111Equation Chapter 1 Section 1

SUBMITTED: DR. AWAIS

SUBMITTED BY:2108-ME-85
SECTION B
“Implementing Lean Manufacturing with cellular
layout: a case study”
Keywords Abstract
Lean manufacturing Lean manufacturing is an applied methodology of scientific, objective
techniques that cause work tasks in a process to be performed with a
Cell formation
minimum of non-value adding activities resulting in greatly reduced
Takt time wait time, queue time, move time, administrative time, and other
delays. In a cellular manufacturing system (CMS), machines are
Value adding grouped into several cells, where each cell is dedicated to a particular
activities part family and the objective is to maximize cell independence. CMS
Non-value adding helps in reducing the material handling, work-in-process, setup time,
activities and manufacturing lead time and improve productivity, operation
control, etc. The facility layout used during lean implementation can be
Value stream either be a line layout or in the form of cells. After grouping parts in to
mapping various part families, machine cells can be formed to produce those
parts well inside the cells. As some of the lean manufacturing concepts
are different from that of cellular manufacturing, e.g., establishment of
Takt time, Takt-based resource balancing, etc., some new cell design
methodology is required to be explored that is compatible with lean
manufacturing. The rate at which work progresses through the factory
is called flow rate or Takt. In the present work, a design methodology
for cellular layout is proposed for implementing lean concepts and is
exemplified in a manufacturing industry dealing with ammunition
components for defense applications. Based on Takt time for various
parts, the production flow among cells was optimized thus minimizing
several non-value-added activities/times such as bottlenecking time,
waiting time, material handling time, etc. This case study can be useful
in developing a more generic approach to design cellular layouts in lean
environment.

1. Introduction
Lean manufacturing (LM) has increasingly been applied by leading manufacturing companies
throughout the world, led by the major automobile manufactures and their equipment suppliers.
A core concept of LM is pull production in which the flow on the factory floor is driven by
demand from downstream pulling production upstream as opposed to traditional batch-based
production in which production is pushed from upstream to downstream based on a production
schedule.
The focus of the LM approach is on cost reduction through eliminating non-value-added
activities via applying a management philosophy which focus on identifying and eliminating

1
waste from each step in the production chain respective of energy, time, motion and resources
alike throughout a product’s value stream, known as lean. Since the birth of Toyota Production
System, many of the tools and techniques of lean manufacturing (e.g., just-in-time (JIT), cellular
manufacturing, total productive maintenance, single-minute exchange of dies, production
smoothing) have been extensively used. This activity is more towards to Toyota Production
System (TPS), a systematic approach to identify and eliminate waste activities through
continuous improvement. All these efforts are objectively to keep cost down and stay ahead in
the race.
In a recent survey, approximately 36% of US-based manufacturing companies have implemented
lean or are in the process of implementing lean. Some of the changes required by LM can be
disruptive if not implemented correctly and some aspects of it are not appropriate for all
companies [1]. An LM facility is capable of producing product in only the sum of its value-
added work content time. Features of a typical LM model include: one unit at a time production;
non-value-added time eliminated; production in the work content time only; relocation of
required resources to the point of usage; and all processes balanced to produce at same Takt rate.
The rate at which work progresses through the shop floor is called Takt. It is a time–volume
relationship calculated as the rhythm, beat, or cadence for each process of a flow line and used to
establish resource definition and line balance. The flow of the product is achieved by causing all
of its work tasks to be grouped and balanced to a calculated Takt time.
Cellular manufacturing (CM) is an application of group technology, a manufacturing philosophy
in which parts are grouped into part families, and machines are allocated into machine cells to
take advantage of the similarities among parts in manufacturing [2].
The significant benefits of cellular manufacturing are
i. Reduced setup time
ii. Reduced work-in process inventory
iii. Reduced throughput time
iv. Reduced material handling costs
v. Improved product quality
vi. Simplified scheduling [3], etc.

