Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Manufacturing Letters
Manufacturing Letters 35 (2023) 1264–1275

51st SME North American Manufacturing Research Conference (NAMRC 51, 2023)

Crate consolidation and standardization using lean manufacturing systems

Kyle Konrada, Mitchell Sommerb, Iqbal Shareefc*,
a
Manufacturing Engineer, HNI Corp., Muscatine, IA USA
b
Supplier Development Engineer, Caterpillar Inc., East Peoria, IL USA
c
Professor, Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering & Technology, Bradley University, Peoria, IL USA

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000. E-mail address: author@institute.xxx

Abstract

This project was sponsored by a world-class leader in agriculture and construction equipment for nearly 200 years, hereafter referred to as
Industrial Sponsor. The Sponsor’s five main brands consist of farm machinery, agriculture equipment, tractors, and various types of construction
equipment. The machinery supplied by the Industrial Sponsor varies from tractors, harvesters, seeders, fertilizers, and field cultivators. For this
project, a senior design team was assigned to work with the disc harrow product group at the Industrial Sponsor facility. The project scope had 3
problems: a) a large variety of crates which resulted in high pack-out times and material costs, b) an inefficient standard crate packing process
due to an unorganized inventory storage area, and c) an incorrect number of parts packed in standard crates relative to the sales order. To address
these problems, a variety of data sources, analysis tools, and experimental designs were employed to understand the current state, identify the
risks and issues, improve the processes, and develop recommendations. Furthermore, simulations were conducted to determine the increase in
efficiency based on the proposed inventory storage area. A reorganization of inventory and the use of the spaghetti diagram improved travel
distance efficiency by 88% for stationary crates and 98% for moving crates. Yamazumi's analysis showed an improvement of 31% in efficiency
among experienced workers, compared to 0% for new hires. The future state with a stationary crate showed an increase in efficiency of 76% due
to a significant reduction in walking distance, and the future state with a moving crate showed an increase of 86%. In order to reduce recurring
shipping errors, Kanban cards and poka-yoke systems were recommended. In addition to the variation of crates, the team identified other areas
for improvement within the standard crate area, such as safety issues. This was accomplished by conducting a safety risk assessment. Finally, an
implementation plan was developed to summarize and explain the process that the Industrial Sponsor would implement to fix existing
inefficiencies in its crate packing operations.

© 2023 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under the responsibility of the Scientific Committee of the NAMRI/SME.
Keywords: Crate Optimization; Inventory Layout; Packing Process; Lean Tools; Consolidation; Standardization; Improved Efficiency

The variety of standard crate sizes causes issues in finishing

1. Introduction
Since the middle of the 18th century, the Industrial Sponsor
has been a world-class equipment and service company that
sustainably advances the noble work of agriculture and
construction workers. The Industrial Sponsor facility
specializes in tillage equipment. Each type of tillage machine
has a variety of different standard and option crates based on a
sales order. The senior design team chose to limit the scope of
their project to standard crates for disc harrows.
a sales order. As the Industrial Sponsor products must be
packed before shipment, inefficient practices such as too many
crate selections will increase cost and time expended [1]. The
main challenge for the project is to determine a crate size for a
sales order that is neither too large nor too small and has enough
safety protection for the parts [2]. A Process Failure Mode and
Effects Analysis (PFMEA) chart should be used to evaluate the
risks of warehouse operations and determine potential failures
[3]. Logistics, marketing, and transportation must be considered
when determining how to package [4].

2213-8463 © 2023 The Authors. Published by ELSEVIER Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-review under responsibility of the Scientific Committee of the NAMRI/SME.
 K. Konrad et al. / Manufacturing Letters 35 (2023) 1264–1275 1265

