The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-4166.htm

Shop floor
Shop floor management system in management
the context of smart system

manufacturing: a case study

Diamantino Torres
GOVCOPP, Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and
Tourism (DEGEIT), University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal and School of Design, Received 10 January 2018
Revised 14 February 2019
Management and Production Technologies Northern Aveiro (ESAN-UA), Accepted 25 April 2019
University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
Carina Pimentel
GOVCOPP, Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and
Tourism (DEGEIT), University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal and UNIDEMI,
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Science and
Technology of the Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal, and
Susana Duarte
UNIDEMI, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
Faculty of Science and Technology of the Universidade NOVA de Lisboa,
Caparica, Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study intends to make a characterization of a shop floor management (SFM)
system in the context of smart manufacturing, through smart technologies and digital shop floor (DSF) features.
Design/methodology/approach – To attain the paper objective, a mixed method methodology was used.
In the first stage, a theoretical background was carried out, to provide a comprehensive understanding on SFM
system in a smart manufacturing perspective. Next, a case study within a survey was developed. The case study
was introduced to characterize a SFM system, while the survey was made to understand the level of influence of
smart manufacturing technologies and of DSF features on SFM. In total, 17 experts responded to the survey.
Findings – Data analytics is the smart manufacturing technology that influences more the SFM system and
its components and the cyber security technology does not influence it at all. The problem solving (PS) is the
SFM component more influenced by the smart manufacturing technologies. Also, the use of real-time digital
visualization tools is considered the most influential DSF feature for the SFM components and the data
security protocols is the least influential one. The four SFM components more influenced by the DSF features
are key performance indicator tracking, PS, work standardization and continuous improvement.
Research limitations/implications – The study was applied in one multinational company from the
automotive sector.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this work is one of the first to try to
characterize the SFM system on smart manufacturing considering smart technologies and DSF features.
Keywords Survey, Case study, Digital shop floor management, Shop floor management, Smart
manufacturing technologies
Paper type Case study
International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma
The authors would like to acknowledge financial support from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia © Emerald Publishing Limited
2040-4166
(grants: UID/EMS/00667/2019 and UID/CPO/04058/2019). DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-12-2017-0151
IJLSS 1. Introduction
A completely new approach to production is already beginning to appear
(Kagermann et al., 2013). Smart factory or smart manufacturing represent the key
characteristic of Industry 4.0 (GTAI – Germany Trade and Invest, 2014). With the
application of the digital technologies, the business processes and engineering
processes become highest integrated. The linkages between virtual and physical
systems make factories more flexible, dynamic and intelligent (Roblek et al., 2016).
An individualized product is developed to respond to specific customer requirements.
Different practices and technologies are regularly associated to smart manufacturing
helping to develop the individualized product. Technologies are changed and
adapted to the digital transformation. Smart technologies raise manufacturing
systems into more advanced levels, allowing a value flow across all levels of the
manufacturing operations more reliably and timely (Choi et al., 2016). This addresses
a radical change on industrial shop floor management (SFM). SFM is defined as an
integrated managerial system that facilitates the communication, control of
performance, and implementation of lean methods on the shop floor (Hertle et al.,
2015). Lean methods can be used as a foundation to build a smart manufacturing
(Buer et al., 2018). Indeed, lean methods will gradually need to be adapted, as SFM is
becoming more and more digitalized. Connected to SFM in a smart manufacturing
context is the digital shop floor (DSF) concept. DSF provides an effective way to
monitoring, diagnosis and prognosis, maintenance and also to support services for
customers (Tao and Zhang, 2017).
This study searched in databases ScienceDirect and Scopus the keyword “digital shop
floor management (DSFM)” resulting in only one outcome. Also, Buer et al. (2018) state that
the knowledge of the integration of the smart technologies into the existing lean
manufacturing system is still immature and will be important to tailor company-specific
SFM. Therefore, the need for more research in this area is evident.
The relationships between these three concepts, smart technologies, SFM and DSF
should be analyzed and evaluated to understand what should be deployed to reach an
improved SFM system.
Therefore, the following research questions were considered:

RQ1. What characterizes a SFM system?

RQ2. Which smart technologies influence a SFM system?
RQ3. Which DSF features are more influential in a SFM system?
This study intends to propose a characterization of a smart SFM system through the
identification of the essential smart manufacturing technologies and DSF features.
The qualitative data obtained from a case study matched well with the theoretical
background and were used as the basis for the survey method. The survey findings
helped to understand the connection of the SFM concept with the smart manufacturing
technologies and the DSFM. So, the main contribution of this paper is the selection of a
set of key SFM technologies and features to support smart SFM.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: in Section 2, a theoretical
background on smart manufacturing, SFM and DSFM is presented; in Section 3, the
research method is characterized. The case study followed by a survey are developed on
Sections 4 and 5, respectively. The paper ends with some conclusions and recommendations
on the directions for further work on Section 6.
2. Theoretical background Shop floor
2.1 Smart manufacturing management
Smart factories represent the progress of manufacturing. Through digitalization with
information systems for production planning and management, flexible structures and
system
strategies, and automation and automatic data interchange (Hajrizi, 2016) the
manufacturing systems will raise into a more advanced level.
The requirements for design, setup and operations of the factories become crucial for the
success (Zuehlke, 2010). The machines no longer simply make the product (GTAI –
Germany Trade and Invest, 2014); through incorporated powerful sensors and microchips
not only the machines but also tools, materials, vehicles and buildings, communicate each
other, in real-time. The technologies allow to speed up this situation, adapting to rapid
product changes during operation, and to reduce the planning effort (Zuehlke, 2010). The
products will be highly customized based on the individually needs of each customer (GTAI
– Germany Trade and Invest, 2014). Therefore, manufacturing environment will be highly
adaptive on-demand, enabling changes on manufacturing planning and control of processes
on an individualized basis (Kagermann et al., 2013; Mittal et al., 2017). According to Mittal
et al. (2017), “smart manufacturing is a set of manufacturing practices that use networked
data and information and communication technologies (ICTs) for governing manufacturing
operations.” It will cover diverse aspects of the manufacturing starting from the initial stage
of product life cycle such as product development, procurement and manufacturing over to
distribution (Mrugalska and Wyrwicka, 2017). Features as flexibility, visibility, adaptability
and reconfigurability can be achieved through a modular structure with respect to product
and process technology (Radziwon et al., 2014). The technological infrastructure underlying
manufacturing systems is constituted by technologies that enable the exchange of data and
information in real-time (Wang et al., 2016). In their work Mittal et al. (2017) present a list of
38 different technologies that are associated with smart manufacturing. Moreover, the same
authors aggregate these 38 technologies in the following set of 11 clustered technologies:

(1) energy saving/efficiency technology;

(2) cyber security;
(3) visual technology;
(4) data analytics (big data);
(5) cyber-physical systems (CPSs)/cyber-physical production systems (CPPSs);
(6) internet of things (IoT)/internet of services (IoS);
(7) smart products/parts/materials;
(8) advanced manufacturing;
(9) cloud manufacturing;
(10) three-dimensional printing/additive manufacturing; and
(11) IT-based production management.

