steps ofKaizen Event Planning as outlined in the following text.
Task 4.2. Conduct the RPI Event. The steps fortheRPI eventwere as follows:
1. Map area and gather data. The teamdeveloped a detailed current-statevalue streammap of
thedormer area, took photos of the area, and observed and recorded procedures. Floor plans
of thedormer areawere used to develop spaghetti charts (amovement path diagram) that
examined material and employeemovements and to develop proposed layouts.The lean team
interviewedarea employees and listened to theirproblems and concerns.
2. Train area associates. The lean engineer conducted a lean simulation exercise and classroom
trainingin lean fundamentals.
3. Determine gable dormer construction method and layout. The lean engineer developed a
proposed location and process forconstructing the largegable dormers.
4. Map the value stream. The team developed a detailed value streammap of thedormer area
and a spaghettidiagram foreachmajor dormer component built in the area. The team gathered
data on thedormer operation,which included a listof steps in theprocess, space constraints,
and walking distances.
94
RefereedPapers
5. Develop and implement future-state layout. Afterbrainstorming theneeds of the

dormer area, the team generated and prioritized a listof concerns. High-priorityneeds
were incorporated into the future-statevalue streammap, which showed theprocess after
implementationof the improvements,eliminatingmany of theprevious production flow
constraints. Some of the improvements included bettermaterial storage and a layout that
eliminated excessivewalking touse and retrievetools andmaterials.
6.
Report
progress
to management.
The
executive
management
team visited
the area
to review
the changes and to see teammembers reporton theprevious state, changes, andmeasured
improvements.
7. Complete a trial production. Workers completed a trialbuild in the reconfiguredarea

and gathered labor timedata and costing information.The team discussed concerns and
improvement ideas generated as a resultof the trial.
8.
Implement refinements.Workers implemented refinementsand roped off the freedspace for

the futuregable dormer area.
9. Build firstproduction dormer. Afterproduction commenced, workers conducted another

team review todiscuss concerns and improvementideas and toprioritize additional refinements.
10. Implement refinements 2.Workers implemented additional refinementsbased on the second
team
review.
11. Document process. The lean engineer recorded all procedures and
developed written job
instructions.
12. Begin with new layout.Workers commenced regularproduction.

Task 4.3. Document Results of the RPI Event. The lean team assessed the outcome of the
RPI bymeasuring theusage of production floorspace,
employee traveldistance, and number
of employees required before and afterimplementationof the improvement recommendations.
The area layoutsbefore and afterthekaizen event are shown in exhibits 3a and 3b. As seen in the
afterdiagram, products are completed close to thepoint ofneed or an exit from the area.Material
storage is reduced due to centralized staging and equipment locations. The saw is centralized to
minimize thedistance to areas it serves.The dormer build production linehas been

compressed.
A new, largegable dormer production area has been created.
By streamlining the flowof product through the area, reducing duplicative material inventory(for
example, oriented strandboard was reduced fromthreebundles to one), and compactingwork
centers, enough space was freedup toprovide room for the largegable dormer area. The value
of themanufacturing space freedup was $108,000 based on the
plant accounting department's
facilitycost calculations ($47.75 per square footx 2,262 square feet). In addition, reduced travel
distances and closer access tomaterials reduced the amount of time

required to accomplish the
same amount ofwork so that theprior need foran additional
employee was eliminated. Overtime
in the areawas also largelyeliminated,
$27,300
saving
annually.A summary of themajor results is
shown in exhibit 4.
Cityscape 95
96
RefereedPapers
Cityscape 97
Exhibit4
DormerRPI Major Results
Item
Floor area
for common
Before
dormers
Travel distances
Numberof employees
RPI = Rapid Process
6,988
13,027
square
RPI
feet
feet
After RPI
Change
4,726 square feet Reduced by 2,262 square feet

Reduced by 2 miles per day
2,848 feet
8 Reduced by 1 employee
Improvement
Plant 3. Southern EnergyHomes, Inc.