Currently, some of the crates are not utilizing the full space production scheduling and ease the identification of parts;
that is provided due to the type of order that is created by the therefore, it will be easier for operators to follow the schedule
customer [5]. Certain orders require 50 parts or less while others and find missing parts [22]. Ergonomic considerations will be
require upwards of 100 parts. It is important to try to made to make sure that consolidated, heavier parts do not cause
consolidate most parts into a smaller size standard as it will work-related musculoskeletal disorders [23]. An estimation of
ensure that critical pieces arrive together and are treated the movement and resource consumption per part will need to
carefully [6]. Examination of the Bill of Materials and be analyzed [24]. Any improvement to the Industrial Sponsor’s
utilization of part engineering drawings will help to consolidate current packaging system will have a great impact on its
the crates. As for material, the Industrial Sponsor buys wooden logistical systems and overall efficiency [25].
crates from FCA and Crossroads. These crates have a single
cycle of use as they are shipped all over the world. Single-use 2. Nature of the Problem
crates must be cheap to not affect the price of the products, but
some crate sizes that the Sponsor uses are over 100 dollars [7]. Three problems have been identified surrounding the
The current crate sizes are too expensive to be used for a single standard crate packing process. The first problem is that there
cycle of use; therefore, reducing the number of options will is a large variation of crates which results in high pack-out times
increase cost savings. Reducing the number of crates will also and high material costs. There are 37 different models of disc
benefit the environment as consolidating shipments into an harrows and each has its own bill of materials. Since there are
aggregate load will reduce carbon and energy consumption [8]. 37 different ways to pack a standard crate, there is a high setup
Another challenge that occurs is the amount of time it takes and pack-out time. Also, Sponsor buys their crates from outside
to pack a crate in the current state versus the future state [9]. suppliers and currently there are 11 different size options that
One way to measure and visualize the current and future states all range in price. Sometimes Sponsor is not able to forecast
is by utilizing a Yamazumi Chart. A Yamazumi is a when crates will be packed during a given month, so it is
comprehensive and careful time study including the motions difficult to inform the suppliers of the quantity needed for each
and waiting times of the employees who are required to variation. This causes shipments of material from the supplier
complete the task [10]. The inventory storage area is to the Sponsor. There is also unutilized space in many packed
unorganized and increases packing time. This incurs high crate crates which results in higher material costs than necessary. The
material costs as constraints in layout arrangements result in Sponsor is currently spending over $155,000 annually on wood
inefficient production and long distances to travel to get parts to make the crates, as shown in Table 1. This amount was
[11]. Oftentimes workers are rushed into packing crates and calculated by multiplying the price of each crate by their
lack experience or training in operational and cost factors [12]. respective annual demand.
Improving the facility layout and inventory storage area will
ultimately improve labor utilization and make it easier to find Table 1. Annual Crate Material Cost.
parts [13]. Therefore, a reduction in waste, such as waiting time Crate Standard Wooden Crate Cost $ Demand Matl. $
Number Number and Description /Crate 2022 Cost
or movement between operators, is necessary [14]. To solve 84135771 CGZ Crate-Hyd 47 ft $143.50 4 $574.00
this problem, both technical and organizational coordination is 84158981 CCZ Crate-Hyd 42 ft $143.50 9 $1,291.50
needed. Technical coordination includes making the technical M0000133 CCE Bonnie Com-Parts $203.10 71 $14,420.10
M0000134 CCE, 28 ft/ 31 ft, Com-Parts $203.10 140 $28,434.00
specifications for the crates suitable for transportation and M0000135 CCE, 34 ft, Com-Parts $203.10 28 $5,686.80
organizational coordination means negotiation to create a new M0000136 CCE Electronic, 28 ft/ 31 ft $156.80 1 $156.80
standard [15]. Standard documentation for data formatting and M0000137 CDE, 22 ft/ 25 ft Com-Parts $203.10 70 $14,217.00
M0000138 CDE, 28 ft/ 31 ft, Com-Parts $203.10 173 $35,136.30
procedures will help streamline information for Sponsor’s
M0000139 CDE, 34 ft Com-Parts $203.10 76 $15,435.60
employees to understand the new packaging layout [16]. M0000140 Electronic 31 ft $203.10 2 $406.20
Another possible tool to measure and visualize the current and M0000141 Electronic 34 ft $156.80 1 $156.80
future state would be to use a spaghetti diagram, which shows M0000142 CGE 22 ft/ 25ft Com-Parts $203.10 23 $4,671.30
M0000143 CGE, 28 ft, Com-Parts $203.10 41 $8,327.10
the movement of parts or in this case the excess movement of M0000144 CGE, 31 ft, Common Parts $203.10 10 $2,031.00
parts [17]. It can also be used to assess warehouse safety, M0000145 CGE, 34 ft, Com-Parts $203.10 25 $5,077.50
reliability, and plant sustainability [18]. Another possible M0000149 CCE Bonnie, 22 ft, Com-Parts $156.80 4 $627.20
M0000156 CCE, 34 ft, Electronic $203.10 1 $203.10
solution would be to implement productivity measure
M0000160 CCE Bonnie, 25 ft Com-Parts $156.80 18 $2,822.40
indicators that could be used for benchmarking performance M0000161 CCE Bonnie 28 ft Com-Parts $156.80 22 $3,449.60
[19]. These performance measures could be based on cost, time, M0000162 CCE Bonnie, 31 ft, Com-Parts $156.80 26 $4,076.80
quality, and productivity dimensions [20]. M0000163 CCE Bonnie, 34 ft, Common $203.10 19 $3,858.90
M0000164 CCE Bonnie, 28 ft, Electronic $203.10 4 $812.40
The final problem is to examine deals with the incorrect M0000165 CCE Bonnie, 34 ft, Electronic $203.10 2 $406.20
number of parts being packed into a standard crate compared to M2110BA CCE, Electronic, 22 ft, 25 ft $203.10 3 $609.30
the sales order. Picking performance and cost depend on human M8500013 Crate 47 ft CCZ/ CCE/ CGZ $236.40 13 $3,073.20
availability and productivity, so if operators are fatigued then Annual Wood Crate Cost $155,961.10

the wrong number of parts could be picked accidentally [21].

Creating a standardized process that ensures the number of parts
in each crate corresponds to the number of parts listed in the
sales order will increase packing accuracy and increase cost
avoidance. Implementing a Kanban system will simplify
The second problem is that the standard crate packing
process is inefficient due to an unorganized inventory storage
area. The original packing area for standard crates used to be in
a different location in the facility but has recently been moved
into an area with minimal space. During the transition, parts
 1266 K. Konrad et al. / Manufacturing Letters 35 (2023) 1264–1275

were not organized correctly and their location does not direction and justification to the project’s path. Different
optimize the packing process. A time study analysis showed analysis tools utilized in this project include but are not limited
that it currently takes one hour to pack a standard crate. The to Process Flow Charts, a PFMEA, Time Studies, Safety
average demand is 793 crates per year so it can be assumed that Analysis, Risk Assessment, Pugh Matrix, Part Priority Tool,
it will take 793 hours to pack all disc harrow crates in the year. Part Consolidation Analysis, Spaghetti Diagrams, Yamazumi
A third-party logistics company executes the packing of all Charts, Poka-Yoke Analysis, and a Gantt Chart.
crates and charges the Sponsor around $30 per packed crate. The process flow chart was used to gain an understanding of
This means that the Sponsor is currently spending around the current state of the packing process. A process flow chart
$24,000 annually on the packing of disc harrow standard crates. visually represented the steps taken during a specific process.
The last problem is that the standard crates are being After identifying the steps in the process flow map, a PFMEA
packaged with an incorrect number of parts compared to the was used to analyze the potential failures in a process. It also
sales order. Some orders call for multiple of the same exact part showed which steps had the most risks by comparing the
and occasionally the packer miscounts how many parts they severity, occurrence, and detection of the potential failure.
have packed into the crate. This causes the Industrial Sponsor Time studies were used to quantify the current process
to make extra shipments to deliver the missing parts to the identified. Time studies were a means to measure any potential
customer. Based on the data collected by the project team, the improvements in the process. Also, an observational safety
extra shipping annual cost as shown in Table 2 is over $100,000 analysis was completed to utilize a risk assessment. A risk
per year for the freight of missed parts. assessment shows the change in safety based on any potential
changes made to a process.
Table 2. Under Shipping Costs. After knowing the current state of the packing process, a
Years Quarters Order Date Quarterly Shipping Annual Shipping Pugh matrix was created to evaluate which solution would have
Cost Cost the biggest impact in terms of the key criteria tested. After a
Qtr-1 Jan-Mar $80,324 decision was made from the Pugh matrix, a part priority tool
Qtr-2 Apr-June $43,679 was created to show which parts are of the highest priority. This
2019 $145,323 analysis tool compared the parts in the scope based on key
Qtr-3 July-Sep $8,791
criteria and gave an overall score similar to a Pugh matrix. Parts
Qtr-4 Oct-Dec $12,529 with the highest overall score were identified to have the
Qtr-1 Jan-Mar $8,323 highest priority.
Qtr-2 Apr-June $22,020 The bill of materials was also analyzed so that parts with
2020 $51,913 common patterns could be grouped together. This consolidation
Qtr-3 July-Sep $11,082
analysis enabled finding a sample of parts that could be used
Qtr-4 Oct-Dec $10,487
during testing and applied to the whole part population. Once
Qtr-1 Jan-Mar $32,209 testing on the consolidated sample of parts was conducted, a
Qtr-2 Apr-June $39,370 spaghetti diagram and Yamazumi were used to help visualize
2021 $117,238 the distance traveled and the time spent during each process. A
Qtr-3 July-Sep $31,895
poka-yoke analysis was also conducted to avoid going back to
Qtr-4 Oct-Dec $13,764
the current state once the future state was recommended. Lastly,
throughout the duration of the project, the Gantt chart was used
3. Experimental Methodologies and Data Collection to distribute tasks and track and meet all deadlines required.