For additional details about the 11 clustered technologies the interested reader is referred to
Mittal et al. (2017). The authors (Wang et al., 2016) and Tao and Zhang (2017) mention
technologies such as big data and cloud computing, IoT and IoS and artificial intelligence
technologies. Lu (2017) mention several key technologies, including radio frequency
identification, enterprise resource planning (ERP), IoT and cloud-based manufacturing.
Integrating these smart technologies in shop floor manufacturing will improve the
processes to achieve a high-quality and customized product while at the same time
IJLSS improved resource efficiency. Smart manufacturing can combine the benefits of real-time
integration along with assurance of minimal waste generation. Waste minimization is a lean
manufacturing principle. Lean will evolve to smart manufacturing (Sanders et al., 2016). As
demonstrated by Sanders et al. (2016) by embracing Industry 4.0, industries are capable of
becoming lean without the need to maintain conscious and persistent striving-for-lean
efforts. Thus, according to Tao and Zhang (2017) a smart manufacturing era is coming.

2.2 Shop floor management

In literature, several definitions and alternative views can be found for the SFM concept
(Hanenkamp, 2013; Hertle et al., 2015). After a literature review, Hertle et al. (2015) define
SFM as “an integrated managerial system that facilitates the communication, control of
performance, and implementation of lean methods on the shop floor.” Indeed, SFM is a core
management instrument in the context of lean manufacturing (Pohl, 2017) and, in general, is
a precondition for the implementation of lean systems, defining an organizational
framework with standardized processes and activities taking place on the shop floor
(Hanenkamp, 2013).
This topic is not new in lean manufacturing literature. In Suzuki’s book about “the new
SFM” he defines SFM as practicing three reals: genba (real place or shop floor, i.e. the location
where the value is created), genbutsu (real thing) and genjitsu (real fact). Moreover, he adds that:
[. . .]to practice the three reals we need to go to the real scene, to see the real thing (e.g. a product,
part, machine, or material) in front of our eyes and understand the real fact to address the real
problems for improvement (Suzaki, 1993, p. 6).
Thus, Suzaki defines SFM as a closed-loop process to observe the problems on-site and to
understand and eliminate their underlying root causes (Hanenkamp, 2013). The concept of
SFM emerged from recognizing the need for efficient, on-site problem solving (PS)
(Hanenkamp, 2013).
The pursued goals of SFM are associated with the use of lean principles in wide fields of
manufacturing industries (Hertle et al., 2015). Grounded on a literature review Hertle et al.
(2016) conclude that the major objectives of SFM are:
 development of leading personnel to methodical coaches;
 utilization of workers’ complete potential;
 sustainable support of other lean principles; and
 optimization of key performance indicators (KPIs) toward set targets.

The same authors highlight that while working towards its objectives, SFM makes use of
methods and tools from lean management so as to improve operational KPIs.
There are several interconnected components, daily practices and tools, reported in
literature, supporting the SFM process (Table I).
2.2.1 Visual management. Visual management (VM) is an element of lean and is
inherent in lean implementations (Bateman et al., 2016). Liff and Posey (2004) defines
VM as a system for organizational improvement that can be used in almost any type of
organization to focus attention on what is important and to improve performance
across the board.
In literature many alternative terminologies can be found for VM. Some of the terms used
are visual controls (Mann, 2014), visual tools (Parry and Turner, 2006) and visual workplace
(Galsworth and Gwendolyn, 2005). The purpose of visual management in lean management
is to focus on the process and make it easy to compare expected versus actual performance
(Mann, 2014). Moreover, VM provides significant benefits in communication and Shop floor
standardization, which boosts the effectiveness of improvement systems (Jaca et al., 2014). management
For information to be effectively communicated, it must be visible, clear and simple in its
presentation, without excluding necessary detail (Bilalis et al., 2002). In that respect, VM
system
becomes a powerful tool for supporting managerial and decision-making processes in
organizations by creating a strategy, which delivers vital information as close to the point of
use as possible (Jaca et al., 2014).
2.2.2 Work standardization. Work standardization (WS) can be defined as the currently
best-known method for accomplishing work (Martin and Bell, 2011) by creating specific
procedures for each operator’s work in a production process (LEI, 2008). WS is supported by
three key elements: process documentation, process improvement and operator training
(Misiurek, 2016). The aim is to writing down the best currently known way of performing
operations in any workplace, with consideration for occupational health and safety, quality,
ergonomics and correctness, then training all employees. According to Imai (1986)
standardization is the starting point for any improvement. Thus, WS is very important,
particularly in a continuous improvement (CI) culture because it allows a basis for
evaluation, which means that future results should improve the standard (Liker and Meier,
2006).
2.2.3 Problem solving. The PS philosophy comes from the main idea of reducing waste,
specifically the waste of resources generated by an ineffective approach to organizational
problems (Iuga and Rosca, 2017). PS encompasses a critical and logical thinking process. It
requires thorough evaluation and reflection, careful consideration of various options, and a
carefully considered course of action, all leading toward measurable and sustainable
goals (Liker and Meier, 2006). The PS methodology is a skill that runs deep and strong at all
levels of the organization within Toyota (Liker and Meier, 2006) in which problems are seen
as improvement opportunities. The goal of a problem-solving analysis is to find what is
causing a problem (the root cause) so as to eliminate it or at least to prevent it from recurring.
Mann (2014) proposes a set of seven basic steps for a structured PS:
(1) identify and define the problem;
(2) quarantine the problem and take other immediate remedial actions;
(3) involve the appropriate and knowledgeable people;
(4) conduct root cause analysis;
(5) identify root cause solutions, assess them, and test the preferred alternative;
(6) implement the root cause solution; and
(7) monitor and revise the solution as indicated by performance data.

