Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/matpr

Productivity improvement in manufacturing industry by lean tool

Harish Kumar Banga a,⇑, Rajesh Kumar b, Puneet Kumar a, Ayush Purohit a, Hareesh Kumar a,
Kamalpreet Singh a
a
MED, GNDEC, Ludhiana 141006, India
b
MED, UIET, Chandigarh 160014, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Time has become a major constraint in nearly all fields of life, let it be science, technology, medicine, arts
Received 14 March 2020 or any other field. In the context of manufacturing its impact comes to fore in the form of larger demands
Received in revised form 19 April 2020 that are supposed to be met in less time. In such a scenario, managers are forced to bring improvements
Accepted 7 May 2020
to their production systems to meet the required production target in less time. Cycle Time has to be
Available online xxxx
taken into consideration a feasible alternative whilst an agency is attempting to enhance: efficiency, pro-
ductivity, value base, customer responsiveness, velocity to the marketplace of latest services, merging of
Keywords:
tactics publish-acquisition, and flexibility. By casting off ‘‘fats” within the methods an organization is able
Kaizen
Lean Manufacturing (LM)
to make itself ‘‘lean”. This research focuses on suggesting feasible alternatives to decrease the cycle time
Non Value added activities and consequently increase the throughput of a batch production system in a sheet metal parts manufac-
Reduction turing firm. Siemens Tecnomatix has been used as the prime software in this research. In this research,
Lead time simulation is used as the main tool to experiment on the system with various feasible alternatives. After
the results of the simulation, the analysis has been presented regarding the extent of achievement of an
objective about various methods employed.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International
Conference on Aspects of Materials Science and Engineering

1. Introduction amount of work. Several aspects of manufacturing make it compli-

Delivering the desired level of performance in minimum time has
become a key objective of every competitive organization. In the
context of manufacturing, this situation has led to very little flexibil-
ity in terms of production schedules, production rate, delivery
schedules, quality and other such avenues associated with manufac-
turing systems. Cycle time in the context of manufacturing can be
defined as the total time spent by the part/product in the manufac-
turing system or the time between the exits of two consecutive parts
or it can also be called the time part spends as work in the process [1].
Throughput may be defined as the production rate or the number of
components produced in a specific time as below.
Throughput ¼ 1=ðcycle timeÞ
The throughput rate is governed by the most laden workstation,
while the other stations undergo idle times [2,3]. For an efficient
production operation, all stations should be loaded with an equal
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: harishbangame@gndec.ac.in (H. Kumar Banga).
cated to assign equal work assignments to all workstations. Gener-
ally, most operations are supposed to be done in a particular
sequence. Also, the capacity of the equipment and the efficiency
of the people on the assembly line differ. So, it becomes difficult
to improve the production rate and reduce cycle time. Various
techniques are available for this purpose but none of them guaran-
tees the optimum solution but the best of the considered arrange-
ments is expected to be found.
2. Literature review
There are different methods accessible for the decrease of pro-
cess duration, yet which one or a blend to apply relies on the exis-
tent framework and flexibility of the framework to the change for
example how adaptable the framework is A few strategies to
diminish the process duration are as under: -
i. Sequential construction system adjusting,
ii. Plant format advancement,
iii. Minimization of material,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.195
2214-7853/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Aspects of Materials Science and Engineering

Please cite this article as: H. Kumar Banga, R. Kumar, P. Kumar et al., Productivity improvement in manufacturing industry by lean tool, Materials Today:
Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.195
2 H. Kumar Banga et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1
Feasibility matrix for assembly line balancing.