From the start of the project, it was clear that a lot of data
collection was necessary to determine optimal solutions for the
three problem statements. All data sources, analysis tools, and
experimental methodologies are discussed below:
3.1. Data Sources
The main data sources that were used were the bill of
materials for all disc harrow crates, engineering drawings, other
data that summarized the annual demand, part locations, loss
due to shipping inaccuracies, and crate pricing. Cross-
referencing this data allowed the team to analyze patterns and
draw conclusions about the current state.
3.2. Process Tools
A variety of analysis tools were used to analyze the patterns
from the information and data sources available to this project.
These analysis tools helped draw conclusions while giving
3.3. Facility Design Changes and Simulations
At the start of this project, the plant facility layout of the
standard inventory area at the Industrial Sponsor was in the
form of an AutoCAD file depicting an obsolete version of the
layout. The first order of business was to create an updated
version of the AutoCAD file to match the current facility layout.
Since the actual implementation of the proposed changes to the
facilities was not practical within the project time, simulations
of the implementation plan were conducted. A future state
AutoCAD file was created to reflect the new locations of parts
according to the implementation plan.
To arrive at an optimized implementation plan, 4 different
simulations were conducted based on the current state, taking
into consideration the experience and knowledge of a new hire
worker and an experienced worker, and the future state,
considering the improvement in the efficiency with a stationary
crate or a moving crate. For the current state, the simulations
were conducted with all disc harrow parts in their current
 K. Konrad et al. / Manufacturing Letters 35 (2023) 1264–1275
places. The future state simulations were conducted with the top
23-part numbers arranged closest to the standard crate packing
area. To measure the distance walked and time taken during the
simulation, a measuring wheel and a stopwatch were used. The
distance walked was mapped on a spaghetti diagram and the
time taken to pack the crate was shown on a Yamazumi diagram
as well.
3.4. Assumptions and Constraints
The first assumption made is that all information, including
the inventory floor layout file, BOMs, prices, and demand data,
are all current. The next assumption made is that there is no
current standard documentation for packing crates. The current
standard is based upon worker knowledge, such as the heaviest
parts are packed first at the bottom of the crate. It is also
standard that red and black painted parts cannot touch each
other or else the colors will transfer. Lastly, it is assumed that
the crates have no weight restrictions. The constraints in this
project include operators who cannot lift over 40 lbs, the small
size of the standard crate packing area, and a limited number of
workers who can pack crates on each shift.
4. Results
4.1. Standard Crate Area Facility Layout
The current state of the standard crate area is shown in
Figure 1 which includes the inventory area, shipping area,
staging, and packing area, and the old standard crate area.
Figure A is a screenshot of the updated AutoCAD file of the
Industrial Sponsor facility.
Fig. 1. Standard Crate Area Facility Layout.
4.2. Process Flow Diagram
Figure 2 shows a process flow diagram of each step that must
be performed from the beginning, when an operator receives an
order, to the end when the order is shipped out. The rectangular
boxes show commands or actions, and the diamonds show a
question that must be asked at that point in the process. Based
on the answer to that question, either a yes or a no, the reader
would then continue reading the diagram following the path of
the answer.
1267
Fig. 2. Process Flow Chart.
4.3. PFMEA (Process Failure Mode and Effect Analysis)
Data Table 3 demonstrates the results of a Process Failure
Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA) diagram. The data within
the column labeled Key Process Input Variable (KPIV)/Process
Step includes all the process steps from the Process Flow Chart.
These rows have a corresponding KPIV label based on the step.
Then each process step was given a potential failure mode,
potential effect of the failure, and potential cause/mechanism
for failure. Next, each step was ranked based on Severity,
starting with 1, meaning not a problem, to 10 being hazardous.
For Occurrence, with 1 meaning it occurs infrequently to 10
meaning it occurs every day, and for Detection, with 1 meaning
it is detected very easily to 10 meaning it is impossible to detect.
Then each step was marked with a Y for yes or N for no based
on whether the current design in place at the Industrial Sponsor
controls the prevention or detection of the failure. Finally, the
Risk Priority Number (RPN) was calculated by multiplying
Severity, Occurrence, and Detection.
4.4. Time Studies
The team conducted a time study for sales order 47775225
where 7 half-sized hydraulic crates were simultaneously packed
and took 4 hours to complete, meaning it takes around 1.75
hours to pack one crate. They gathered information from
operators that for 7 standard disc harrow crates to be
simultaneously packed, it would take approximately 7 hours to
complete. This means that it takes approximately 1 hour to pack
one crate. Two team members also timed how long it took to
retrieve a pallet of parts from the K building and how long it
took to fix a damaged crate, with the times being 4 minutes and
1 minute respectively.
4.5. Observed Safety Issues
Some safety issues that the project team initially observed
are shown in Figures 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d. Figures 3a and 3b show
how pallets and boxes are hanging off the shelves. Figure 3c
shows how a pallet was spilled in an aisle that the packers use.
Figure 3d shows a packer using a fork truck in the small packing
area. Safety is always the main priority and should be taken into
consideration throughout the project.
1268 K. Konrad et al. / Manufacturing Letters 35 (2023) 1264–1275

Table 3. Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis.