Components/daily practices/tools Hanenkamp, 2013 Hertle et al., 2015 Hertle et al., 2016 Mann, 2014

Visual management x x x
WS x x
PS x x x
KPI tracking x x
CI x x
Change point management x Table I.
CD X x Chief components,
DAP x x daily practices and
LSW x x tools of SFM
IJLSS Liker and Hoseus (2008) consider that the operators are among the most suitable people for
the problem-solving process, as they represent 80 per cent of a company’s workforce and
spend 99 per cent of their time carrying out value-added activities.
2.2.4 Key performance indicator tracking. The usage of relevant KPIs is crucial to
correct processes deviations and to drive to improvements. So, typically a set of KPIs are
presented on dashboards for the real-time visualization of process performance information.
Some KPIs are transversal to the organization (like the health and safety KPIs) and others
are specific to a given area according to their specific needs.
2.2.5 Continuous improvement. Bhuiyan and Baghel (2005) define CI or kaizen as “a
culture of sustained improvement targeting the elimination of waste in all systems and
processes of an organization.” CI encourages small improvements obtained through
continuing effort. Since Second World War, this methodology has been implemented
successfully by Japanese industry (Imai, 1986). Moreover, Toyota has developed CI over the
past years in its Toyota way of management, based on which CI is a daily occurrence
(Coimbra, 2009).
2.2.6 Change point management. Change point management (CPM) aims to establish
rules and standard procedures about how to manage and tackle changes (either intentional,
noticeable changes or unintentional and hardly noticeable changes). CPM starts with a
holistic analysis of potential change points, grounded on past experiences, current problems
and future potential risks, so as to minimize disruption of current production for planned
changes and to define suitable reaction rules for personnel facing clearly described
abnormal situations. Escalation levels, commencing with the operator at the machine and
moving up the chain to the operations manager should be described, specifying actions to be
taken according to the competencies of each role (Hanenkamp, 2013).
2.2.7 Competency development. There are many approaches to systematically develop
competencies for production, though most of them do not take place in the direct work
environment. Such approaches are often classified as work-based or work-connected in
delimitation to work-bound competency development (CD) (Dehnbostel, 2008). Some
examples of work-based CD are training workshops, training centers and practice firms or
learning factories (Hertle et al., 2015). In Hertle et al. (2015), the results of an ongoing study
aimed at developing an integrated CD system on the shop floor of manufacturing
environments are presented.
2.2.8 Daily accountability process. The daily accountability process (DAP) is related to
the daily accountability through daily meetings. The daily meetings are regular meetings,
typically standing in front of the SFM boards, with the presence of all stakeholders of a
certain area. Each meeting has a standard frequency, start time, duration, agenda,
participants attending and backups. Typically three layers of daily meetings exist. In the
lowest level there is the team leader board, where the meeting happens between the team
leader of an area and him/her team members. As a second layer, occurs the supervisor
board, with a meeting between the supervisor of an area and him/her team leaders and any
dedicated support group representatives. Then, as third layer exists the value stream
manager board, where the meeting happens between the value stream manager with him/
her supervisor and support group representatives. A fourth layer may exist, where the plant
manager meets with him/her production and support staff members (Mann, 2014).
The main purpose of DAP is to reinforce the SFM focus on process and through it to
identify and implement opportunities for improvement (Mann, 2014). Moreover, it allows
tracking the results of the previous day/shift, to create actions to correct the deviations and
to plan the current day/shift.
 2.2.9 Leader standard work. The team leader is one of the leaders in the shop floor and Shop floor
represents the first level of leadership in a lean manufacturing environment. Its main job is management
to manage inputs (labor, machinery and material and methods and metrics) to produce
outputs (quality, cost and delivery), performing, etc., tasks related to preparing, carrying out
system
and following up the shop floor meetings. In addition, team leaders are responsible for PS
and improvement processes within the own sphere of influence by identifying, reacting and
anticipating problems and deviations during their shift (Hertle et al., 2016).
Leader standard work (LSW) provides a structure and routine that helps leaders shift
from a sole focus on results to a dual focus on process plus results (Mann, 2014). Although
LSW is crucial it is, perhaps, one of the most difficult lean methodologies to instill as it
becomes increasingly difficult to standardize the work for functions whose distance from
operations is increasing. According to (Mann, 2014) for team leaders, the proportion of work
that can be standardized is approximately 80 per cent. The remaining 20 per cent are used to
respond to abnormalities, daily tasks of CI and periodic tasks such as training operators.

2.3 Digital shop floor management

With the advent of smart manufacturing, a paradigm shift will significantly change the way
production is undertaken, and thus, the work environment for operators at the shop floors
will also be significantly changed. Personnel throughout the enterprise is going to be
impacted by the digital technologies, which are changing processes and re-inventing
manufacturing, from the ground up (Humphlett, 2016). According to the same author, the
impact of digitalization is going to be more evident at the heart of the manufacturing
enterprise: the shop floor. The new way of working will require that the operators are
equipped with efficient support systems that aid them in making the right decisions and act
optimally in a constantly changing work environment. Moreover, the decision support
systems must operate in real-time and ensure that the operators always have the right
information at the right time and the right place (Syberfeldt et al., 2016). Also, employees
have to be able to monitor their performance continuously, recognize problems quickly, and
react rapidly to turbulences, which demands real-time information provisioning on the
current status of manufacturing operations on the shop floor across all hierarchy levels
(Gröger et al., 2016). According to Apriso Corporation (2016) virtually all modern
manufacturing methods and CI initiatives include a high reliance on data, while at the same
time emphasizing a reduction in non-value added activities such as measuring, reporting
and handling paper. This dilemma can be solved by automated data collection and
integrated systems that collect, distribute, manage and analyze the data with as little human
intervention (and paper) as possible.
Due to this paradigm change an increase of complexity in modern production systems is
expected. This will put new demands on shop-floor operators (Syberfeldt et al., 2016; Li et al.,
2017). Therefore, proper sharing of information on shop-floors has become more important
as means to support operators’ cognition (Li et al., 2017). To be able to react adequately to
time-intensive factors, such as production changes and disturbances, it is necessary to
develop solutions and find ways to optimize production, which requires lean and responsive
processes. The required responsiveness can be achieved on the basis of information and
transparency (Müller et al., 2017). Data in real-time, visualization and intelligent apps make
it possible to set up a more agile and transparent system of management (Pohl, 2017).
However, according to Gröger et al. (2016), the prevailing manufacturing IT systems, for
example, ERP or manufacturing execution systems (MES), have the following three major
deficiencies that limit flexibility and data-driven process optimization on the shop floor:
IJLSS (1) they are primarily designed for the enterprise control level and the manufacturing
control level, and do not address information needs of individual employees on the
shop floor;
(2) they do not exploit advanced data analytics, to extract knowledge from the huge
amounts of data generated during process execution and control; and
(3) they do hardly provide mobile and situation-aware information, for example, by
using mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet PCs.