At the timeof this study,Southern EnergyHomes manufactured HUD-code homes in seven plants
foramoderately pricedmarket segment. Southern Energy had a full-timelean advocate at the
corporate officewho coordinated the lean activitiesand was chargedwith spreading information
and success stories to all plants. Actively championed by a divisional assistant generalmanager, the
lean initiativereceived visible support fromthe chiefexecutive officerand other senior company
leaders. This section describes early effortsat thefirstSouthern Energy plant?Southern Estates?
tobegin implementing lean.
The followingsection discusses how thisplant conducted tasks3 and 4.

and Data
Collection
Task 3.1. Collect Plant-Level Data. The Southern Estates plant produced fiveto sixmodules per
day at the timeof this study and had sufficientcustomer orders towork at fullcapacity. The takt
timeof themain production linewas 46 minutes.
Task 3.2. Develop a High-Level Value Stream Map. The management team responsible for
implementingthe lean initiativeprepared a plant-level value streammap.
Task 3.3. Identify
Areas of High Opportunity. Based on the lean team'spast experience of the
company's production process and thedata collected, the team identifiedthreeareas with great
opportunity for improvement:
1.Wall department. In thisofflinestation,all the lumber (forexample, 2 by 3 and 2 by 4) and

wallboard for the exteriorsidewalls and interior
walls were prepped (forexample, cut to size,
sorted, and loaded into transportationcarts) and assembled on framingtables intowalls. This
areawas oftenbehind schedule.
2. Cabinet shop. In thisdepartment, cabinet partswere fabricatedand assembled intofinished

kitchen and bath cabinets. Cycle timeswere excessively long.
3. Metal shop. In thissection of theproduction line, siding, sheathing, roofdecking, and
insulationwere installedon themodules. This areawas frequentlya bottleneck, forcingthe
work tobe completed out in theyard,where it isnotoriously inefficient

due to the logistical
of
and
and
the
lack
of
problems
equipment
accessing people, materials,
supervision.
Task 3.4. Select an Area forLean Improvement. The management team selected thewall depart
ment as themost criticalarea inwhich theywere experiencing thegreatestoperational inefficien
98
RefereedPapers
cies. The inefficienciesaffectedtheflow ofwalls to themain production line and thereforeaffected

theflow of the entireplant. Although the takt timeof themain production linewas 46 minutes,
cycle times in thewall department often reached 65 minutes. The variabilityof cycle times in the
wall department created bottlenecks on themain production line. Because thewall department
was connected to themain line by an equipment-constrained station (thewall set station on the
main line required theuse of a crane),modules on themain line could not leave thewall set sta
tionuntil the activitywas complete (forexample, allwalls set).Upstream modules could not cycle
forward,and downstreamwork was delayed as holes were created in themain production line.
These inefficienciesand delays lengthened the time to complete a house.
The remainder of thiscase study focuses on thewall departmentRPI.