4.6. Risk Assessment for Current and Future States

With these safety issues being addressed it was important to

create a Safety Risk Assessment, which was used to clearly
identify the current safety concerns within the pack-out area.
The risk analysis was able to list out the current issues and
define the severity of the possible outcomes as seen in Table 4
below. Once the risk was identified, a countermeasure was then
put into place to reduce the previous score. If the risk was coded
in orange or red it must be reduced to yellow or green.

4.7. Pugh Matrix

One decision-making tool that the team used was the Pugh
Matrix. A Pugh Matrix helps choose the best concept to
potentially solve a problem. The concepts are compared to the
current state through key criteria. The Pugh Matrix that the team
used is shown in Figure 5.

4.8. Part Priority Tool

The Part Priority tool helps the team identify which parts
should have their standard home location on the shelves closest
to the packing area when reorganizing all the inventory. It was
Fig. 3. Safety issues observed at the start of the project.
important for the team to know which parts to prioritize to
ensure efficiency. The output of the part priority tool rank
ordering parts with the highest priority is shown in Table 5.
 K. Konrad et al. / Manufacturing Letters 35 (2023) 1264–1275 1269

Table 4. Safety Risk Assessment Before and After.

Table 5. Part Priority Tool prioritized list of parts.

Part Annual AU AU Part W W Largest LD LD Total
Part Name
Number Usage Rank Points Weight Rank Points Dim Rank Points Ranking
84140524 LUG,ROCKSHAFT LEVEL 3146 2 188 4.10 9 181 10.71 41 149 535
47572860 BRACKET ASSY, AMBER HAZARD 3080 3 186 2.02 11 179 7.87 48 142 518
47572858 BRACKET ASSY, RED BRAKE 3080 3 186 1.37 12 178 9.45 43 147 515
47659158 LINK ASSY, SPRING LEVELING 1540 12 168 21.00 1 189 N/A 59 1 515
47518190 PLATE WA, BELL CRANK, RH, PTD 1540 12 168 8.24 2 187 N/A 59 1 511
47518194 PLATE WA, BELL CRANK, LH, PTD 1540 12 168 8.24 2 187 N/A 59 1 507
32252000 5000 LB. JACK 1540 12 168 7.94 4 186 23.30 29 161 500
47683825 REINFORCEMENT, BAR, LIGHTS 1540 12 168 5.74 6 184 59.00 7 183 492
47577090 BRACKET, SMV, PTD 1540 12 168 2.22 10 180 27.60 23 167 470
311860A1 SMV,ASAE, W/STEEL PLATE 1540 12 168 0.65 14 176 16.10 34 156 358
47653507 BAG, PKG,PULL FRAME MOUNTING 1540 12 168 N/A 148 1 N/A 59 1 356
47654543 BAG,PKG, WING EYEBOLTS 1540 12 168 N/A 148 1 N/A 59 1 356
B2100002 BAG, MTG HDWR, 335,345,375 SPRING LEVELING 1540 12 168 N/A 148 1 N/A 59 1 350
M2100010 BOX- LIGHT/HARNESS SM-11 1341 34 156 N/A 148 1 N/A 59 1 349
47508426 TUBE ASSY, DECAL, SPDC, OUTER 1537 25 165 5.26 7 183 N/A 59 1 349
51473820 MANUAL, CANISTER 1538 23 166 0.16 16 174 13.39 38 152 336
47636885 TUBE ASSY, DECAL, SPDC, INNER 1532 26 164 7.47 5 185 N/A 59 1 170
87452523 PAINT MTG-SWINGING HOSE BOOM BB-C 1538 23 166 4.53 8 182 N/A 59 1 170
47937500 VALVE, SPDC 1490 27 160 0.22 15 175 4.94 55 135 170
90456373 PACKAGE, M, HOSE, HYD COMPLETE, ELECT1 1490 27 160 N/A 148 1 N/A 59 1 162
B0000162 HDW KIT, SF, TRU TANDEMS 1490 27 160 N/A 148 1 N/A 59 1 162
B0000163 HYD KIT, SF TRU TANDEMS 1490 27 160 N/A 148 1 N/A 59 1 162
90333184 PLATE PTD, HOSE BOOM PROTECTION 1398 32 158 1.11 13 177 N/A 59 1 158

Fig. 4. Risk Assessment Before and After.