Often, outdated ERP solutions, heavily modified and supplemented with various point
solutions, are a stumbling point. The ERP solution, the backbone of the manufacturing
enterprise, must be one that is up to the challenge of digitalization, being highly flexible with
cloud deployment (for the massive data storage needs) and advanced business intelligence
(Humphlett, 2016). In the current era, with the popularity of smartphones and tablets,
manufacturers are capitalizing on the ability to get critical factory operational data from
ERP, MES and enterprise manufacturing intelligence applications into the hands of the right
decision-makers in a timely manner. In addition to the proliferation of mobile apps,
enterprise software is also moving toward more integrated systems that are easier to
implement and maintain, as well as ERP systems that offer a direct interface to engineering
applications (Waurzyniak, 2013). The adoption of connected systems, deployed in the cloud,
is fundamental to digital transformation. Rather than considering core solutions as separate
entities, they should be viewed as a connected, value-driven ecosystem that can be used to
create interrelated products, services and software that act as value-multipliers for other
parts of the organization (Infor, 2016).
Gray (2016) highlights the following benefits associated to the digitalization of the shop
floor:
 provides operators with the information they need to quickly make their own
decisions to complete their daily work, on-time at quality;
 reduces the need for active supervision to solve basic issues and in addition, reduces
manual reporting time;
 avoids the use of paper and workarounds by incorporating the right capability into
existing systems, leveraging tailored apps in industrial-strength solutions;
 embeds the lean system in the operational systems to create a seamless link for the
training, methods and tools to improve performance to manage deviations;
 connects cross-functional teams through integrated performance management
systems, operational plans, shared priorities and actions/escalations; and
 provides real-time, high-quality data allowing early warning and prediction of
issues, making it possible to devise proactive responses rather than firefighting
immediate problems.

During this study, with the aim to determine the key features of a DSFM system, a
literature review was devised. The academic literature about this topic is scarce. A search
in ScienceDirect and Scopus with the keyword “DSFM” returned one result. So, some
professional literature was also analyzed. After the literature review the following 13
DSF features were selected to be included on the survey that will be presented in Section
4: automated data collection; real-time monitoring and access; automated report
generation and notification; global integrated systems (e.g. ERP with MES and with
design systems); use of mobile devices and applications (e.g. smartphones and tablet
PCs); use of real-time digital visualization tools (e.g. dashboards, clipboards and screens); Shop floor
globally replicable solutions across different sites; traceability; wireless networks; cloud- management
based solutions; data analytics (e.g. big data and predictive analytics); direct connection
to shop floor intelligent devices [e.g. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)
system
systems]; and data security protocols.

3. Research method
To check the connection of the SFM concept with the smart manufacturing technologies and
the DSFM this research followed a sequential mixed method-oriented strategy based in a
case study within a survey method, which provided a mix of qualitative and quantitative
evidence. The research was divided into three steps: a theoretical background to develop a
preliminary list of SFM components and to research the DSFM concept; a case study to
explore and refine the SFM concept, with the support of the theoretical background
(research question RQ1); and the survey method to study the smart technologies and the
DSF features influence in a SFM system (research questions RQ2 and RQ3). The survey was
grounded on previous literature and case study results. The survey instrument was
assessed through a pilot study to examine the clarity of the questionnaire, followed by the
final questionnaire and analysis of the results obtained. The research process can be seen in
Figure 1.
Considering that both smart manufacturing technologies and DSFM are complex, not
well-defined concepts, with low quantity of scientific information and almost no empirical
evidence, it is too early to develop testable hypotheses, and therefore, this research is
exploratory in nature. This is in accordance with Karlsson (2016) that refers that
an exploratory study is used when is needed to develop research ideas and questions in the
early stages of research programs. The unit of analysis is the SFM system of a multinational
company. Within the company, the same standards and rules are established regarding the
SFM system.

4. Case study
Benbasat et al. (1987) refer three strengths of using the case study research:
(1) The phenomenon can be studied in its natural setting and meaningful, relevant
theory generated from the understanding gained through observing actual
practice.

Pilot
Theoretical questionnaire
Background

Survey

Case study
Final
questionnaire

Survey
analysis Figure 1.
Research process
IJLSS (2) The case method allows the questions of why, what and how to be answered with
a relatively full understanding of the nature and complexity of the complete
phenomenon.
(3) The case method lends itself to early, exploratory investigations where the
variables are still unknown and the phenomenon not at all understood.