The cell formation (CF) problem is the first step of the design of cellular manufacturing systems.
The main objective of CF is to construct machine cells and part families, and then dispatch part
families to machine cells to optimize the chosen performance measures such as inter-cell and
intra-cell transportation cost, grouping efficiency, exceptional elements, etc. Numerous
methodologies have been reported to identify machine cells and their associated part families.
Some of the widely used methods are the similarity coefficient methods (SCM) [4]–[7],
heuristics and metaheuristics algorithm and so on.
The cell formation technique implemented here to identify the initial solution for cell design as
reported in this paper is related to the hierarchical SCM-based approach. The reason for
selecting a SCM-based approach for cell formation is the simplistic nature of application on the
available industrial data. Section 3 of the paper describes the importance of developing a proper

2
cell design methodology for implementing lean concepts successfully. In Section 4, the case
study is given with details of various production parameters prevailing there. The formation of
machine cells and optimum cell layout on the basis of Takt time is presented in Section 5.
Finally, the conclusions of this study and future scopes of this research are presented.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Lean Manufacturing
Principles of lean thinking have been broadly accepted by many manufacturing operations and
have been applied successfully across many disciplines [8]. While many researchers and
practitioners have studied and commented on lean manufacturing, it is very difficult to find a
concise definition which everyone agrees. Different authors define it distinctively. Lean
manufacturing is most frequently associated with the elimination of seven important wastes to
ameliorate the effects of variability in supply, processing time or demand [9]. Liker and Wu [10]
defined it as a philosophy of manufacturing that focuses on delivering the highest quality product
on time and at the lowest cost. Worley [11] defined it as the systematic removal of waste by all
members of the organization from all areas of the value stream. The National Institute of Science
and Technology (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnership defines lean as a systematic
approach of identifying and eliminating waste (non-value added activities) through continuous
improvement by flowing the product at the pull of the customer in pursuit of perfection
[12].Briefly, it is called lean as it uses less, or the minimum, of everything required to produce a
product or perform a service [13]. In a nutshell, lean manufacturing can be best defined as an
approach to deliver the upmost value to the customer by eliminating waste through process and
human design elements.
Lean manufacturing has become an integrated system composed of highly inter-related elements
and a wide variety of management practices, including Just-in-Time (JIT), quality systems, work
teams, cellular manufacturing etc. [14]. The purpose of implementing it is to increase
productivity, reduce lead time and cost, and improve quality [15], [16].
2.1.1. Categories of Waste
Most practitioners agree that there are seven categories of waste. They are described below:
i. Overproduction. Producing more, earlier, or faster than required by the next process is
waste. It causes inventory, manpower, and transportation to accommodate the excess.
ii. Waiting. Any idle time or delay that occurs when an operation waits for materials,
information, equipment, and so forth, is waste. Idle resources are an obvious form of
waste.
iii. Transportation. Any movement of material around the plant is not value added and,
therefore, waste. The more you move material the greater the opportunity for damage and
the need for more space.

3
 iv. Defects. Products or services that do not conform to customer expectations are waste.
They incur customer dissatisfaction and frequently reprocessing. Quality is built in at the
source.
v. Inventory. Any inventory in the value stream is not value added and, therefore, waste.
Inventory requires space and hides other wastes.
vi. Motion. Any movement of a person’s body that does not add value is waste. Walking
requires time to retrieve materials that are not available in the immediate area.
vii. Extra Processing. Any extra processing that does not add value to the product or
service is waste. An example is the removal of a gate in a molded part [17].

2.1.2. Key areas

Lean manufacturing requires that not only should technical questions be fully understood, but
existing relationships between manufacturing and the other areas of the firm should also be
examined in depth, as should other factors external to the firm [18]. As an integrative concept,
the adoption of lean manufacturing can be characterized by a collective set of key areas or
factors. These key areas encompass a broad array of practices which are believed to be critical
for its implementation. They are:
i. Scheduling
ii. Inventory
iii. Material handling
iv. Equipment
v. Work processes
vi. Quality
vii. Employees
viii. Layout
ix. Suppliers
x. Customers
xi. Safety and Ergonomics
xii. Product design
xiii. Management and culture
xiv. Tools and techniques [19]

2.1.3. Lean Tools

Monden [20] and Nahmias [21], identify some of the most common lean tools such as:
i. Cellular manufacturing

4
 ii. Just in time
iii. Kanban
iv. Total preventive maintenance
v. Setup time reduction
vi. Total quality management
vii. 5S which focus on effective work place organization and standardized work procedures.