4.9. Part Consolidation

Figures 6 and 7 show the consolidation of parts in groups of

23. Parts were sorted by the count of which they are seen across
all crates. The top 23 part numbers are in group 1, the next 23
part numbers are in group 2, and so on. The reason the number
23 was chosen for the group size is that the top 23 part numbers
are all seen in at least 70% of the crates being packed.
Fig. 5. Pugh Matrix.
1270 K. Konrad et al. / Manufacturing Letters 35 (2023) 1264–1275
Fig. 6. Minimum Percent of Part Seen in all Crates in Groups of 23.
Fig. 7. Percent of Parts Picked Annually in Groups of 23.
4.10. Spaghetti Diagrams for Current and Future States
Figure 8 shows the current walking state for new hires and
experienced workers. The current state shows how much
walking the assemblers do throughout different locations in the
warehouse to pick all needed parts. The new hire worker walked
approximately 1.54 miles while the experienced worker walked
1.07 miles. The longest distance traveled by either worker for
one part was 871 feet at an average pace of 3 miles per hour.
This model does not account for workers crossing paths with
each other due to there only being one employee designated to
the condensed area at a time.
Fig. 8. Current walking state of new hires.
Figure 9 shows the future walking state for a worker using
the first implementation which includes having stationary
crates. In this simulation the top 23 parts are moved closer to
the standard area, allowing the workers to pick the parts and
bring them to the staging area more quickly. By doing this, they
were able to reduce the total distance to 0.19 miles. This
reduced their longest travel distance to 90 feet for one part.
Fig. 9. Future state with the stationary crate
Figure 10 shows the future walking stage for a worker using
the second implementation which concludes by having a
moving crate with them when picking the top 23 parts. When
all parts are picked, the worker will move the crate back to the
staging area walking approximately 0.03 miles in total.
Fig. 10. Future state with the moving crate.
4.11. Packing Time Yamazumi
Figure 11 shows the cycle time of each process. The value-
added time remained the same for each simulation but the non-
value-added time, spent walking and looking for parts,
decreased significantly after converting to the future state. The
current state simulation with the new hire worker took 52.1
minutes to complete. The current state simulation with an
experienced worker took 35.8 minutes to complete. The future
state simulation in a stationary crate condition took 12.4
minutes to complete, and the future state simulation in a moving
crate condition took 7.5 minutes to complete.
4.12. Simulations for Understanding Packing Time
Time and distance traveled were collected for each
simulation and compared. The project team considered value-
added time to be time spent physically handling a part and non-
value-added time to be time spent walking and looking for a
part. The assumptions were that only one part can be picked at
a time, only one crate is being packed at a time, new hire
 K. Konrad et al. / Manufacturing Letters 35 (2023) 1264–1275 1271

employees are only familiar with the general locations of parts,

experienced workers are familiar with the exact location of
parts, the top 23 part numbers are all picked and staged in order
of how frequently they are seen in crates, and value-added
activities from the Assembly Calculator shown in Table 6
below are accurate.

Fig. 12. Poka-yoke analysis on part availability during the pack-out process.