Tasks A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S
A 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
B 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
C 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
E 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
G 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
H 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
J 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
K 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
M 1 1 1 1 1 1
N 1 1 1 1 1
O 1 1 1 1
P 1 1 1
Q 1 1
R 1
S

iv. Work study,
v. Reenactment and demonstrating.
The sequential construction system adjusting issue contains a
successful appropriation of complete work in regards to assem-
bling of an item among all the work stations [4] recommended that
there are different ways to deal with mechanical production sys-
tem adjusting as which incorporate heuristics, scientific demon-
strating, tasks investigate based strategies, for example, direct
programming and dynamic programming and careful methodol-
ogy, for example, branch and bound strategy and so forth. Notwith-
standing, heuristics don’t guarantee an ideal arrangement however
an almost ideal arrangement is required to be accomplished [5].
They talked about the fundamental heuristics which include the
positioning of errands as per a specific measure and afterward
redistributing the remaining task at hand to adjust the sequential
construction system [6–9]. The portrayed PC reproduction as an
unbendingly settled help apparatus for dynamic in the assembling
scene. They discovered an assortment of information, age of model
and experimentation as the mainstays of recreation and if these
three components are of terrible quality, at that point there will
be sure restraint to great outcomes. [10] After saw that when forms
as dissected become progressively tangled and perplexing and as
more factors need to include, at that point re-enactment turns
out to be increasingly significant with its examination of genuine
procedures. [11] These procedures can’t be secured by scientific
procedures or advancement procedures or they might be done dis-
tinctly by abusing countless assets. The point of reproduction is to
go ahead target choices by the energetic investigation, to engage
administrators to safely draw the plan, at last, to decrease cost
[12] led a review on the utilization of re-enactment as an instru-
ment for the activity and structure of assembling frameworks,
his examination additionally secured the advancement of recre-
ation programming for assembling frameworks. [13,14] They
found that out of all-out writing he considered 49% of the papers
were from the assembling frameworks plan classification, 41% of
the exploration papers had a place with the assembling frame-
works activity classification and 9% papers were from the repro-
duction programming improvement region.
The portrayed the nuts and bolts of the recreation of assembling
frameworks. In their work they have expressly characterized the
advantages of recreation for assembling frameworks as throughput
assessment, arranging of control methodology, work in process
examination, the prerequisite of laborers and hardware, versatility
and adaptability of a framework to change, stock issues and
arranging of creation related exercises. In their work, they have
additionally clarified the significance and job of measurable con-
templations and irregularity in the improvement of a recreation
model[15].
The hypothesis of imperatives was given by Eli Goldratt during
the mid-1980s. The idea of hypothesis imperatives is condensed
underneath as deciphered and depicted by [16]. Each framework
should have at any rate one limitation. The nearness of limitations
delineates odds of improvement. As indicated by Goldratt as por-
trayed by [16] while managing limitations administrators, for the
most part, need to take three choices –
 Decision of what should be changed.
 Decision of what it ought to be changed to.
 Decision with respect to how to bring that change.
Its about the significance of the hypothesis of limitations in
assembling. They talked about decreasing lead time through the
hypothesis of limitations [17,18]. examined the use of the hypoth-
esis of requirements for the coordinated poultry industry. They
found that the hypothesis of imperatives tackled the issue of
throughput increase with no significant speculation. They pro-
posed the improvement of the online data innovation framework
and changes in deals strategy and deals choice criteria [19].
The inspected the outcomes acquired from the utilization of the
hypothesis of limitations in the past writing. They found that the
hypothesis of limitations has been applied to various zones in
recent years. They found that the associations which applied the
hypothesis of limitations in the past have announced sizeable
enhancements in significant execution parameters as lead time,
throughput, and income and so on [20].
The case (sheet metal parts manufacturing firm) company man-
ufactures various sheet metal parts such as ironing board, chassis
support, fuel tanks, etc. The problem addressed in this study is of
ironing board manufacturing process. The problem before the com-
pany was that the customer for whom the ironing board was being
manufactured was asking continuously to increase the supply, but
the company due to the limited resource capacity and limited per-
sonnel was unable to meet out that demand of the customer.
Therefore, there arose a possibility of slipping the orders from
the company to any other similar company, due to this it became
essential for the company to somehow manage to increase its
capacity and fulfill the demand of the customer. The current