2.1.3.1. Value Stream

Rother and Shook [22] identify VSM as another important lean tool. Value stream is a collection
of all actions, value added as well as non-value-added that are required to bring a product
through the main flows, starting with raw material and ending with the customer. These actions
consider the flow of both information and materials within the overall supply chain. The ultimate
goal of VSM is to identify all types of waste in the value stream and to take steps to try and
eliminate these.
2.1.3.2. Total Productive Maintenance
TPM is a concept used for maintaining plants and equipment with the involvement of all
employees in the company in order to increase the overall equipment effectiveness (OEE). In
order to implement TPM successfully, there are 5 important pillars to be followed for the
purpose of getting improvement in performance or outcome. They are (i) training and Education,
(ii) Autonomous Maintenance, (iii) Equipment Effectiveness Improve, (iv) Maintenance
Efficiency and Effectiveness Improve and (v) Early Equipment Management and Maintenance
[23].
2.1.3.3. One Piece Flow
The objective of one-piece flow is to build up the parts of product one at a time in a more
organizing and sequencing processes in order to avoid the problem of long queue times or
producing in batches. In addition, another objective of one-piece flow is used to avoid the non-
value added movement which means the unnecessary movement [23].
2.1.3.4. Kanban
Kanban is a signaling system to trigger action. Kanban is used as a part pull system. It is demand
scheduling which means, only produce product to replace the product consumed by its
customers, and only produce product based on signals sent by its customers. Kanban replaces the
daily scheduling activities necessary to operate the production process, and the need for
production planners and supervisors to continuously monitor schedule status to determine the
next item to run and when to change over. Kanban scheduling reduces inventory, improves flow,
prevents over-production, places control at operational level, and creates visual scheduling and
management of process [24].
2.1.3.5. 5S Workplace Organization
In order to establish an effective product or service flow, the workplace must be organized using
the 5S’s, which are sort, straighten, shine, standardize, and sustain.

5
 i. Sort. Divide all the items into three categories: keep those items that are necessary for
the activity to function and group by frequency of use; return those items that belong to
another customer or location; and move all other items to a staging area and red tag for
disposal with appropriate identifiers.
ii. Straighten. Items that are left are arranged to reduce or eliminate wasted motion.
iii. Shine. Clean your workplace to eliminate dirt, dust, fluids, and any other debris. Good
housekeeping provides an environment to locate equipment problems, to improve
productivity, and to reduce accidents.
iv. Standardize. Documentation is developed to ensure that all parties using the workplace
are performing the process in the same manner.
v. Sustain. Gains made in the first four S’s are maintained by charts, checklists, and audits
[17].

2.2.1 Pareto Charts

A Pareto chart is a type of chart that contains both bars and a line graph, where individual values are
represented in descending order by bars, and the cumulative total is represented by the line. The chart is
named for the Pareto principle, which, in turn, derives its name from Vilfredo Pareto, a noted Italian
economist.
The left vertical axis is the frequency of occurrence, but it can alternatively represent cost or another
important unit of measure. The right vertical axis is the cumulative percentage of the total number of
occurrences, total cost, or total of the particular unit of measure. Because the values are in decreasing
order, the cumulative function is a concave function. To take the example below, in order to lower the
amount of late arrivals by 78%, it is sufficient to solve the first three issues.
The purpose of the Pareto chart is to highlight the most important among a (typically large) set of factors.
In quality control, it often represents the most common sources of defects, the highest occurring type of
defect, or the most frequent reasons for customer complaints, and so on.  Wilkinson (2006) devised an
algorithm for producing statistically based acceptance limits (similar to confidence intervals) for each bar
in the Pareto chart.