Improvement Events
Task 4.1. Develop RPI Implementation Strategy. The RPI team included theplant production
manager, thedivision assistant generalmanager, Southern Energy's corporate lean advocate, the
area
a maintenance
supervisor,
employee,
and
representative
workers
from the area. The
objective
of theRPI was to increase productivityby rearrangingthe equipment layout and material locations
to rationalize theflow ofmaterials through the area.
Because of the extensive construction required to implement the changes itanticipated, the team
developed a plan to conduct theRPI in threephases: (1) planning and preparing initialdesign
(May 2006), (2) finalizing thedesign with large-scale involvementof areaworkers andmaking
physical changes to thework area (June-July2006), and (3) evaluating and refiningthenew area
(August 2006).
Task 4.2. Conduct the RPI Event. During the firstphase (May 2006), the team conducted
detailed observations of the activities,material and informationflow, and equipment in thewall
department and developed a detailed value streammap. The team observed thatworkers were
forced towalk excessively to getmaterials, material flowwas random,materials did not have fixed
staging locations, and finishedwalls had tobe pulled through the shop by hand.
Participants discussed alternatives for improving the area layout and material flow and developed
a new
department
layout
and
a future-state
value
stream map
showing
target value
stream.
The
team also analyzed the effectsof thedepartment on the flowof themain production line.
During
the second phase of theRPI (June-July2006), the team carried throughon theplan, involving
departmental
staff, completing
necessary
reconstruction,
and
implementing
the new
arrangement.
In the thirdphase (August 2006), the team reconvened to observe and document the activities in
the reconfiguredarea.
The assessment revealed thatwall-framing activitieson the tableswere a bottleneck and workload
across the tableswas not balanced. Framers at one tablewere
completingwalls fora given house
and commencing building walls for thenext house before the remaining tableshad
completed
thewalls theywere working on for thefirsthouse. The teammet to discuss thenew
layout and
revised
in
of
issues.
these
Area
were
potential
activityarrangements light
open and enthu
employees
siastic about thenew changes and recommended furtherimprovements for the area. A
subsequent
evaluation in September confirmed that these recommendations had been
implemented and had
Cityscape 99
Dentz, Nahmens,
and Mullens
resolved theproblems. As a result of theRPI, thewall areawas completely reconfiguredwith the

areas toward themain production
guiding principle thatmaterials should flow fromouter storage
linewith aminimum of traveldistance and detours. Before theRPI,materials were not stored logically
near where theywould be needed. The post-RPImaterial paths are shorterand more direct,with
material flowsuntil theyreach thewall-framing tables,where
practicallyno intersectionsof different
allmaterials come togetherforfinalwall assembly. Exhibit 5 shows the area before and aftertheRPI.
Task 4.3. Document Results of the RPI Event. Before theRPI, employees did a lot ofwalking
and carryingofmaterials. The areawas reorganizedwith attention to ergonomics, reducing
was extended to serve all

carryingdistances and providing access to the existinghoist,which
wall-framing tables. Before theRPI, employeesmade mistakes when informationabout which walls
tobuild was not transmittedproperly. Carts ofmaterials were easilymisplaced ormisidentified.
After theRPI, thedepartment implemented a systemof labels and racks to organize theflow of
informationalongwith theflow ofmaterials in keeping with the ideal of "a place foreverything
and everythingis in itsplace."
As a result of the changes, productivity improved.The departmentwas able tomeet theneeds of

themain line and thewall departmentworkforcewas reduced from9 to 6.5 people. Importantly,
no one losthis or her job because of lean activities; rather,experienced workers were transferredto
other departmentswhere theywere needed due tonormal attrition.Other benefits included space
10 percent. Southern
savings of 12 percent and wallboard damage reduction of approximately
RPI.
investment
The
paid for itselfin less
Energy invested $25,786 in labor and materials for this
than4 months, because annual labor savings amounted to $73,200 and the company realized the
savings of not needing tohire and train2.5 new workers.
Lessons
Lean Implementation
The lean initiativeclearlydemonstrated that the same lean production concepts thathave been
so successful in automotive, electronics, and other industriescan be applied successfully in
an organizational perspective, the lean initiativeshowed the critical
factoryhomebuilding. From
on sitewith the time and management support to drive
importance ofhaving a lean advocate(s)
the process.
From a tools perspective, the lean initiativedemonstrated thatVSM was most useful forthree
purposes:
workers andmidlevel production managers to

Training. Plant-levelVSM enabled production
visualize theproduction line as a flow systemwith interdependencies.
on themany activities across thewhole
Targeting 'problem' department. After reflecting
some limited informationabout thewaste in each department, the lean
plant and collecting
team identifieddepartmentswith high levels ofwaste or thepotential tobottleneck overall
production flow.
and issues. The starting
Developing a thorough understanding of departmental operations
can be identifying
production tasks, estimating theircycle
point of successful lean improvement
100 RefereedPapers
LeanProductioninFactoryHomebuilding
Applying
Exhibit5
Wall DepartmentBeforeand AftertheRPI
Layoutsof theSouthernEnergy
RPI = Rapid Process
Finished
wall racks(hoist
above)
=
Improvement.S/R SHEETROCK*,
or drywall.W/D = windows and doors.
Cityscape 101
Dentz, Nahmens,
and Mullens
times, identifyinginventorylevels and other signs ofwaste, and summarizing this information
in a detailed department value streammap. This level of analysis is
particularly enlightening for
offlineproduction departments (forexample,wall department, dormer department) thathave