5. Discussion

5.1. Standard Crate Area Facility Layout

Figure 1 provides a birds-eye view of the facility and the
scope of the area covered in the project. One of the main pains
identified based on discussions with the operators is that the
current staging area is too small. By examining the standard
crate staging area in proportion to the old standard crate area, a
better understanding of the inventory and staging issues was
Fig. 11. Packing Time Yamazumi. gained.
Table 6. Assembly Calculator.
5.2. Process Flow Chart
Handling Time Quantity Time (sec)
Enter quantity of parts using hoist (SIMPLE) 0 0.0
Figure 2 demonstrates the complicated process of finishing
Enter number of men using hoist simple 1 a crate. By observing an assembler put together a crate, the team
Enter quantity of parts using hoist (MEDIUM) 0 0.0 was able to identify a few pain points within the process. Part
Enter number of men using hoist medium 1 shortages are a frequent issue, with parts being placed
Enter quantity of parts using hoist (COMPLEX) 0 0.0 somewhere other than their designated location. The process of
Enter number of men using hoist complex 1
trying to locate the missing part is complex and could be fixed
Enter quantity of parts weighing 0 - 3 lbs 4 28.8 easily by placing parts in their home location from the start and
Enter quantity of parts weighing 3 - 5 lbs 2 14.4 every time thereafter. It was also noticed that oftentimes the
Enter quantity of parts weighing 5 - 10 lbs 10 72.0 assembler would receive damaged crates that needed to be
Enter quantity of parts weighing 10 - 15 lbs 2 14.4 repaired during packing. Fixing these crates is a non-value-
Enter quantity of parts weighing 15 - 20 lbs 4 28.8
added activity that takes time away from packing. Through
Enter quantity of parts weighing 20 - 25 lbs 0 0.0
Enter quantity of parts weighing 25 - 30 lbs 0 0.0 examination of Figure 2, the team determined which steps in
Enter quantity of parts weighing 30 - 35 lbs 0 0.0 the process were causing assemblers the most pain and
Enter quantity of parts weighing 35 - 40 lbs 0 0.0 inconvenience.
Enter quantity of parts weighing 40 - 45 lbs 0 0.0
Enter quantity of parts weighing 45 - 50 lbs 1 7.2
5.3. PFMEA
Enter quantity of parts weighing 50 - 55 lbs 0 0.0
Enter quantity of parts weighing 55 - 60 lbs 0 0.0 PFMEA Data Table 1 displays and ranks all of the failure
Enter quantity of parts using hoist (SIMPLE)
modes in the process flow chart. This tool allowed the team to
Total Handling Time (sec) 165.6
further dive into the issues that were first observed in the
process and determine how much of a risk they are. RPN
4.13. Poka-Yoke Analysis calculations revealed that KPIV label 2, used for retrieving
parts that were missing because they were incorrectly stored in
A poka-yoke analysis is used to help brainstorm solutions the inventory, presented the greatest risk to the process, as it
for current problems. It shows the current state, solution, action, had an RPN was 432. With this knowledge, the team was able
and future state. Figure 12 shows the poka-yoke analysis that to target this step in the process to reduce RPN and streamline
the team used to begin to solve the problem of under-shipped the crate packing process.
parts due to parts being unavailable during the packing process.
1272 K. Konrad et al. / Manufacturing Letters 35 (2023) 1264–1275
5.4. Time Studies
Through conducting a time study of sales order 47775225,
the team was able to better understand the packing process.
Although this data does not directly relate to the scope of
standard disc harrow crates, they are able to extrapolate certain
information relating to waste reduction regarding how long it
takes to retrieve parts from the K building and how long it takes
to fix a damaged crate. It is assumed that the data gained about
the standard crate production was fairly accurate. These time
studies confirmed the initial suspicions that prepping, staging,
and packing have room for improvement.
5.5. Safety Issues
Safety issues arose due to the unorganized inventory storage
area. When shipments come in, they were essentially placed
wherever there is space. Consequently, parts could be placed in
safe or unsafe places depending on the availability of space.
From Figure 3(a) and Figure 3(b), it is evident that some pallets
and boxes are hanging over the edge of the racks. These could
potentially fall and hurt someone. In Figure 3(c) a pallet was
placed in the middle of an aisle because there was no space for
it anywhere. The material on the pallet fell over and this is a
potential hazard for anyone using the aisle. Lastly, Figure 3(d)
shows how packers use a fork truck to retrieve inventory from
the congested area with material and crates scattered around.
Fork trucks were not supposed to be used to retrieve inventory
because they were too big and could potentially knock over or
damage inventory on the shelves. Due to this, packers cannot
complete the packing process without a forklift, which they
must be very cautious of.
5.6. Risk Analysis
To tackle the different potential risks mentioned above for
the workers in the warehouse, a safety risk assessment was
implemented. It focuses on identifying the hazards, deciding
who might be hurt and how, evaluating the risks, and recording
the findings. The safety risk assessment that the project team
made lists all the different risks, their descriptions, and what
tasks they belong to. After identifying them, they were rated by
Probability, Gravity, and Controls in place to calculate the total
risk points. These categories assessed for risk were the
probability of an exposure event, the gravity of the degree of
harm, and the number of preventative engineering controls in
place. This process was done before the new simulation was
executed to visualize what hazards could be removed and
minimize the level of its risk by adding different control
measures. By doing so, the project team was able to conduct a
simulation that will reduce the total risk points by 107 and
create a safer environment for the workers. This improvement
was shown in Table 4 and Figure 4.
5.7. Pugh Matrix
In the Pugh Matrix, some of the variables analyzed include
ergonomics, ease of finding parts, forklift moveability, team
member mobility, distance traveled to find the parts, cost of
implementation, and safety. The project team arrived at three
different solutions that could be used to solve the problem
statements. The first is a redefinition of the layout. The current
staging and packing area is quite small, so an increase in space
was required to potentially increase the efficiency of the
packing process. The second concept brainstormed was
inventory awareness, which meant that the team would identify
where all the inventory is since many workers don’t know
where parts currently are. The last concept that the team came
up with is reorganizing all the parts in inventory so that
everything has a standard home location. Figure 5 shows the
Pugh Matrix that identified the best concept brainstormed. As
far as assigning weight to each variable, safety and ergonomics
are the highest since the safety and health of the employees
should always come first. The next highest weight was given to
ease of finding the part and distance traveled because after
interviewing some packers, they claimed this to be their biggest
pain in the packing process. Lastly, the variables of cost, forklift
movability, and team member mobility are some of the lowest
weights because these were identified as “nice to haves” and
they do not directly affect the packing process. Having
reviewed the Pugh matrix and compared each concept to the
current process, it was clear that the part organization procedure
had the largest positive change with all the variables that were
used.
5.8. Part Priority Tool
After identifying that the layout of parts should be
reorganized in the facility, based on the Pugh Matrix, the
project team needed to identify which parts should be
prioritized. The part priority tool that was created considers
three factors: the part’s annual usage, the part’s weight, and the
part’s longest dimension. These three factors will account for
the distance traveled to get a part, the ergonomics of getting the
part, and how the crate should be packed. Each part in the scope
gets a ranking and is assigned points for these three factors. The
points are then multiplied by the assigned weights and summed
together to give a total ranking. This ranking shows which parts
should be prioritized closest to the crate packing area. The parts
with the highest number of points will be assigned a standard
home location closest to the packing area.
5.9. Part Consolidation
Upon further investigation of the bill of materials and the