Moreover, Yin (2014) and Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) state that the application of the
case study is recommended when the research topic is complex and need to be studied in its
context and when it can also yield important insights on how and why a phenomenon occurs
giving the basis for a more extensive study.
For the application of the case study the goal was to find a multinational company with
industry in an area of importance and with presence in several countries and if possible, in
different continents. In this way, the company chosen, with headquarters in Germany, was a
metallurgical transformation industry for the automotive sector, with presence in several
continents: Europe, Asia and the USA. Stamping, welding and painting are the main
transformation processes of this company. In Europe, the company is present in seven
different countries: Portugal, Spain, Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Ireland, with
a total of 12 factories. In Asia, the company has three factories in China. Crossing the
Atlantic, in the USA, the company has a total of 11 factories, distributed throughout the
USA, Canada and Mexico. With a total workforce between nine and ten thousand
employees, this company currently sells for practically all car manufactures, thereby
providing that two-thirds of the existing cars contain parts from it.
In terms of the company organization, in each of its plants, apart from the existence of a
set of functional departments at the plant level, there are also those departments at the
corporate context, responsible for the development of each department’s future strategy and
support to the plants when needed. The selected company has also a CI department at both
the corporate and plant level. This means that in each plant there is a dedicated team to
implement the lean tools created and used in all the group, composed by a manager and
between one and three experts, depending on the plant size. In corporate side, there is also a
team of consultants responsible for developing new lean tools, support in projects
implementation and mentoring the plants. For the corporate team management, there is a
global director and two local directors, one for the European and Asian continents and
another for the American continent. The existing lean tools in the group have different
targets, first considering the client of the tool and second taking into consideration what is
needed to improve. In one hand, some of the tools are focused on the improvement of
production processes or logistics processes or another department. In the other hand, those
tools can focus to improve a specific problem, which is transversal to all organization, like
the team management challenges. The SFM system – tool in analysis – belongs to the
second group of tools, as all departments need an efficient team management. As observed
in the theoretical background, although the SFM system is based on the standards created
by total production system, it is adapted to the needs and specificities of the company.
In the case study, several contexts within the company (Mukherjee et al., 2000) were
studied that were delimited to four factories of the group in Europe: one from Germany, one
from Poland, one from Portugal and one from Romania (in Table II a brief characterization
of the factories can be found). Having a sample of a single case industry allowed us to have a
greater depth of observation but have limited the generalizability of conclusions drawn,
although a cross-country study in Europe was made.
During the case design, a research protocol was devised to increase the reliability of the
study, providing an overview of the study, followed by the development of a field plan and
rules to orientate the research and a set of questions. The protocol was pre-tested with a lean Shop floor
leader from an automotive company that evaluated its appropriateness and clarity. As a management
result, some few changes were made to the protocol.
The data collection were carried out using a combination of several methods. Primary
system
and secondary data were used. Data were triangulated through plants visits and direct
observation of the SFM system, through semi-structured interviews and informal
conversations with workers and owners of the SFM system, to acquire different insights and
multiple viewpoints, through documents analysis, through the participation in meetings and
through multiple researchers’ interpretations of the data. Workers and owners of the SFM
system were chosen because they have the most knowledge regarding the definition and
application of the SFM system. Also, the use of multiple sources of data provided insight
from a variety of different research “angles,” each yielding data that provided valuable
information.
The data collected in the four factories were analyzed individually and in cross-factory
analysis. The results were organized around five components that characterize the company
SFM system. These results are presented next in detail, component by component.

4.1 Shop floor management meeting

The first component, the SFM meetings (that represent the DAP in the theoretical
background section), is responsible for the connection of all SFM components. The SFM
meeting is a regular meeting standing in front of a SFM board with all stakeholders of a
certain area. The goal of this meeting is to track the results of the previous day/shift, to
create actions to correct the deviations and to plan the current day/shift. Each SFM meeting
has a standard frequency, start time, duration, agenda, participants attending and backups.
In the case study company, the SFM meetings are used in four different layers. In the
lowest level, there is the team leader board, where the meeting happens between the team
leader of an area and him/her employees. As a second layer, occurs the supervisor board,
with a meeting between the supervisor of an area and him/her team leaders. Then, the third
layer exists the area manager board, where the meeting happens between the area manager,
the supervisor and the support departments as logistics, quality and maintenance. Currently,
the fourth and last level is the production manager board, where the production manager
moderates the SFM meeting with the presence of all area managers and department leaders.
There is a connection between layers where the content of each meeting overlaps the
content of the meeting in the previous and following layers. As an example, at the team
leader board, it can be tracked the changeover time of each machine of the area and at the
supervisor board, it is tracked the changeover time of each area (average results of the
previous level boards). Figure 2 shows the connection between each layer. The sequence of
the SFM meetings is also taken in consideration. The first level SFM meetings are the first to
happen and the following levels must happen after the previous one occurs. This system

Production technologies
Hot Stamping Laser Press Robot Company size (no.
Company country forming press cutting welding welding Painting of employees)

Germany x X x x 700
Poland x X x 900 Table II.
Portugal x x x X x x 550 Profiles of the four
Romania X x 350 factories
IJLSS guarantees the information flow between levels and faster decisions where a higher decision
level is requested.

4.2 Key performance indicators

One of the most important components in the SFM meetings, and the second component of
the SFM system, are the KPIs (represented as KPI tracking at the theoretical background
section). The usage of relevant KPIs is crucial to correct area deviations and to drive to
improvements.
In the case study company, some KPIs are transversal to all boards, like the “health and
safety cross,” used to check if any injury at the board area happened, and the “quality
triangle,” focused on quality problems occurred at the board area.
Another important aspect about the KPIs’ creation is the updating interval. The interval
must be close to the SFM meetings to have a closer look to the real scenario and encourage
the creation of actions to improve the status. It must be no more than daily updates.
The appearance of the KPIs on the board is very important to have a fast and transparent
understanding on the area – “status at a glance.” The KPIs must always show the
comparison between the expected and the actual performance and make deviations from the
standard immediately transparent, either through “traffic lights” or through another visual
system.

4.3 Daily improvement

Daily improvement, named as CI in the theoretical background section, is the third
component of the SFM system, and it is totally connected with the previous component, the
KPIs. This is because every time that a deviation happens in one KPI, actions must be taken
to improve the process avoiding that the same situation occurs again.
In the case study company this component is present at the SFM board through an action
plan, called “48 h action plan.” The name comes from the strategy used to define and split
the tasks to improve the processes. The tasks are followed up daily, during the SFM
meeting. The opened tasks are reviewed to close or create a new further task. New tasks,
coming from the KPIs or process improvement opportunities are added to the action plan.
Actions coming from any audit to one area goes also to the areas’ “48 h action plan.”
The responsible of an action must be one participant of the SFM meeting and each
participant must have no more than three actions per day. The actions must be scheduled at
maximum until the next 48 h to have a permanent short-term improvement and follow-up,
always focusing on the process. If one action seems to need more than two days to
implement, it must be “split” in smaller actions (“break the elephant into slices”).