disconnected workstations separated by inventory.
Although RPI eventswere shown to be an effectivestrategyfor implementing improvements,most

plants were hesitant to reassignproduction staff,even temporarily,to lean activities. Short staffing
caused by perpetual absenteeism and hiring problems was cited as theprimary issue. Plantsmet
RPI events by using a varietyof strategies,including the following:
the challenge of staffing
Have the complete RPI team gather fora series of shortermeetings (1 to 3 hours) fora number
of days over the course of a week. Then conduct a longer intensive implementationblitz,
perhaps on a nonproduction day.
Use a core group of three to fourRPI teammembers (including the lean advocate) to do
preparatorywork and develop preliminary solutions. Involve production workers fromthe
area and other affectedemployees individuallyor in small groups forbriefmeetings to get their
feedback and buy-in.
Use nonproduction days to accomplish thebulk of theRPI and pay productionworkers overtime.
The most encouraging result of the industrylean initiativewas thatafter 1 year all nine plants
were aggressivelymoving forwardwith their lean programs and were using theirown inhouse
lean advocates to look criticallyat theirproduction processes, conduct RPIs, and implement lean
improvements.The industry'schallengewill be tomaintain themomentum of the lean pioneers,

while growing thebase of companies involvedwith lean production.
Conclusion
The use ofValue StreamMapping and Rapid Process Improvement is an effectivestartingpoint for
factoryhome builders seeking touse lean thinkingto slashwaste fromtheirproduction operations.
The main goal of a value streammap (both high level and detailed) is to identify
waste, whereas
RPI events improve theprocess throughwaste elimination.VSM can be used independently from
RPIs, by creating a high-level value streammap of theprocess. A high-level value streammap (for
example, door-to-door plant level) can help plants document theircurrent situation and identify
wasteful activities so thatsuch activitiescan be challenged and eliminated throughother process
improvementactivities.VSM can also be used as part of an RPI event, by developing a detailed
As the threecase studies
value streammap of theprocess or activity that is the focus of the effort.
show, RPI events can offerquick and dramatic results in targetproduction departments. Taken as
a whole, lean production strategies implemented throughan RPI event can increase the efficiency
and quality of building operations, boost workers' morale, and improve communication between
management
and workers.
102 RefereedPapers
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the assistance, advice, and guidance of several people without whose
Lean InitiativeSteeringCommit
help thisprojectwould not have been possible. Members of the
tee:Rick Boyd, Clayton Homes, Inc., Project Chair; Michael Blanford,U.S. Department ofHousing
and Urban Development; Robert Carver, New York State EnergyResearch and Development
Authority;Randy Cosby, R-Anell Housing Group, LLC; TerryDullaghan, Senco Products, Inc.;
Mark Ezzo, Clayton Homes, Inc.;William Farish, Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.; and BertKessler,
Palm
Homes.
Harbor
Plant
lean advocates:
Austin
Baidas,
Four
Seasons
Housing,
Inc.; Brent
Bardo,
Four Seasons Housing, Inc.; Butch Berlin,Hi-Tech Housing, Inc.; Ty Batchelor, Southern Energy
Homes, Inc.; BrentCrabtree, Clayton Homes, Inc.; Robbie Davis, Palm Harbor Homes; Lamar
Dickerson, Southern EnergyHomes, Inc.; Kenneth Hutchings, Chelsea Modular Homes, Inc.;
Charles Kilbourne-Jervais,R-Anell Housing Group, LLC; Michael Lombard, Palm Harbor Homes;
Kevin Longmire, Clayton Homes, Inc.;Aubrey Moore, Southern EnergyHomes, Inc.; JimMosier,
Four Seasons Housing, Inc.; JosephMullins, Hi-Tech Housing, Inc.; Tommy Rogers, Palm Harbor
Homes; CliffordRobbins, R-Anell Housing Group, LLC; Richard Shields, Chelsea Modular Homes,
Inc.; Steve Stokes, Chelsea Modular Homes, Inc.;Allen Tucker, Palm Harbor Homes; Randy
Wooten,
Tyler, Jr.,Four Seasons Housing, Inc.;Michael Wade, Cavalier Homes, Inc.; and Johnny
Cavalier Homes, Inc.Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (MHRA) staffand subcontractors:
Emanuel Levy,MHRA Executive Director; Gwynne Koch, MHRA; Catrina Arana, MHRA; and
Dewey
Senco
Warden,
Products,
Inc.
Authors
JordanDentz is senior research coordinator at theManufactured Housing Research Alliance in
New York City.
Isabelina Nahmens is an assistantprofessor in theDepartment ofConstruction Management
&
Industrial
Engineering,
Louisiana
State University,
Baton
Rouge,
Louisiana.
Michael Mullens is theprincipal investigatorat theHousing ConstructabilityLab inOrlando, Florida.
References
Bessant, John, Sarah Caffyn,and Maeve Gallagher. 2001. "AnEvolutionaryModel ofContinuous
Improvement
Behaviour,"
Technovation
21:
67-77.
Boer, Harry, Andres Berger,Ross Chapman, and Frank Gertsen, eds. 2000. CI Changes: From Sug
gestionBox toOrganizational Learning?Continuous ImprovementinEurope and Australia. Aldershot,
Hampshire, United Kingdom: Ashgate.
Caldeira, Edward. 1999. "Lean Construction," ProfessionalBuilder,August 1.Also available at
http://v^ww.housingzone.com/probuilder/article/CA466822.html.
Carlson, Don, ed. 1991. Automated Builder:Dictionary/Encyclopedia
of Industrialized
Housing.
Carpinteria,
CA:
CMN
Associates.
Cityscape 103
and Mullens
Dentz, Nahmens,
Koskela, Lauri. 1993. "Lean Production inConstruction." In Proceedingsof the10th International