6
2.2.2 Cause and Effect diagrams
A cause-effect diagram is a visual tool used to logically organize possible causes for a specific
problem or effect by graphically displaying them in increasing detail, suggesting causal
relationships among theories. A popular type is also referred to as a fishbone or Ishikawa
diagram. Cause-Effect can also be diagrammed using a tree diagram.
When diagnosing the cause of a problem, a cause-effect diagram helps to organize various
theories about root causes and presents them graphically.
The C-E Diagram is a fundamental tool utilized in the early stages of an improvement team. The
ideas generated during a brainstorming or affinity process are used to populate the diagram.
Since the list of issues on a C-E may be very large, the team should use a prioritization or multi-
vote technique to narrow the list of potential cause that they desire to investigate farther.
At the head of the diagram is the “Effect” that the team is investigating. The team brainstormed
potential causes for this effect. The skeleton becomes the various potential causes and the
headers are the column heads from the affinity diagram

2.2.3 Scatter diagram

7
A scatter plot can be used either when one continuous variable is under the control of the
experimenter and the other depends on it or when both continuous variables are independent. If a
parameter exists that is systematically incremented and/or decremented by the other, it is called
the control parameter or independent variable and is customarily plotted along the horizontal
axis. The measured or dependent variable is customarily plotted along the vertical axis. If no
dependent variable exists, either type of variable can be plotted on either axis and a scatter plot
will illustrate only the degree of correlation (not causation) between two variables.

3. Cellular Layout for LM

Cellular layout helps to achieve many of the objectives of LM due to its ability to help eliminate
many non-value-added activities from the production process such as waiting times, bottlenecks,
transport and works-in-progress. Many companies implement cellular layout for certain parts of
the production process but not the entire production process. A case study on implementing a
cellular production layout for a series of intermediate production processes at Franklin Corp., a
US manufacturer of upholstered furniture, reported a 36% increase in labor productivity as a
result of implementing a lean manufacturing system.
In the present day of manufacturing, cells can be formed easily for any industry whether it is a
small-scale or a large-scale industry. When the Takt times are calculated for every part
manufactured in the industry through intercellular and intracellular part movements, then the
problem of locating machines on the shop floor occurs when it is a job type production unit; this
problem is the main reason for reconfiguration of machines and layout design for every demand.
To eliminate these problems, a proper method is required to achieve a rhythm in manufacturing

8
lean line by identifying value adding, non-value adding, and necessary non-value adding
activities within a proper cell layout through an optimum feasible Takt time (Figure 1).
This paper presents a case study of a small-scale industry facing the problems as discussed
above. It is not so difficult to identify an optimum cell layout from any industrial data; only
identification of cells is not the complete solution because the cells should have a proper rhythm
of manufacturing line, minimizing wastages like bottleneck time, waiting time, material handling
time, etc. Therefore, to make cellular manufacturing efficient, it is necessary to implement
various concepts of lean manufacturing within this cellular layout. In this paper, a case study is
presented to design a cellular layout for the implementation of the lean manufacturing or, in
other words, a cellular layout which follows lean principles.

4. Case Study
An ISO-certified manufacturing unit, ALCAST Pte. Ltd., established in 1978, is a supplier of
missile components and sub-assemblies to government ordnance factories. Some of the
important supplies are fuse DA5A, fuse 161, components for 51-mm and 81-mm illuminating
bombs, striker mechanism assembly, tail unit for 51-mm smoke missile, parts of 36-mm hand
grenades, etc.

9
 Figure 1: Machine cells are feeding to main lean flow line at Takt rate
In the present study, fuse DA5A assembly is selected to illustrate the proposed methodology for
implementing lean concepts on shop floor. A fuse DA5A operates only under high rotational
speed to compress the spring, which locates the detent. It can be used to initiate ignition of a
small to large quantity of explosives. It is a sub-assembly of the following ten components as
given in Table 1 along with the various required machines or operations.
Table 1: Parts and machines required to assemble fuse DA5A

Parts Machines/Operations
P1 Disc M1 Band Saw
P2 Septum M2 CNC machine
P3 Tag M3 Drilling
P4 Shutter M4 Lathe
P5 Safety cap M5 Milling
P6 Striker pin M6 Punching
P7 Stop detent M7 Grinder
P8 Upper body M8 Pressure die-casting
P9 Lower body M9 De-burring
P10 Magazine M10 Anodizing

