Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Shoop Floor Management
Shoop Floor Management
Abstract: During the early 1990s, the Toyota Production System (TPS) became widely accepted
across the industrialized world. Companies from different industries gained in experience by
applying lean principles as well as by developing and refining customized approaches to
optimize products and processes. From a practical standpoint, the implementation of TPS-
elements such as one-piece-flow, visual standards or U-shaped layouts, can easily
be identified on the shop floor. Meanwhile, most of the underlying management processes and
structures remain hidden to the outside observer. Closing this major gap is the objective of shop
floor management. It provides and formalizes an integrated framework of processes with
defined roles, responsibilities and competencies to sustain and improve efficiency. Its
fundamental principles include a focus on prevention, frequent high decision making and
empowered teams consisting of experts, managers and operators. The objective of this article is
to define the scope of shop floor management, to sketch a generic structure in terms of an
overall process reference model as well as to detail new and modified sub processes, roles and
responsibilities to enhance its implementation.
Keywords: Continuous Improvement, Shopfloor Management, Lean Management, Toyota
Production System
Intentional, noticeable
changes
Machine breakdown,
Unplanned
operator illness
Unintentional, hardly
noticeable changes
Raw material
Sudden
modification
Tool Call
3. Counter 3. Counter 3. Counter
measure measure measure
Finished product
Decision: Decision: Decision:
Wait Resume or Resume or Resume or
Inspection, packaging escalate escalate escalate
The implementation is managed by the dedicated shop [10] B.A. Tezel, L.J. Koskela, P. Tzortzopoulos, 2009,
floor management resources. ‘The functions of visual management’,
Conclusion Proceedings of International Research Symposium,
Until now, there has been limited research regarding SFM Salford, UK, pp.27-28,
approaches and the explicit formulation of its processes. [11] D. R. Woods., 2000, ‘An Evidence-Based Strategy
Information presented in this article will help close this for Problem Solving’, Journal of Engineering
gap. Education 89, Vol. 4.
By discussing related scientific research, the formal [12] M.J. Tyre, S.D. Eppinger & E.M.H. Csizinszky,
definition for SFM has been expanded to represent the 1995, ‘Systematic versus Intuitive Problem
foundation for the developed model. The process model Solving on the Shop Floor: Does it Matter?,’ Sloan
is designed to prevent abnormalities, to ensure highly School of Management Working paper No. 3976;
reactive decision making and to facilitate continuous Boston/MA.
efficiency improvement. Due to their novelty, [13] Effective Problem Solving Practitioners Guide,
abnormality control, change point management and 2012, Automotive Industry Action Group,
efficiency improvement have been described more in Southfield (MI).
detail. [14] J. Michalska, D. Szewieczek, 2007, ‘The 5S
It is important to understand this approach as a consistent Methodology as a Tool for Improving the
guideline rather than a catalogue of tools to be Organisation’, Journal of Achievements in
implemented. Involved associates will not only Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, Vol.
experience a steep learning curve but also a higher 24/2, pp. 211-214.
motivation as a team. Following this approach, [15] R. Gapp, R. Fisher, K. Kobayashi, 2008,
organizations will benefit from more stable processes and ‘Implementing 5S within a Japanese Context: an
aligned decision making rather than reactive problem Integrated Management System’, Management
solving. Decision, Vol. 46, No. 4,
DOI:10.1108/0025174080865067
References [16] R.A. Al-Aomar, 2011, ‘Applying 5S Lean
[1] D. Nightingale, June 2009, ‘Principles of Technology: An Infrastructure for Continuous
Enterprise Systems.’ Proceedings of the Second Process Improvement,’ World Academy of Science,
International Symposium on Engineering Systems, Engineering and Technology, 59, pp. 2014-2019.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge [17] Toyota Motor Corporation: Toyota Handbook for
(MA). pp.15-17, Change Point Management, 2011, Toyota.