Figure 2.
SFM boards
connection between
layers
4.4 Escalation process Shop floor
The escalation process (represented in the theoretical background chapter has change point management
management) as fourth component of the SFM system helps, in the case study company
opinion, to support the previous ones because it creates some standard procedures about
system
how to manage and proceed with some processes and happenings. Also, helps to judge when
really makes sense and is necessary to escalate to the layer above of management. One of the
most typical examples of escalation process is related with how to proceed when a machine
has an unplanned stop in production. The big advantage of using the escalation process is
the short response times to problems, either on the affected layer or on the following layers if
needed, bringing the “real production” closer to the “ideal production” level, as shows the
Figure 3.

4.5 Leader standard work

The LSW, the last component, is the primary connection with the shop floor and in the
case study company is given maximum importance to it. The company believes that a
strong level on LSW and a strong leader changes a team from the traditional thinking of
controlling the processes into a lean culture where the leader supports and empowers
him/her employees to solve the problems. In the case study company, the LSW must
work in different branches: standard leadership, where the leader of the area must
moderate the SFM meetings, control the KPIs and respect the process standards and
maintain the production in a good level respecting the takt time; analysis/improvement
leadership, where with the support of some tools such as “Gemba walk,” “third
generations,” “5 Whys” and audits the leader and him/her team can understand where
exists potential to improve the processes and create a plan to implement the
improvements; and mentoring/coaching leadership, where the big focus of the leader is
to use the tool “improvement KATA” to mentor his team to make them think on their
processes and how can they improve them and how to define the steps to implement the
improvements.

Figure 3.
Influence of the
escalation process
IJLSS 5. Survey
The survey was the chosen method to identify the relationships between SFM components
and smart manufacturing technologies and between SFM components and DSF features.
These relationships will be presented, and the results achieved analyzed. Moreover, a
summary of the respondents’ profile will be also presented.
The survey is composed by three parts (Appendix). The first part is dedicated to the company
and expert characterization. In the second part the aim is to study the smart manufacturing
technologies influence on SFM components. So, an evaluation matrix, which lists the smart
manufacturing technologies in m rows and SFM components in n columns is considered. Each
entry aij of the matrix was filled out by the experts using a five-point Likert scale.
Experts were asked to give their perception about the influence of each of the 11 smart
manufacturing technologies considered by Mittal et al. (2017) on nine SFM components,
using the following scale:
 Not at all influential.
 Slightly influential.
 Somewhat influential.
 Very influential.
 Extremely influential.

The nine SFM components considered are the ones that were presented in Section 2.2. In the
third part of the survey an evaluation matrix was also used to establish the relationship
between SFM components and DSF features. This evaluation matrix lists the DSF features in
m rows and the SFM components in n columns. The SFM components are the ones described
in Section 2.2. Moreover, the DSF features are the ones that were identified in Section 2.3.
Experts were asked to give their perception about the influence of each of the 13 DSF features
on nine SFM components. Each entry aij of the matrix was filled out by the experts using the
same five-point Likert scale used in the second part of the survey.
A panel of two academics and two professionals were used to assess face validity. The
experts were asked to judge the degree to which the survey items are representative of
the construct’s conceptual definition (Karlsson, 2016). The same experts were used during the
pre-test phase to test the layout, scales and the user-friendliness of the whole questionnaire. Their
feedback and suggestions were included in the design of the final version of the questionnaire.
The final questionnaire was sent electronically to 17 respondents’ experts, all of
them from the multinational company from the case study. The respondents are either
production or logistics directors or lean specialists and consultants or corporate
directors. The criteria for the selection of these 17 experts were, they have a deep
understanding of the SFM system, they are a daily user of this tool, and they have a
knowledge about digitalization.
The geographic distribution of the experts is presented in Figure 4. In Table III and
Figure 5 the distribution of the experts by job title and of their experience on the actual job
title are presented. All of them responded to questionnaire.
A deeper analysis was developed to understand the characterization of a SFM system in
the context of smart manufacturing considering the medians of the respondents’ answers to
the survey (Figures 6 and 7).
The results obtained with Figure 6 can be read through two vectors:
(1) smart manufacturing technologies; and
(2) SFM components.
Analyzing in detail the smart manufacturing technologies it can be concluded that those Shop floor
that influence mostly the SFM components are data analytics, visual technology and management
intelligent control systems. Analyzing these three smart manufacturing technologies deeply,
data analytics has a considerable influence on all SFM components, with a median influence
system
of three (somewhat influential) on each SFM component, except for the CD component (with
a median equal to two). On the other hand, the smart manufacturing technologies with lower
influence are cyber security, energy-saving/efficiency technology and three-dimensional
printing/additive manufacturing. Analyzing again in detail, both cyber security and energy
saving/efficiency technology have no influence of relief, presenting a median influence of
one (not at all influential) in all SFM components, except for CI in the case of energy-saving/
efficiency technology (having a median result of two). Finally, taking a look to which smart
manufacturing technologies have a higher influence in each SFM component, with a median
result of four (very influential) or five (extremely influential), although none smart
manufacturing technology influences in an extremely way a SFM component, it is possible
to see that data analytics is very influential to PS and KPI tracking components, visual
technology is very influential to visual management and WS components and smart
products is very influential to PS component.

Figure 4.
Experts’ distribution
by country

Job title No. of experts

Corporate lean consultant 5

Corporate lean director 3
Lean expert 2
Lean manager 3
Logistics operations responsible 2 Table III.
Logistics manager 1 Experts’ distribution
Production manager 1 by job title

Figure 5.
Experts’ distribution
by years of
experience on job title
IJLSS IT-based producon Management 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2

Smart products 2 2 4 3 3 1 2 2 2

3D prinng/addive manufacturing 2 1 3 1 3 1 2 11

Cloud manufacturing 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2

Internet of things (IoT)/Internet of services (IoS) 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2

Data analycs 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 3

Cyber physical systems 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 1 2

Visual technology 4 4 3 3 3 1 2 3 2

Cyber security 111111111

Energy saving/efficiency Technology 1111 2 1111

Intelligent control systems 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Visual management Work standardizaon