Please cite this article as: H. Kumar Banga, R. Kumar, P. Kumar et al., Productivity improvement in manufacturing industry by lean tool, Materials Today:
Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.195
 H. Kumar Banga et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
production system produces nearly 900 (as discussed by the com-
pany officials) parts per day. The customer wanted the company to
supply 200 to 300 more pieces per day. Following points will be
capable enough to present the problem more lucidly: -
i. Being a batch production system, right batch size was sup-
posed to be determined.
ii. Increase in throughput was desired.
iii. Control over expense was a major concern while increasing
the throughput.
iv. The improvements needed to be made to increase the pro-
duction should not hinder in the processes of other assembly
lines.
v. The planning should be such that the investments required
to increase the throughput should have a low payback
period.
3. Methodology
The Figs. 1 & 2 shows the precedence diagram of the manufac-
turing operations involved in the process of ironing board manu-
facturing. Various processes has been listed below -
a) Roll forming
b) Bending
The methodology or process involved in addressing the above
problem is shown below in seven steps -
i. Analysis of assembly line.
ii. Identification of feasible alternatives.
Fig. 1. Process Flow for the ironing board top manufacturing process.
Please cite this article as: H. Kumar Banga, R. Kumar, P. Kumar et al., Productivity improvement in manufacturing industry by lean tool, Materials Today:
Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.195
3
iii. Building a simulation model.
iv. Experimentation on the simulation model.
v. Analysis of results.
vi. Conclusion.
3.1. Analysis of the assembly line
This is the first step towards the objective. This includes the
analysis of the assembly line in terms of number of operations,
types of operations, current sequencing of operations, current pro-
duction rate etc.
3.2. Identification of feasible alternatives
This step involves the identification of various alternatives that
can be looked for and their selection based on feasibility and cost-
effectiveness. These alternatives need to undergo the experimenta-
tion part so that their feasibility and reliability can be judged.
Firstly, since the travel time or the time in taking one part from
one workstation to the other was long and there was a large dis-
tance between machines as the machines were located in their
respective sections, so it was thought to optimize the plant layout
or the machine layout. But in doing so disturbance to other assem-
bly lines could be created. Moreover, this requires a fair amount of
time to set up and install different machines to a new place and
production needs to be stopped, so this alternative could make
the company lose its production targets and could result in lost
sales. Hence, this alternative was rejected.
Secondly, the processing times for different workstations were
very much uneven and had a lot of difference between them so
4 H. Kumar Banga et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
Fig. 2. Precedence diagram for the ironing board top manufacturing process.
assembly line balancing was considered as an alternative which
could reduce the cycle time and increase the throughput, but
assembly line balancing was not feasible with this assembly line.
The main alternatives which are considered in this study are-
i. Assembly line balancing
ii. Theory of constraints
iii. Change in design of the product.
3.3. Assembly line balancing
The assembly line balancing approach for the reduction of cycle
time was also seen as an alternative in this study, as shown in Fig. 1
the precedence diagram was referred for the generation of the fea-
sibility matrix [21,22]. After the precedence diagram was known
the next step was to construct the feasibility matrix. The Feasibility
matrix for assembly line balancing as shown in Table 1. In con-
structing the flexibility matrix following are the basic rules
involved-
i. The number of rows (I) and columns (j) of the matrix corre-
spond to the number of task elements in the assembly
problem.
ii. If task I must precede task j, a 1 is entered at the intersection
of row I and column j otherwise, a 0 is entered at this
intersection.
iii. The upper right half of the matrix is then used to calculate
the F-ratio by the following formula:
2h
F¼
kðk  1Þ
The F ratio in this case came out to be 0.29, which means there
is only 29% probability for this line to get balanced. So, this alterna-
tive was not further considered for the reduction of cycle time.
3.4. Theory of constraints
The theory of constraints tells about finding the bottleneck in
the process and exploiting the bottleneck to make the best out of
the system. Initially, in this process, we found that the whole sys-
tem is suffering from one or two big bottleneck processes. The first
bottleneck operation was extended cage forming operation which
had the highest processing time of 41 s which was hindering in
other operations’ productivity. If, somehow this is improved or
removed the second big bottleneck was full welding straight
(FWS) operation which had a mean cycle time of 45.08 s.
3.5. Change in design of the product
In the study of the process it was analyzed that three continu-
ous welding operations i.e. tacking, full welding straight and full
welding radial were contributing to only one purpose which was
Please cite this article as: H. Kumar Banga, R. Kumar, P. Kumar et al., Productivity improvement in manufacturing industry by lean tool, Materials Today:
Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.195
to fix the mesh in the frame of the ironing board top. So, it was
thought that if something could be done to fix the mesh in the
frame and these processes could be eliminated as they were con-
suming too much of time, then there can be a certain benefit to
the organization.
3.6. Building a simulation model
This step includes the construction of a simulation model.
Building the simulation model requires the probability distribution
of various processing times taken on different work stations. It also
requires data regarding availability and MTTR. Then using simula-
tion software such as TECNOMATIX in which the simulation model
will be built.
3.7. Experimentation on the model
This step includes the experimentation part of the already built
simulation model. The experimentation process is necessary to
evaluate and analyze the results after the selection of alternatives.
The simulation also gives the real-time analysis of the assembly
line
3.8. Analysis of results
After experimentation results of the experiment needs to be
analyzed which will give an insight into how far have the selected
alternatives been able to meet the desired goal.
4. Selection process
The collection of data was the first step that was taken in the
process. Data were collected by observing the work being done
in the case company. Data regarding the following activities were
taken into consideration-
i. Processing times (shown in Table 2) + loading and unloading
times
ii. Availability of machines
iii. Time taken to take the parts from one workstation to the
other.
4.1. Processing times and loading & unloading times
The readings of processing times and loading and unloading
times were taken considering both the times as a single unit
because in some processes it was difficult to separate the tasks
of loading and unloading from processing, for example in the pro-
cess of Extended Cage Forming the coils of steel sheet automati-
cally unroll and the mesh is formed. In this process, it is difficult
to separate the two. Moreover, the total time spent by a part on
a workstation is the sum of both the times, therefore, loading,
unloading, and processing times have been taken as a single unit.
 H. Kumar Banga et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 5