[2] S.J. Spear, 1999, ‘The Toyota Production System:
An Example of Managing Complex [18] J.V. Kovach, E.A. Cudney, & C.C. Elrod, ‘The
Social/Technical Systems. 5 Rules for Designing, Use of Continuous Improvement Techniques: A
Survey-Based Study of Current Practices’,
Operating, and Improving Activities, Activity-
Connections, and Flow-Paths’, Ph.D. Thesis, International Journal of Engineering, Science and
Boston (MA), Harvard University Graduate School Technology, Vol. 3, No. 7, pp. 89-100.
of Business Administration.
[3] J.P.Womack, D.T. Jones, 1994, ‘From Lean
Production to Lean Enterprise’, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 3, pp. 93-103.
[4] J. Liker, 2004, The Toyota Way: 14 Management
Principles from the World's Greatest
Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill.
[5] K. Suzaki, 1993, the New Shop Floor Management
– Empowering People for Continuous
Improvement, the Free Press, New York.
[6] S. Spear, H.K. Bowen, 1999, Decoding the DNA
of the Toyota Production System; Harvard
Business Review 77, no. 5, pp. 96–106.
[7] R. Peters, 2009, Shopfloor Management, Log_X
Verlag, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
[8] Internal document Freudenberg NOK Sealing
Technologies, 2012, Plymouth (MI).
[9] E. Scherer, M. Zoelch, April, 1995, ‘Design of
Activities in Shop Floor Management: A Holistic
Approach to Organisation at Operational Business
Levels in Business Process Reengineering Project’,
Proceedings of the IFIP WG 5.7 Working
Conference, Galway, Ireland, pp.20-21,
Nico Hanenkamp, Advances in Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol.2 No1 (2013), 40-46
3 no Item
Production index
Current state Target
no Item
no 1 Production am ount
Item Current6080 state Target
6080
? kYen/mam
Production onth?
ount Current6080 state Target
1 ? kYen/m
Monthly production 6080
2 volumam
Production onth?
e ?ount
289.6 289.6
Ext. conditions
1 kpcs?
Monthly production 6080 6080
2? kYen/mNum onth?
ber of w orking
e ? kpcs?
(incl. Work on
289.6 289.6
3volum
Monthly production 22 21
2 Num ber ?ofday?
days w orking (incl.
289.6 holiday, on )
Work1day 289.6
3volum ? kpcs?
eDaily production 22 21
Num4days
ber ?ofday?
weorking
? pcs?
(incl.
holiday,
Work on )
13296
1day 13296
3 volum
Daily production
? day?
22
1day )
21
4daysvolum e ? pcs?
13296
holiday,
Pattern ? shift? 3 shift (1305 min)
13296
5 production
Daily Working 2 shift (900 min)
4 volum e ? pcs?
13296 13296
5 Working C uring~?Ashift?
Pattern ppe a ra n3 shift (1305 min) 2 shift (900 min)
3.0 2.0
Comparison of alternatives
employees
c e ins pe c t io n
5 Working PatternC uring~?Ashift? ppe a ra n3 shift (1305 min) 2 shift (900 min)
Direct
3.00.5 2.00.5
employees
6 C uring~ P ape
c e ins c kcing
t io n
A ppe a ra n
Direct
3.00.5 2.00.5
employees
6 P ape
c e ins cSkceing
t io
upn
0.8 0.8
Direct
m a n・ s upe rv is o r
Resources
6 P a cSkeing
t up 0.50.8 0.50.8
m a n・Total s upe rv is?om r an? 4.3 3.3
S e t up
s upe rv is?om
a n・Total r an?
0.84.3 0.83.3
7 mNo of m achines ? unit? 6 7
Total ? m an? 4.3 6 3.3 7
7 8No of m achines ? unit?
Average Cav ? pcs? 8.3 10.0
7 8No of m achines ? unit? 6 8.3 7 10.0
? pcs?
9Average
Cycle
Cav
? tim es/day? 267 199
8 9Average Cav ? pcs? 8.3 10.0
? tim es/day? 267 199244
10Cycle
Cycle / takt tim e ? sec? 255 (306)
9 10Cycle ? tim es/day? 267 199244
/ takt tim e ? sec? 255 (306)
11Cycle
Productive tim e ratio 87% 90%
Performance
4 Implementation items