10
A binary machine-part incidence matrix (MPIM) prepared from the production flow information
for this set of parts is given in Table 2. Although several methods for identifying the machine
cells using the present form of MPIM are available, a simple and widely used hierarchical
similarity (Jaccard coefficient)-based approach is used here. McAuley [7] first used the generic
Jaccard coefficient to form machine cells. The Jaccard similarity coefficients among the machine
pairs are obtained using the following simple expression:
Number of parts which require processing on both machines m and n
S mn 
Number of parts which require processing on at least one of the machines 212\*
MERGEFORMAT (.)
Table 2: Machine-part incidence matrix for fuse DA5A

Parts
Machines P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10
M1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
M2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
M3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
M4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
M5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
M6 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
M7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
M8 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
M9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
M10 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1
Using Table 2, the Jaccard similarity coefficients are found and tabulated in Table 3 [7]. For
example, S12 =4/5=0.8, S13 =2/5=0.4, and so on.
Table 3: Machine similarity coefficients

Machines M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10
M1 0 0.8 0.4 0.33 0.2 0.125 0.2 0 0.5 0.5
M2 0 0.5 0.4 0.25 0 0.25 0 0.4 0.375
M3 0 0.67 0 0 0.5 0 0.2 0.2857
M4 0 0 0 0.33 0.25 0.3 0.25
M5 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1429
M6 0 0 0 0.4 0.375
M7 0 0 0.1 0.375
M8 0 0.2 0.125
M9 0 0.7
M10 0
Maximum similarity coefficient is for S12 =4/5=0.8, thus it will be taken as the first pair of
machines i.e. pair (1, 2) and similarly for the next iteration and so on.
The dendogram from the above table is as given in Figure 2.

11
 0.8 0.7 0.67 0.5 0.25 0.125

5
9

10

6
Figure 2: Dendogram for the machine cell grouping problem
Using this dendogram, different grouping results can be obtained at different threshold values.
For example, at a threshold value of 0.25, two cells are resulting comprising of machines (1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 7, 9, 10) and (8, 6). In the present study, a threshold value of 0.5 is assumed which gives a
realistic three machine cells identified as cell 1 (1, 2, 3, 4, 7), cell 2 (5, 9, 10), and cell 3 (8, 6).
To design the optimum layout for the machine cells to implement lean manufacturing, each of
the parts is considered individually. Here, the lower body component of the product is taken for
detailed analysis. Production flow information for the lower body is given in Table 4.
Table 4: Operation sequence and various production related times for lower body:

Processing time Material (Slack

S.N. Machine Operators (No. of operations)
per part, s handling time time)
1 Band saw Sectioning of rods (1) 45 0 (0)
2 CNC-1 First setup (1) 107 65 (3)
3 CNC-2 Second setup (1) 100 5 (12)
4 Drill-1 Trimming (1) 40 30 (90)
5 Drill-2 Detent flat hole (1) 90 1 (–49)
6 Drill-3 Smaller flash hole (1) 90 1 (1)
7 Drill-4 Detent hole (1) 90 1 (1)
8 Lathe-1 Contour and file (1) 110 20 (0)
9 Drill-5 Contour cutting (1) 80 10 (40)
10 Drill-6 Safety pin hole (1) 80 1 (1)
11 Drill-7 Ball hole (1) 80 1 (1)
12 Drill-8 Reaming (1) 30 1 (51)
13 Drill-9 Enlarge flash hole (1) 80 1 (–49)
14 Drill-10 and 11 Locking and hinge pin hole (2) 80 1 (1)
15 Drill-12 Slot cutting (1) 80 1 (1)
16 Drill-13 Screw hole (1) 65 5 (20)
17 Drill-14 Tapping (1) 65 1 (1)
18 Drill-15 Tommy hole (1) 65 1 (1)
19 Grinder-1 Contour flattening (1) 65 1 (1)
20 Manual Burr removal (3) 40 10 (35)
21 Grinder-2 Tap on internal threads (1) 45 20 (15)
22 Drill-16 Final reamer to remove dusts (1) 35 25 (35)