Table 2
Sample data of processing times (seconds) observed for a batch of size 30.

Arch making FWS Mesh fitting FWR Blanking Shaping Channel fitting Tacking Seam weld MIG weld
1236.9 1350.3 1205.1 709.8 1056 669.3 457.2 763.8 436.8 677.1
770.4 1230.9 1233.3 660.3 1371.3 600.3 501.6 744 371.7 1011.6
1565.7 1280.1 1170.6 1106.1 932.7 462.9 359.7 834.3 389.4 477.3
891 1046.1 1262.1 1203.3 1362 540 474 699.9 420 744.9
960 1533.3 1033.2 680.4 1176.6 444 639.3 810 520.8 870
999.3 1259.7 1287.9 1205.1 1119.6 417.6 619.5 843 562.5 559.2
1129.5 1458.6 1194 1026.6 1682.7 513.9 575.1 750 444 1056.6
1135.2 1374.3 1716.3 908.4 872.1 559.5 514.2 864 650 513
1266 1284 1146.3 970.2 1302 657 529.5 883.7 514.2 567
1164.6 1485 1284.9 953.4 945.6 569.1 303.6 696.3 512.7 715.2
1042.5 1232.1 807.9 1024.8 1582.5 421.2 480.9 814.2 600.9 747.9
1122 1347.6 1233.6 796.2 1026 467.1 577.5 774 480 810
970.5 1315.2 1149.9 891.3 1098.9 450.6 511.8 835.8 618 671.4
896.1 1383 1221 841.5 1050 598.8 513 799.2 661.4 624
865.2 1429.5 1253.7 931.2 1164.3 480.3 453.6 846.3 435.9 721.5
1131 1509 1226.7 814.5 1229.1 513.9 600.3 719.4 389.4 746.1
1035 1362 1113 885 1173 457.2 603.9 750.3 394.2 700.5
1128 1374 1294.2 760.2 1054.5 646.2 421.5 830.4 414.6 918
1121.7 1385.7 1231.2 897.3 903.3 591 436.5 735.6 437.1 681
1113.6 1435.5 1258.8 707.1 1092.6 357 527.4 822 501.9 690.3
1167.3 1233.6 1125.6 903.3 1476.3 418.5 688.8 702.9 595.8 641.1
1188.6 1320.9 1164 970.2 1014.6 632.1 657.9 762.3 868.2 687
1129.5 1355.4 1215.9 1134.3 1588.5 540.9 749.1 893.4 402.6 693.9
1025.4 1380 1602.3 871.2 1205.1 360 717.3 798.9 503.1 836.1
1377 1330.2 1140.3 1002.6 974.4 471.3 664.5 844.2 561.6 909.3
1410 1698.9 1197 834.3 1267.5 580.5 497.4 737.1 513.3 509.4
1169.4 1373.4 1370.1 702.3 1530 487.5 528.3 930.6 507 723.9
1203 1465.8 688.2 874.2 1254.9 453 567 901.6 615.9 608.1
977.7 1200.6 1113.9 846 1125 414.9 612 786 470.4 706.5
1204.8 1512.9 1255.5 931.5 948.9 474 570.3 835.5 503.7 754.2