Houston, TX, May 24-26: 47-54.
SymposiumofAutomationand Robotics inConstruction,
Laraia, Anthony, PatriciaMoody, and Robert Hall. 1999. The Kaizen Blitz:AcceleratingBreak
throughsinProductivityand Performance.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (MHRA). 2007. Pilot Study:
ApplyingLean toFactoryHome
for
the
U.S.
of
and
Urban
Building.Report prepared
Department Housing
Development (HUD).
http://www.pathnet.org/sp.asp?id=24122(accessed October 30).
-.
2005. GettingLean: Assessing theBenefitsofLean Production inFactoryBuiltHousing.

Report prepared for theU.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD).
(accessed January28, 2009).
http://www.huduser.org/publications/manufhsg/leanprod.html
Mullens, Michael. 2006. "ApplyingLean to FactoryHomebuilding." Presented to theLean
Workshop sponsored by theManufactured Housing Research Alliance, April.
Mullens, Michael. 2004. "ProductionFlow and Shop Floor Control: StructuringtheModular Factory
forCustom Homebuilding." In Proceedingsof theNSF Housing ResearchAgenda
Workshop,Vol. 2.
February
12-14.
Mullens, Michael, and Mark Kelley. 2004. "LeanHomebuilding Using Modular Technology,"
Housing and Society31 (1): 41-54.
Ohno, Taiichi. 1988. Toyota ProductionSystem.New York: ProductivityPress.
Picchi, Flavio, and Ariovaldo Granja. 2004. ConstructionSites:Using Lean Principles toSeek Broader
Implementations.
Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.
Pyzdek, Thomas. 2003. The Six SigmaHandbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Salem, O., and E. Zimmer, rev.2005. "Application of Lean Manufacturing Principles to
Construction," Lean ConstructionJournal2 (2): 51-54.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2007. "Type ofConstructionMethod ofNew One-Family Houses Completed."
(accessed December 19, 2008).
http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalconstmethod.pdf
U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development (HUD). 2006. ManufacturedHome Construction
and SafetyStandards. 24 CFR Part 3280. Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice.
Womack, James, and Daniel Jones. 1996. Lean Thinking:BanishWaste and CreateWealth inYour
Corporation.New York: Simon & Schuster.
104 RefereedPapers