Problem solving KPI tracking
Figure 6.
Smart manufacturing Connuous improvement Change point management (escalaon process)

technologies Competency development Daily accountability process (SFM meengs)

influence on SFM Leader standard work

Concerning to the influence of DSF features for the SFM components (Figure 7), it is possible
to conclude that experts considered all scale ranked. It can be seen from Figure 7 that
automated data collection, real-time monitoring and access, and automated report
generation and notification, are extremely influential for KPI tracking component. Only one
more DSF feature, the use of real-time digital visualization tools, was considered as
extremely influential for visual management component. In addition, this DSF feature
is considered the most influential for SFM components. Contrary, the data security protocols
is considered the least influential feature for SFM components. The SFM components less
influenced by the DSF features are CD and LSW. Finally, the four components of the SFM
more influenced by the DSF features are KPI tracking, PS, WS and CI.
Another analysis was developed to evaluate the consensus amongst the respondents’
answers. For these analyzes, the coefficients of variation of each pair (smart manufacturing
technology vs SFM component and DSF feature vs SFM floor component) were calculated.
The coefficient of variation (CV) is a standardized measure of dispersion being a
dimensionless number that is calculated as the standard deviation divided by the mean
(Gracht, 2012). It measures the responses variability in relation to the mean. The smaller the
value of the CV the higher the level of consensus amongst the 17 respondents. Therefore,
 Data security protocols 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Shop floor
Direct connecon to shop floor intelligent devices
management
(e.g. SCADA systems)
3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
system
Data analycs
3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
(e.g. big data, predicve analycs)

Cloud based soluons 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2

Wireless networks 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2

Traceability 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2

Globally replicable soluons across different sites 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3

Use of real me digital visualizaon tools

5 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3
(e.g. dashboards, clipboards, screens)
Use of mobile devices and applicaons
4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
(e.g. smartphones, tablet PCs)
Global integrated systems
2 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 2
(e.g. ERP with MES and with Design systems)

Automated report generaon and noficaon 4 3 3 5 3 3 2 4 3

Real me monitoring and access 4 3 4 5 3 3 2 3 3

Automated data collecon 3 3 4 5 3 3 2 3 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Visual management Work standardizaon

Problem solving KPI tracking
Connuous improvement Change point management (escalaon process) Figure 7.
Competency development Daily accountability process (SFM meengs) DSF features
Leader standard work influence on SFM

through the CV analysis it is possible to understand, which responses have more consensus,
for the smart manufacturing technologies influence on SFM components (Table III) and for
the DSF features importance for SFM (Table IV).
Table III indicates the coefficients of variation (in percentage) of the responses. With 11
Smart manufacturing technologies versus nine SFM components, 99 responses are collected
for each respondent. From Table III it is possible to conclude that the lack of consensus is
more obvious in the following relations:
 energy saving/efficiency technology vs visual management (CV = 72 per cent);
 cyber security vs change point management (CV = 71 per cent);
 cyber security vs CD (CV = 74 per cent);
 three-dimensional printing/additive manufacturing vs KPI tracking (CV = 71 per
cent); and
 three-dimensional printing/additive manufacturing vs LSW (CV = 71 per cent).

Contrary, the relation data analytics vs CI and the relation data analytics vs KPI tracking
are the relations where more consensus exist in the responses of experts, with a CV equal to
25 and 28 per cent, respectively.
 IJLSS
influence on SFM
technologies
manufacturing
responses on smart
Variance in the
Table IV.

SFM components Change point

Smart manufacturing Visual management WS PS KPI tracking CI management CD DAP (SFM meetings) LSW
technologies (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (escalation process) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Intelligent control systems 47 47 39 44 44 47 55 48 50

Energy saving/efficiency Technology 72 65 62 62 48 57 56 59 45
Cyber security 64 55 64 65 64 71 74 68 50
Visual technology 35 36 34 42 42 62 52 52 47
CPSs 51 55 37 56 46 61 64 59 56
Data analytics 37 42 31 28 25 42 51 36 43
IoT/ IoS 45 51 40 44 50 47 59 45 46
Cloud manufacturing 47 51 48 32 45 47 56 48 53
Three-dimensional printing/additive
manufacturing 51 67 47 71 40 60 61 65 71
Smart products 51 54 37 56 43 64 59 59 55
IT-based production Management 42 51 47 40 41 41 60 45 47
Table IV presents the coefficients of variation (in percentage) of 117 responses of each Shop floor
respondent that correspond to 13 DSF features versus nine SFM components. It is possible management
to identify that the relation data security protocols vs visual management is the one in which
a higher disagreement in experts’ responses is achieved, with a CV equal to 69 per cent.
system
Contrary, the relation use of real-time digital visualization tools vs visual management is the
one with more consensus (CV = 16 per cent). Also, through this analysis it was possible to
conclude that for smart manufacturing technologies influence on SFM components there is
more internal disagreement than for DSF features influence Table V.

6. Conclusions and future work

This study lies in SFM in the context of smart manufacturing to understand the connection
of the SFM concept with the smart manufacturing technologies and the DSFM. In total, 11
smart manufacturing technologies, nine SFM components and 13 DSF features were
considered for the study.
Based on a theoretical background, it was identified a preliminary list of SFM
components and the research on DSFM concept. Moreover, this data were benchmarked on
the case study, which allowed to reinforce and characterize in detail the SFM system,
responding to the first research question (RQ1).
To carry out this research study, 17 experts responded to a survey developed during it.
The survey has two main sections, considering the first, the level of influence that smart
manufacturing technologies have on SFM components; and the second, the level of influence
that DSF features have on SFM components. The survey results were presented and
analyzed. As a general conclusion, the analysis shows that for smart manufacturing
technologies there is less consensus amongst the experts than for DSF features, regarding to
SFM components.
In response to the second research question (RQ2), the smart technologies, which
influence more a SFM system are visual technology, with a major influence on visual
management and WS components, and data analytics technology, to PS and KPI tracking
components. This is confirmed through the achievement of the smallest coefficients of
variation, indicating an increased consensus amongst the 17 experts.
In relation to the third research question (RQ3) that asked, which DSF features are more
influential in a SFM system, it was found that the use of real-time digital visualization tools
has an extremely influence in the visual management component, followed by globally
replicable solutions across different sites in WS component. Also, automated data collection,
real-time monitoring and access and automated report generation and notification features
in KPI tracking. These results were confirmed with the better consensus achieved in the
responses.
From the analysis of the results regarding the influence of the smart manufacturing
technologies in the SFM, presented in Figure 3, the case study company decided to focus on
the data analytics, the technology with bigger influence in the SFM components, according
to its respondents.
Concerning to DSFM features results, the company decided to focus on five of the six
most important features in SFM:
(1) use of real-time digital visualization tools;
(2) data analytics;
(3) automated report generation and notification;
(4) real-time monitoring and access; and
(5) use of mobile devices and applications.
 IJLSS
for SFM
features importance
responses on DSF
Variance in the
Table V.