The observations of processing and loading and unloading times
for a single part as well as batch sizes of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50.
The observations of times of only two segments of assembly line
were made as the time for the third segment is very less as com-
pared to the other two, therefore, a simulation study of only the
first two segments was required to increase the throughput. Table 2
shows the sample processing times observed for a batch of 30.
4.2. Availability of machines
Data regarding the availability of machines was gathered from
the company and it was found that there are no considerable fail-
ures in the past one year but there are some small hindrances due
to which operation has to be stopped during work. This stoppage is
periodic and cannot be avoided hence it has been counted as a
reduction in the availability of the machine. There are two such
workstations namely
4.2.1. MIG welding
In MIG welding it was found that after every 18 pieces, an
electrode was changed and time consumed was observed 20
times and mean was taken to represent the time taken to
change the electrode, the table below shows the sample. The
mean came out to be 18.73 s. According to our data 24.03 is
the meantime taken by a job on MIG welding station, so 18
pieces would take 432.6 s. Now, after every 432.6 s, there will
be a lapse of 18.73 s.
total operation time  total down time
av ailability ¼
total operation time
If taken for one day, it comes out to be –
52776  ð5277618:3 Þ
av ailability ¼ 432:6
¼ 0:956 ¼ 95:6%
52776
4.2.2. Blanking
Blanking is another operation that faces such unavoidable hin-
drance to production. In this case, the stoppage is due to the accu-
mulation of removed material on the bed of the press due to the
press’ action. After every 12 pieces, the operator needs to clean
the bed so that the press can function properly. Twenty readings
were taken to find out the meantime taken by the operator to clean
the bed. The mean came out to be 23.885. It takes 39.66 s to pro-
cess one piece in the blanking process so 12 pieces would take
475.92 s. So after every 475.92 s, there would be a lapse of
23.885 s. Total operation time for one day is 52,776 s. So availabil-
ity can be given as under –
total operation time  total down time
av ilability ¼
total operation time
If taken for one day, it comes out to be –
52776  ð5277623:885Þ
av ailability ¼ 475:92
¼ 0:9498 ¼ 94:98%
52776
The availability as calculated comes out to be 94.98% and 95.6%
4.3. Travel time
Travel time is the time taken in taking the part from one work-
station to the other. Since the parts are carried manually in trolleys,
therefore, there is not constant or fixed travel time between any
two workstations. So, it becomes necessary to mean or average
the time by taking a random sample of travel time between differ-
ent workstations. A sample of size 20 was selected and observa-
tions were made for the travel time between different
workstations.