Applying Lean Production in Factory Homebuilding PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applying Lean Production in Factory Homebuilding PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Applying Lean Production in Factory Homebuilding

Author(s): Jordan Dentz, Isabelina Nahmens and Michael Mullens

theproduction process for improvement.RPI eventswere then conducted in

Cityscape: A Journal ofPolicyDevelopment and Research

Volume 11,Number 1 2009

Office of Policy Development

Dentz, Nahmens, and Mullens

relocatemany of thefield operations to amore controlled factoryenvironment, the construction

automotive, electronics, andmany othermanufacturing industrieshave reporteddramatic

Research and Development Authority, and the factory-built

for the customer.

Applying Lean Production inFactory Homebuilding

Factory homebuilding is an industrialized approach tohomebuilding, which relocatesmany field

of three-dimensional sections thatare typically95-percent finishedwhen they leave the factory

found thatqueuing availability and the flexibilityforwork tomigrate upstream/downstreamcan

Lean Tools:Value StreamMapping and Rapid Process

wasted activities so theycan be challenged and eliminated throughRPI events.During the

informationflows.VSM allows theuser to easily visualize the currentprocess, recognize sources of

organization?specific production process, door-to-door plant level, enterprise level?and across

all employees canmake a contribution to problemsolving and innovation (Bessant,Caffyn,and

tion levels,productivity,worker satisfaction,and customer satisfaction.More than 50 percent of

factorytobenchmark itselfagainst competitors.The second phase of this effort,called the lean

Task 1. Select Plants

Geographic location to capturemarket and design variations.

Task 2. Select and Train Lean Advocates

Dentz, Nahmens, and Mullens

< i SCD |O3

Applying Lean Production inFactory Homebuilding

Task 3. Conduct Value Stream Mapping and Data Collection

Each plant collected informationdescribing currentplant performance, including production

Each plant identifiedareaswith high opportunity for improvement fromthehigh-level value

Each plant selected a specific area or operation for lean implementation.

value streammap focusingon lean improvements.

dictions and forecasts);and informationsystems(use ofbar code/RFID [radiofrequencyidentification]).

Task 4. Conduct Rapid Process ImprovementEvents

Task 4.1. Develop

Task 4.2. Conduct

the RPI Event

Each plant implemented itsRPI plan and resulting lean improvements.

of the RPI Event

Task 5. Disseminate Results and Lessons Learned

Plant 1. Chelsea Modular Homes

to the lean initiative

Applying Lean Production inFactory Homebuilding

Areas of High Opportunity. The teamused the current-statevalue streammap

was critical to stabilizing the line flow

Dentz, Nahmens, and Mullens

Applying Lean Production inFactory Homebuilding

Task 4. Conduct Rapid Process

were aware thatspackling had numerous problems thatcontributed topoor

discussed preliminary solutions. Problems identifiedincluded the following:

Line workstation assignmentsnot being adhered to.

Congestion inmodules where sanding and paintingwere done (often simultaneously).

On the fourthday, theRPI team presented recommendations to theplantmanager and company

were inwork rules:making departments responsible

Applying Lean Production inFactory Homebuilding

Plant 2. R-Anell Housing Group, LLC

tion campaign forbothmanagement and production associates, a comprehensive 5S campaign,

was unique in that the team focused on developing managerial guidelines to

The followingsection discusses how thisplant conducted tasks 3 and 4.

Task 4. Conduct Rapid Process

Applying Lean Production inFactory Homebuilding