demand forecast, it was realized that the top 23-part numbers in
the scope are in at least 70% of all disc harrow crates. After that
70%, there is a large drop-off that can be seen in the graph to
the left. For Figures 6 and 7, parts are grouped into groups of
23 and compared to their frequency seen in every crate. After
further investigation, it was noticed that these top 23 parts also
account for 40% of the total parts picked annually based on
demand and it can be assumed that this sample size will give an
accurate representation of all packed parts. The part
consolidation data shows how significant and frequently every
part is picked up. This data will help with the staging of crates
to cut down the time spent during that process. Many of these
parts could be staged into crates before the order comes in due
to their commonality across most crates.
 K. Konrad et al. / Manufacturing Letters 35 (2023) 1264–1275
5.10. Spaghetti Diagrams for Current and Future States
The spaghetti diagram was utilized to track/trace the path the
workers take when picking the top 23 parts and the current
walking state of the new hires was shown in Figure 8. This
allowed the team to visualize and identify redundancies in the
workflow, while also finding opportunities for improvement. In
the current state simulation, a new hire worker had a 0%
efficiency increase since nothing was changed and they only
knew the general location of parts. On the other hand, the
experienced worker had a 30% efficiency increase due to their
previous knowledge of where exactly all parts are. For the
future simulation with the stationary crate shown in Figure 9,
all top 23 parts were moved from their previous locations to the
standard crate inventory area. Then the worker was given the
new locations and he would go pick them up in order and bring
them back to the staging area. By doing this, the worker had an
88% efficiency increase. In the second future simulation,
everything from the first one remained the same. The only
difference was that the worker now had a moving crate with
him. This will allow him to walk less while picking up all parts
as he moves down the aisle and once done picking up all parts,
he would go back to the staging area. Overall, this new
simulation shown in Figure 10 had a 98% efficiency
improvement.
5.11. Packing Time Yamazumi
The Yamazumi was utilized to show the difference in time
taken to pick the top 23 parts between the current and future
states. In the current state with new hire workers, there was a
0% efficiency increase since this process took the longest
amount of time. The current state with experienced workers had
a 31% efficiency increase since the worker did not have to
spend as much time looking for the part. Most of their non-
value-added time was due to walking to get the part. The future
state with stationary crate simulation had a 76% increase in
efficiency since the walking distance was reduced significantly.
The future state with moving crates had an 86% efficiency
increase since the worker was able to pack the parts into the
crate right away instead of walking back to the staging area.
5.12. Simulations for Understanding Packing Time
After running both future simulations, it was determined that
the future stationary crate simulation would work best for the
workers since it is similar to the process they currently have.
They will have all parts closer to them, allowing them to move
parts to the staging area with no problem. Even though the
future moving crate simulation has a higher efficiency, it will
be too much of a change for the workers. With this
implementation, they will have to learn the new locations of all
inventories and the need for more space to fit the crate when
moving it down the aisle. It also would not be ideal due to
orders having multiple crates, meaning that they would have to
do the same process over and over again for every single crate.
Both future state methods will work for different scenarios, but
further analysis of the implementation is necessary to
understand which method is ideal given the current constraints.
1273
5.13. Poka-Yoke Analysis
The Poka-yoke analysis aims to tackle the problem of the
under-shipment of parts due to parts not being available during
the packing process. When parts are missing, the Industrial
Sponsor has to spend extra money to ship these parts to the
customer after the initial shipment. The team has identified a
poka-yoke system to be a potential solution to this problem.
The cards will be able to tell the operators the part number, its
quantity, the date ordered, the description of the part, the
supplier, and the location, and will have the barcode of the part.
This Kanban system will include color-coded cards that will act
as a visual representation of parts needing to be ordered or
replenished. There will be 3 different colors; Green, which will
mean the parts do not need to be replenished yet, Yellow, which
means parts need to be ordered or let in-house production know
that parts are needed and finally Red, which means the part is
out of stock and needed as soon as possible to fill the rest of the
orders. This card example can be seen in Figure 13.
Fig. 3. Color-Coded Kanban System.
6. Recommendations
The project team recommends several changes and
improvements to the Industrial Sponsor’s current process.
1) Follow Given Implementation Plan:
a) Clean up the entire standard crate inventory and pack-
out area
b) Identify current locations of parts and label aisles
i) Clearly label each bay number and part location
ii) Add Kanban cards for each part
c) Create an optimal part layout plan based on the
following criteria:
i) Parts will be arranged by the frequency they are
seen in all crates
(1) Most frequently seen parts will be closest to
the staging area
(2) The least frequently seen parts will be further
from the staging area
ii) Parts will be arranged by weight and accessibility
(1) Heaviest on bottom
(2) Lightest on top
iii) Parts will also be sorted by machine type and be
rotated onto the primary shelves based on
seasonal requirements
d) Document the new location of all parts in the system
e) Start the improved packing process with a stationary
crate in the staging area
f) Once employees are acclimated to the new layout,
suggest they move the crate down the aisle to improve
efficiency further.
1274 K. Konrad et al. / Manufacturing Letters 35 (2023) 1264–1275
Following these steps will allow for improvements in
receiving the parts and also for the overall pack-out process of
the crates. Overall, the efficiency of the process will be
increased tremendously once the operators have gained enough
experience to better understand the reason for this change.
2) Adjust Shelf Layout: The current shelf layout is not the
most ideal layout as seen in Figure 14. Based on the
implementation plan listed above, the shelves will have a
descriptive tag and a Kanban card that will inform the
operators of the location, part number, part description,
quantity, etc. This can be seen in Figure 15 which shows
color-coded shelves indicating the status of the inventory
and parts that have run out of stock and parts that need no
replenishment or parts needed to be ordered as inventory
is going to run out.
Fig. 14. Current State Shelf Layout.
Fig. 15. Future State Shelf layout.
3) Use Stationary Crate Recommendation: Based on the first
future state simulation with a stationary crate that the team
ran, there will be a 76% efficiency increase in the total time
spent packing a crate. Although the future state simulation
with a moving crate is more efficient, changing the
inventory layout and the location of the crate would be too
much of a change for operators.
4) Use Kanban Cards: Adding 3 types of notifying Kanban
cards will act as an indicator for different levels of
inventory. The 3 cards will be different colors (green -
good, yellow - notify ordering manager, red - empty) and
rotate depending on the level of inventory.
5) Use Poka-Yoke Methods: The use of this analysis method
was focused on the undershipment of parts due to parts
being unavailable during the packing process. Based on
the analysis one poka-yoke method is recommended for
use at the Industrial Sponsor facility which would create a
clear Kanban visual representation on the shelves for each
of the parts in the home location. This method would also
help alleviate the unavailability of parts and the
undershipment of parts.
6) Remove Storage Rack Blocking Inventory Aisles: Since
the standard crate pack-out area cannot be moved it is
recommended that the current layout may be changed. As
seen in Figure 16, there are two sets of inventory storage
racks blocking one of the aisles which makes it hard for