Please cite this article as: H. Kumar Banga, R. Kumar, P. Kumar et al., Productivity improvement in manufacturing industry by lean tool, Materials Today:
Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.195
6 H. Kumar Banga et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
4.3.1. Theory of constraints – Scenario 1
In this scenario, the bottleneck has been considered for
improvement. The bottleneck here pertains to the workstations
which have the highest task time and which due to its time taking
process limits the production rate of all the workstations. So it was
thought to increase the capacity of this workstation. This worksta-
tion in the assembly line is Extended Cage Forming (ECF); this has a
task time of 51 s. Since extended cage forming is not a manual pro-
cess it is a completely automatic process, therefore to increase its
capacity any motion time study or other human factor methods
could not be applied, either the machine had to be changed and
a faster machine was to be installed or one more similar machine
was to be installed. Since IEDL has a section for in house develop-
ment of machines, therefore, the currently installed machine was
developed by the company itself in their development section.
Since it was developed by the company itself so its overall cost
was quite low.
4.3.2. Theory of constraints – Scenario 2
As in the previous section, the capacity of the most time taking
workstation was doubled. In this case, along with the doubled
capacity of the ECF, the capacity of the second bottleneck i.e. Full
Welding Straight (FWS) will be doubled as after ECF FWS is the
next capacity constrained resource.
5. Result
It was seen that the company (IEDL) was not having a fixed
batch size and the batch sizes followed were largely varying with
time. So, it was decided to find an appropriate batch size for the
production of the ironing board top. The new batch size after see-
ing the simulation runs and their results were found to be 30. With
the new batch size, the throughput of the assembly line was 71.7
parts per hour or nearly 1051 parts in a day. The actual throughput
in one day on an average is 900 parts. So, this shows an increment
in throughput of 151 parts per day. So, the cycle time is reduced
from 58.64 s to 50.20 s. So, there is an overall improvement of
8.44 s in the cycle time. Initially, an appropriate batch size was
found out and thereafter three alternatives were explored for the
improvement in cycle time namely theory of constraints- scenario
1, the theory of constraints- scenario 2 and change in the design of
the product. There were varying results obtained after the experi-
mentation with these three scenarios. Here, the results obtained in
all the cases are discussed. In this alternative, the capacity of the
bottleneck operation was increased to double and the results were
seen after the experimentation on the simulation model. It was
found that the total investment was Rs. 1,713,879.68 in a year
and the total increase in profit was Rs. 3,172,400 and the payback
period came out to be approximately seven months. The through-
put came out to be 2.63.
In this alternative, the capacity of the next capacity-constrained
resource including the one considered in scenario 1 was doubled
by adding a new machine for the full welding straight (FWS) oper-
ation. The total investment was found to be Rs. 3,636,523.68 and
the total increase in profit were found to be Rs. 7,669,200 and
the payback period came out to be approximately six months.
The throughput in this scenario came out to be 2.94. Improved
effectiveness opens up workers and assets for advancement and
quality control that would have recently been squandered. As
assembling forms are streamlined, organizations can more readily
react to changes sought after and other market factors, bringing
about fewer postponements and better lead times. Less waste
and better flexibility make for a business that is better prepared
to flourish well into what’s to come.
Please cite this article as: H. Kumar Banga, R. Kumar, P. Kumar et al., Productivity improvement in manufacturing industry by lean tool, Materials Today:
Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.195
6. Conclusion
Throughout this paper, authors have studied the lean manufac-
turing system and tried to present an overview of the benefits and
shortcomings associated with its implementation in manufactur-
ing industries. As part of the non-stop improvement software,
the lean six sigma implementations are performed in the distinc-
tive production industries. The principal subject of Kaizen became
to create a tradition of non-stop improvement, largely through
assigning responsibility to people and inspiring them to become
aware of possibilities for development. Three non-value-added
parameters were taken into consideration namely, defects, lead
time and absentees, Reducing defects, lead time and absenteeism
have generated a wave of productivity development packages in
those production industries and others can reflect lean six sigma
implementations to gain competitive benefit. Finally, one of the
contributions of this research is the discount of non-price delivered
time, defects, lead time, absenteeism in production industries and
introducing simulation modeling ideas to improve the decision-
making skills of the managers and supervisors of manufacturing
industries. Now, it’s clear that manufacturing industries too can
initiate productivity development applications like other produc-
tion sectors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dr Harish Kumar Banga framed the manuscript and plotted all
relevant plots in the manuscript. Dr Rajesh Madan helped for
applying Lean Manufacturing tool and plotted all relevant plots
in the manuscript. Puneet Kumar, Ayush Purohit, Hareesh Kumar,
Kamalpreet Singh All investigation of problem and experimenta-
tion in this study is carried out by in group.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
[1] Amen Matthias, An exact method, for cost-oriented assembly line balancing,
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 64 (2000) 187–195.
[2] Anuar Rouie, Bukchin Yossi, Design and operation of dynamic assembly lines
using work-sharing, Int. J. Prod. Res. 44 (18–19) (2006) 4043–4065.
[3] Banks Jerry, Introduction to simulation, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation
Conference, 1999.
[4] Bidanda Bopaya, Sunanta Owat, Carnahan Brian, Billo Richard, Minninch John,
Maynard’s Industrial Engineering Handbook, McGraw Hill, 2004.
[5] S. Bhasin, Performance of lean in large organizations, J. Manuf. Syst. 31 (2012)
349–357.
[6] C.V. Chaudhary, S.K. Mukhopdyay, Application of theory of constraints in an
integrated poultry industry, Int. J. Prod. Res. 40 (4) (2003) 799–817.
[7] Held Michael, Karp M. Richard, Assembly- line balancing – dynamic
programming with precedence constraints, Operations Res. 11 (3) (1963)
442–459.
[8] Hopp J. Wallace, Spearman L. Mark, Factory Physics, McGraw Hill, 2001.
[9] J. Wilsten Pinto, E. Shayan, Layout design of a furniture production line using
formal methods, J. Systems Ind. Eng. 1 (1) (2007) 81–96.
[10] Kanawaty George, Introduction to Work Study, 4th ed.,., International Labor
Organization, 1992.
[11] Law M. Averill, McComas G. Michael, simulation of manufacturing systems,
Proceedings of 1999 Winter Simulation Conference,1999.
[12] Law M. Averill, Simulation Modeling and Analysis, Fourth Edition, Tata
McGraw Hill, 2011.
 H. Kumar Banga et al. / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