12
 23 Manual Burr removal (3) 40 10 (5)
24 Lathe-2 Stamping lot no. etc. (1) 30 5 (15)
25 Lathe-3 Stamping burr removal (1) 20 1 (11)
The following data are either collected or calculated for analyzing the optimality of the proposed
cellular layout:
Total processing time including loading and unloading = 1,652 s
Total material handling time = 218 s
Total slack time = *total bottleneck time* + total waiting time
Waiting time = positive slack time; bottleneck time= negative slack time
Hence, total bottleneck time = −98 s and total waiting time = 341 s
Therefore, total slack time = 341 + 98 = 439 s
Total excess time = material handling time + total slack time = 218 + 439 = 657 s per part
Therefore,
Total time required to manufacture one part of lower body = processing time + excess time =
1,652 + 657 = 2,309 s = 38 min 29 s
Available production time per part for existing layout= 2,309 – 439 = 1,870 s
Average production of lower body per day = 400
Total available time for production per day (excluding lunch time other idle times) = 8h
= 8 × 3,600 = 28,800 s
Therefore, Takt time for lower body = 28,800/400 = 72 s
Before implementing the optimum cellular layout, the value adding, non-value adding, and
necessary non-value adding activities are to be identified as given in Table 5.
Table 5: Identification of value-added activities for lower body

Operation Necessary Non-value

Value adding Non-value adding
Number adding
1 Yes (45) – –
2 Yes (107) – –
3 Yes (100) – –
4 – Yes (40) –
5 Yes (90) – –
6 Yes (90) – –
7 Yes (90) – –
8 Yes (110) – –
9 – – Yes (80)
10 Yes (80) – –
11 Yes (80) – –
12 – Yes (30) –
13 Yes (80) – –

13
 14 – – Yes (80)
15 Yes (80) – –
16 – – Yes (65)
17 – – Yes (65)
18 Yes (65) – –
19 – Yes (65) –
20 – Yes (40) –
21 – Yes (45) –
22 – Yes (35) –
23 – Yes (40) –
24 – – Yes (30)
25 – Yes (20) –
Total 1,017 315 320

Therefore, total non-value-added time = 315 + 439 = 754 s

and necessary non-value-added time = 320 + 218 = 538 s.
With the help of these data, Figure 3 can be drawn to show the distribution of total production
time.
Now, total
processing
time Necessary
Non-value
including added
loading 23%
and
unloading Value added
= 1,697 s 44%

Total
material
handling Non-value
time = 137 added
s 33%

Figure 3: Distribution of production time for lower body in percentage:

Total bottleneck time = −49 s and total waiting time = 191 s

Therefore, total slack time = 49 + 191 = 240 s
Total excess time = material handling time + total slack time = 137 + 240 = 377 s per part
Therefore, total non-value adding (NVA) time = 290 + 240 = 530 s
And total necessary non-value adding (NNVA) time = 290 + 137 = 427 s
Therefore, total production time for one part of lower body = 1,697 + 377 = 2,074 s

14
Excess time reduced per part = 657 – 377 = 280 s, therefore at least 23 extra parts can be
produced daily.
The new

Necessary
Non-value
added
22%

Value added
52%

Non-value
added
27%

Figure 4: New distribution of production time for lower body in percentage

distribution of production time can be depicted as in Fig. 4. Based on this analysis for the lower
body, the present and future state maps are given in Figure 5a and Figure 5b.

CT= 30 CT= 11
CT= 3 min. CT= 2 min. CT= 2 min. CT= 2 min.
sec. min.
C/O = 3 C/O = 3 C/O = 4 C/O = 6 C/O = 6 C/O = 6
min min min min min min
U/T= 90% U/T=85 % U/T= 85 % U/T= 85 U/T=90% U/T=90 %
NO. OF
NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF
SHIFTS =
SHIFTS =1 SHIFTS =1 SHIFTS =1 SHIFTS =3 SHIFTS =1
1
DEFECT = DEFECT = DEFECT= DEFECT= DEFECT= DEFECT=
2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 1% 0%
0.5 day 0.25 day 0.25 day 0.25 day 0.5 day 0.4 day 7 days

0.5 11 3 2 2 2

Figure 5a: Current state map

min. min. min. min. min. min.

After analyzing the above operations as implemented in the existing layout, some bottlenecking
operations are identified. To minimize these wastages, a new feasible manufacturing flow has
been developed by changing operation sequence and combining operation wherever possible
(Table 6).