the assemblers to gather parts during the pack-out process.
The recommendation for this would be to move these racks
to a new home in the inventory section or remove them
permanently to increase overall efficiency.
Fig. 16. Inefficient use of storage rack.
7. Conclusions
Based on the work that was accomplished, the project team
concluded that there is a potential for saving upwards of
$100,000/year as seen in Table 2. This is possible after cleaning
the standard crate area and inventory aisles, reorganizing the
standard crate inventory shelves, implementing, and using the
Kanban card system, and training employees on 5S and any new
SOPs. A potential savings of $900 is also possible after a 107-
point reduction in the safety risk assessment.
After utilizing the part priority tool, the project team
determined that the 37 variations of packed-out disc harrow
crates cannot be further consolidated. The top 23 part numbers
exist in 70% of all the variations of disc harrow crates.
Consequently, it is not feasible to create one standard crate to
fit all parts, and the 11 sizes of wooden crates are needed to kit
all work orders. Furthermore, the unutilized space in each crate
varies due to a lack of understanding of the minimum or
maximum volume of packed-out crates.
Part prioritization and consolidation showed that the top 23-
part numbers in the scope are in at least 70% of all disc harrow
 K. Konrad et al. / Manufacturing Letters 35 (2023) 1264–1275
crates and also account for 40% of the total parts picked
annually based on demand.
The reorganization of inventory and use of the Spaghetti
diagram showed an efficiency improvement of 88% in travel
distance with stationary crates and 98% with moving crates.
Yamazumi's analysis showed a 31% improvement in the
efficiency of the experienced worker's time compared to 0% for
the new hire. The future state with a stationary crate showed a
76% increase in efficiency due to a significant reduction in
walking distance and with a moving crate the efficiency
improvement was 86%.
Improved inventory layout and implementation will also
benefit the Industrial Sponsor’s supplier as there will be a
decrease in the time to pack a crate and an increase in the
reliability of parts delivery. While there is not a direct
connection to the Industrial Sponsor, any improvement in the
supplier process will ultimately benefit the Industrial Sponsor.
In addition, the Industrial Sponsor will experience a decrease in
expedites due to lost parts, break-ins to a replacement, and an
increase in shipping reliability and revenue by month.
Future Work: After the implementation of the
recommendations listed above, there are a few possible areas
for future improvement. More lean analysis tools could be
utilized to improve general plant efficiency, especially in the
standard crate inventory, staging, and packing areas. Better
upfront documentation of the crate packing process would also
benefit new hires as the Industrial Sponsor has high turnover
rates. Finally, conducting frequent training sessions on both
lean and safety issues will promote a better mindset for
employees as they will be continuously considering these
principles and incorporating them into their daily work.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to Olivia Cook and Joselyne
Lagunas-Ramirez for their dedication and contributions to this
project. In addition, the authors are appreciative of the support
received from the Industrial Sponsors, Mr. Martin, and a large
group of shop personnel for their support and encouragement
of this work.
References
[1] Jia, L.S., 2014. A study on crate sizing, inventory, and packing problems.
A Thesis Submitted for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department
of Industrial and Systems Engineering National University of Singapore,
pp.1-134.
[2] Lee, S.J., Chew, E.P., Lee, L.H. and Thio, J., 2015. A study on crate sizing
problems. International Journal of Production Research, 53(11),
pp.3341-3353.
[3] Ustundag, A., 2012, July. Risk evaluation of warehouse operations using
fuzzy FMEA. In International Conference on Information Processing
and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (pp. 403-
412). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[4] Patlins, P., 2016, May. Efficient transportation in cities and perishable
goods secondary packaging. In 15th International Scientific Conference,
Engineering for Rural Development, pp. 1395-1401.
[5] Ma, N.L. and Tan, K.W., 2019. Reducing carbon emission through
container shipment consolidation and optimization. Journal of Traffic
and Transportation Engineering, 7(3), pp. 2328-2142.
1275
[6] Cook, B., 2016, Consolidation: Peace of Mind in a Crate. CDC Packaging
- Contract Packaging Services Massachusetts Wood Crates Wooden
Pallets Skids MA Mass, https://cdcpack.com/consolidation-peace-of-
mind-in-a-crate/
[7] Fotin, A. and Cismaru, I., 2017. Mechanization of wooden framed
lamellar panels designed for packaging crates, a way of increasing
productivity and quality. Pro Ligno, 13(4), pp. 168-173.
[8] Ülkü, M.A., 2012. Dare to care: Shipment consolidation reduces not only
costs but also environmental damage. International Journal of
Production Economics, 139(2), pp. 438-446.
[9] Schyga, J., Braun, P., Hilbrich, S., Hinckeldeyn, J. and Kreutzfeldt, J.,
2020. Analytical model for determining the manual consolidation time
for large equipment manufacturers. In Proceedings of the Conference on
Production Systems and Logistics: CPSL 2020. Hannover:
Institutionelles Repositorium der Leibniz Universität Hannover.
[10] Kays, H.E., Prodhan, S., Karia, N., Karim, A.N.M. and Sharif, S.B., 2019.
Improvement of operational performance through value stream mapping
and Yamazumi chart: A case of Bangladeshi RMG industry. Int J Recent
Technol Eng, 8(4), pp.11977-11986.
[11] Sembiring, A.C., Sitanggang, D., Budiman, I. and Aloina, G., 2019, May.
Redesign layout of production floor facilities using Algorithm CRAFT.
In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 505,
No. 1, p. 012016). IOP Publishing.
[12] SupplyChainBrain, September 23, 2020. “Boxing Clever”: Realizing the
Benefits of Intelligent Cartonization.
https://www.supplychainbrain.com/articles/31936-boxing-clever-
realizing-the-benefits-of-intelligent-cartonization,
[13] Jordaan, E. and Matope, S., 2013, June. Improvement of Plant Facility
Layout for Better Labor Utilization: Case Study of a Confectionery
Company in The Western Cape. In Southern African Institute of
Industrial Engineering.
[14] Heinävaara, M., 2010. Lean Applications in shop floor layout design,
Master’s Thesis, Turku University of Applied Sciences.
[15] Koehorst, H., de Vries, H. and Wubben, E., 1999. Standardization of
crates: lessons from the Versfust (Freshcrate) project. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal.
[16] Pichoff, S., 2019, Order Consolidation Reduces Packaging Waste and
Costs While Improving Customer Experience,
https://www.retailsupplychaininsights.com/doc/order-consolidation-
reduces-packaging-waste-and-costs-while-improving-customer-
experience-0001
[17] Senderska, K., Mareš, A. and Václav, Š., 2017. Spaghetti diagram
application for workers’ movement analysis. UPB Scientific Bulletin,
Series D: Mechanical Engineering, 79(1), pp.139-150.
[18] Cantini, A., De Carlo, F. and Tucci, M., 2020. Towards forklift safety in
a warehouse: an approach based on the automatic analysis of resource
flows. Sustainability, 12(21), p.8949.
[19] Karim, N.H., Rahman, N.S.F.A., Hanafiah, R.M., Hamid, S.A., Ismail, A.
and Muda, M.S., 2020. Revising the warehouse productivity
measurement indicators: ratio-based benchmark. Maritime Business
Review.
[20] Staudt, F.H., Alpan, G., Di Mascolo, M. and Rodriguez, C.M.T., 2015.
Warehouse performance measurement: a literature review. International
Journal of Production Research, 53(18), pp.5524-5544.
[21] Daria, B., Martina, C., Alessandro, P. and Fabio, S., 2015. Linking human
availability and ergonomics parameters in order-picking systems. IFAC-
PapersOnLine, 48(3), pp.345-350.
[22] Gupta, S.M., Al‐Turki, Y.A. and Perry, R.F., 1999. Flexible Kanban
system. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.
[23] Marklin, R.W. and Wilzbacher, J.R., 1999. Four assessment tools of
ergonomics interventions: case study at an electric utility's warehouse
system. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 60(6),
pp.777-784.
[24] Huertas, J.I., Ramírez, J.D. and Salazar, F.T., 2007. Layout evaluation of
large capacity warehouses. Facilities.
[25] Saghir, M. and Jönson, G., 2001. Packaging handling evaluation methods
in the grocery retail industry. Packaging Technology and Science: An
International Journal, 14(1), pp.21-29.