[13] J. Mabin Victoria, J. Balderstone Steven, The performance of the theory of
constraints methodology: analysis and discussion of success full TOC
applications, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 23 (6) (2003) 568–595.
[14] Miller Scott, Pegden Dennis, Introduction to manufacturing simulation,
Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2000.
[15] Narasimhan, Mcleavy, Billington, Production Planning and Inventory Control,
2nd edition., Prentice Hall of India, 2010.
[16] M. Pagliosa, G. Tortorella, J. Ferreira, Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing: a
systematic literature review and future research directions, J. Manuf. Technol.
Manage., Emerald Publishing Limited (2019).
[17] Rahman Shams-Ur, Theory of constraints: a review of the philosophy and its
applications, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 18 (4) (1998) 336–355.
[18] Scholl Armin, Vob Stefan, Simple assembly line balancing – heuristic
approaches, J. Heuristics 2 (1996) 217–244.
[19] Smith S. Jeffrey, Survey on the use of simulation for manufacturing system
design and operation, J. Manuf. Syst. 22 (2) (2003) 157–171.
[20] Sokolowsky A. John, Banks M. Catherine, Modeling Simulation Fundamentals
Theoretical Underpinnings and Practical Domains, Wiley, 2010.
[21] Suresh Prasad, Dinesh Khanduja, Surrender K. Sharma, A study on
implementation of lean manufacturing in Indian foundry industry by
analysing lean waste issues, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part B 232 (2) (2018)
371–378.
[22] Richard J. Tersine, Edward A. Hummingbird, Lead-time reduction: the search
for competitive advantage, Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage. 15 (2) (1995) 8–18.

Please cite this article as: H. Kumar Banga, R. Kumar, P. Kumar et al., Productivity improvement in manufacturing industry by lean tool, Materials Today:
Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.195