15
 Figure 5b: Future state map

Table 6: Modified production information for lower body

Necessary
Operatio Processing time with
MH Time Non-value Non-
n loading and unloading Value added
(Slack time) added value
Sequence time
added
1 45 0 (0) Yes (45) – –
2 107 65 (3) Yes (107) – –
3 100 5 (12) Yes (100) – –
4+21 40+1+45+14=100 25 (25) – Yes (100) –
5 90 1 (11) Yes (90) – –
6 90 1 (1) Yes (90) – –
7 90 1 (1) Yes (90) – –
8 110 10 (-10) Yes (110) – –
9 80 5 (35) – – Yes (80)
10 80 1 (1) Yes (80) – –
11 80 1 (1) Yes (80) – –
24+25+12 30+1+5+20+30+14=100 5 (-15) Yes (100) – –
13 80 5 (25) Yes (80) – –
14 80 1 (1) – – Yes (80)
15 80 1 (1) Yes (80) – –
16 65 1 (16) – – Yes (65)
17 65 1 (1) Yes (80) – Yes (65)
18 65 1 (1) – – –
22 35 1 (31) – Yes (35) –
19 65 5 (25) Yes (65) Yes (65) –
20+23 40+1+40+9=90 1 (-24) – Yes (90) –
Total 1,697 137 1,117 290 290
Similar to the analysis of the lower body, the rest of the nine parts is completed and the relevant
data are given in Table 7. As it can be seen from the table, several non-value adding and

16
 necessary non-value adding activities are reduced by means of the measures discussed earlier.
The total distance to be traveled by the parts (as calculated using the inter-machine and inter-cell
distances) also reduces after the implementation of the proposed cellular layout. The reduction in
total distance traveled by the parts decreases the labor requirement for material handling. The
production quantity per shift also increased owing to the decrease in total Takt time of all the ten
parts. The economic benefits are evident and on-time delivery boosts the relationship with
clients. The workers now being aware of several wastages laid the foundation for lean
manufacturing.
Table 7: Comparison between pre-analysis and post-analysis data pertaining to several performance measures

Pre-analysis Post-analysis
Total
Total Excess Takt Excess
Parts Takt VA NVA NNVA trave VA NVA NNVA
travel time time time
Time (s) % % % l % % %
(m) (s) (s) (s)
(m)
P1–Disc 240 22.1 45.6 32.3 19.2 102 240 22.1 45.6 32.3 240 22.1
P2–Septum 10 33.3 50 16.7 14.4 5 10 33.3 50 16.7 10 33.3
P3–Tag 20 44.4 44.4 11.2 10.67 10 20 44.4 44.4 11.2 20 44.4
P4–Shutter 80 40 50 10 17.94 30 80 40 50 10 80 40
P5–Safety cap 125 30 41.7 28.3 19.2 37 125 30 41.7 28.3 125 30
P6–Striker pin 140 41.4 41.4 17.2 16.94 35 140 41.4 41.4 17.2 140 41.4
P7–Stop detent 20 44.4 44.4 11.2 10.67 10 20 44.4 44.4 11.2 20 44.4
P8–Upper body 267 39.11 34.66 26.23 40.41 98 237 41 34.7 24.3 267 39.11
P9–Lower body 657 44 32.7 23.3 68.11 123 377 54 25.5 20.5 657 44
P10–Magazine 99 32.4 28.4 39.2 28.8 27 99 32.4 28.4 39.2 99 32.4
1,65
Total 1,658 37.11 41.33 21.56 246.34 477 1348 38.3 40.6 21.1 37.11
8

5. Conclusion
In the present work, a methodology to adopt cellular layout for lean manufacturing is discussed
for a manufacturing-based case study. First, an existing and familiar cell formation technique
based on binary machine-part incidence matrix was applied to identify machine cells for the
given set of part types. Depending on individual part’s operation sequence and processing,
material handling time, etc., the original cell layout is analyzed to minimize the several wastages
in the form of non-value adding activities like waiting time, slack time, etc. To achieve this,
some operations are combined and machine relocation within the cell is implemented.
The future scopes of this work include load balancing and maximization of utilization of the cells
identified for lean implementation; although the problem then becomes a multi-objective
optimization, one which can be solved by several existing methods. Further, a generalized group
technology (problem with alternative process plans) approach can identify more efficient lean
cells. The benefits from lean layout design are evident from the production output and may open
more research issues regarding cell design for lean implementation.

17
References
[1] D. P. Hobbs, Lean manufacturing implementation: a complete execution manual for any
size manufacturer. J. Ross Publishing, 2003.
[2] L. N. Pattanaik and B. P. Sharma, “Implementing lean manufacturing with cellular layout:
a case study,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., vol. 42, no. 7–8, pp. 772–779, 2009.
[3] U. Wemmerlov and D. J. Johnson, “Cellular manufacturing at 46 user plants:
implementation experiences and performance improvements,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 35,
no. 1, pp. 29–49, 1997.
[4] T. Gupta and H. I. Seifoddini, “Production data based similarity coefficient for machine-
component grouping decisions in the design of a cellular manufacturing system,” Int. J.
Prod. Res., vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 1247–1269, 1990.
[5] H. Seifoddini and P. M. Wolfe, “Application of the similarity coefficient method in group
technology,” IIE Trans., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 271–277, 1986.
[6] H. Seifoddini, “A note on the similarity coefficient method and the problem of improper
machine assignment in group technology applications,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 27, no. 7,
pp. 1161–1165, 1989.
[7] J. McAuley, “Machine grouping for efficient production,” Prod. Eng., vol. 51, no. 2, pp.
53–57, 1972.
[8] M. Poppendieck, “Principles of Lean Thinking, Published by Poppendieck.” LLC, 2002.
[9] R. Shah and P. T. Ward, “Defining and developing measures of lean production,” J. Oper.
Manag., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 785–805, 2007.
[10] J. K. Liker and Y.-C. Wu, “Japanese automakers, US suppliers and supply chain
superiority,” Supply Chain. Total Prod. Syst. A Read., pp. 177–196, 2006.
[11] J. M. Worley, “The role of sociocultural factors in a lean manufacturing implementation,”
2004.
[12] C. M. Buzby, A. Gerstenfeld, L. E. Voss, and A. Z. Zeng, “Using lean principles to
streamline the quotation process: a case study,” Ind. Manag. Data Syst., 2002.
[13] R. H. Hayes and G. P. Pisano, “Beyond world-class: the new manufacturing strategy,”
Harv. Bus. Rev., vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 77–86, 1994.
[14] R. Shah and P. T. Ward, “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and
performance,” J. Oper. Manag., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 129–149, 2003.
[15] A. M. Sanchez and M. P. Perez, “Lean indicators and manufacturing strategies,” Int. J.
Oper. Prod. Manag., 2001.
[16] C. Karlsson and P. Åhlström, “Assessing changes towards lean production,” Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manag., 1996.
[17] D. H. Besterfield, Quality improvement. Pearson Higher Ed, 2012.
[18] J. P. Womack and D. T. Jones, “From lean production to the lean enterprise,” Harv. Bus.

18
 Rev., vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 93–103, 1994.
[19] Y. C. Wong, K. Y. Wong, and A. Ali, “Key practice areas of lean manufacturing,” in
2009 International Association of Computer Science and Information Technology-Spring
Conference, 2009, pp. 267–271.
[20] Y. Monden, Toyota production system: an integrated approach to just-in-time. CRc Press,
2011.
[21] S. Nahmias and Y. Cheng, Production and operations analysis, vol. 6. McGraw-hill New
York, 2001.
[22] M. Rother and J. Shook, Learning to see: value stream mapping to add value and
eliminate muda. Lean Enterprise Institute, 2003.
[23] S. Tang, T. Ng, W. Chong, and K. Chen, “Case study on lean manufacturing system
implementation in batch printing industry Malaysia,” in MATEC Web of Conferences,
2016, vol. 70, p. 5002.
[24] P. G. Saleeshya, P. Raghuram, and N. Vamsi, “Lean manufacturing practices in textile
industries–a case study,” Int. J. Collab. Enterp., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 18–37, 2012.

19