SFM KPI Change point

DSF Visual WS PS tracking CI management (escalation CD DAP (SFM LSW
features management (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) process) (%) (%) meetings) (%) (%)

Automated data collection 36 40 28 21 32 50 50 36 36

Real time monitoring and access 29 37 29 23 40 43 44 48 39
Automated report generation and notification 32 41 26 23 35 41 47 34 33
Global integrated systems (e.g. ERP with MES and with
design systems) 51 41 30 33 36 37 49 47 49
Use of mobile devices and applications (e.g. smartphones
and tablet PCs) 34 39 28 25 35 40 45 42 41
Use of real time digital visualization tools (e.g. dashboards,
clipboards and screens) 16 37 30 28 32 40 44 32 39
Globally replicable solutions across different sites 36 35 32 32 34 39 47 44 47
Traceability 49 51 44 45 50 44 56 46 47
Wireless networks 45 41 50 40 48 44 55 49 40
Cloud based solutions 52 42 59 41 35 37 51 48 47
Data analytics (e.g. big data and predictive analytics) 33 35 25 33 27 42 38 34 32
Direct connection to shop floor intelligent devices (e.g.
SCADA systems) 34 38 31 32 21 45 44 42 41
Data security protocols 69 55 58 58 59 50 59 48 45
Some limitations of the research should be noted. As the results are delivered from de Shop floor
analysis of one multinational Company from the automotive sector, the findings cannot be management
generalized across different companies and sectors. In addition, only 17 respondents
participated in the study. Finally, most of them are from one continent, Europe.
system
Future research is needed. One possible direction for the development of this
research in the future is to understand how the most influential Smart manufacturing
technologies could contribute to the implementation of the most influential DSF
features. It would be also beneficial to establish priorities regarding the DSF features
implementation on the smart SFM. Another possible direction is to conduct research
related to the replication of the study to increase the sample in the survey. In addition, it
would be desirable to make a cross-sectorial research to provide the generalization of
the findings. Smart manufacturing technologies will certainly be an important subject
for the SFM effectiveness and efficiency.

References
Apriso Corporation (2016), “Extracting greater value from paperless manufacturing”, available at:
www.apriso.com/solutions/paperless_manufacturing_white_paper.php (accessed December
2017).
Bateman, N., Philp, L. and Warrender, H. (2016), “Visual management and shop floor teams –
development, implementation and use”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54
No. 24, pp. 7345-7358.
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D.K. and Mead, M. (1987), “The case research strategy in studies of information
systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 369-386.
Bhuiyan, N. and Baghel, A. (2005), “An overview of continuous improvement: from the past to the pre”,
Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 761-771.
Bilalis, N., Scroubelos, G., Antoniadis, A., Emiris, D. and Koulouriotis, D. (2002), “Visual factory: basic
principles and the ‘zoning’ approach”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40
No. 15, pp. 3575-3588.
Buer, S.-V., Strandhagen, J.O. and Chan, F.T.S. (2018), “The link between industry 4.0 and lean
manufacturing: mapping current research and establishing a research agenda”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 2924-2940.
Choi, S., Jung, K., Kulvatunyou, B. and Morris, K.C. (2016), “An analysis of technologies and standards
for designing smart manufacturing systems”, Journal of Research of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Vol. 121.
Coimbra, E. (2009), Total Flow Management: Achieving Excellence with Kaizen and Lean Supply Chains,
Kaizen Institute.
Dehnbostel, P. (2008), “Learning in work processes: competence Development”, Handbook of Technical
and Vocational Education and Training Research, Springer Scienceþ Business Media BV,
pp. 444-453.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Graebner, M.E. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Galsworth, G.D. and Gwendolyn, D. (2005), Visual Workplace, Visual Thinking: Creating Enterprise
Excellence through the Technologies of the Visual Workplace, Visual-Lean Enterprise Press,
Portland.
Gray, J. (2016), “The benefits of a digital shopfloor”, Aerospace Manufacturing.
Gröger, C., Stach, C., Mitschang, B. and Westkämper, E. (2016), “A mobile dashboard for analytics-
based information provisioning on the shop floor”, International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 1335-1354.
IJLSS GTAI – Germany Trade and Invest (2014), Industry 4.0 – Smart Manufacturing for the Future, Berlin.
Hajrizi, E. (2016), “Smart solution for smart factory”, IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol. 49 No. 29, pp. 1-5.
Hanenkamp, N. (2013), “The process model for shop floor management implementation”, Advances in
Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 40-46.
Hertle, C., Siedelhofer, C., Metternich, J. and Abele, E. (2015), “The next generation shop floor
management – how to continuously develop competencies in manufacturing environments”,
The 23rd International Conference on Production Research 2015, p. 10.
Hertle, C., Siedelhofer, C., Metternich, J. and Abele, E. (2016), “Recording shop floor management
competencies – a guideline for a systematic competency gap analysis”, Procedia Cirp, Vol. 57,
pp. 625-630.
Humphlett, M. (2016), “Operations how will digitalization impact personnel on the manufacturing shop
floor?”, Industry Week.
Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen:The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success, Mc-Graw-Hill.
Infor (2016), “Building a digital transformation strategy”, Digital Transformation Perspectives.
Iuga, M.V. and Rosca, L.I. (2017), “Comparison of problem solving tools in lean organizations”,
MATEC Web of Conferences – 8th International Conference on Manufacturing Science and
Education, p. 9.
Jaca, C., Viles, E., Jurburg, D. and Tanco, M. (2014), “Do companies with greater deployment of
participation systems use visual management more extensively? An exploratory study”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 1755-1770.
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W. and Helbig, J. (2013), “Recommendations for implementing the strategic
initiative INDUSTRY 4.0: securing the future of German manufacturing Industry”, Final Report
of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group, Forschungsunion.
Karlsson, C. (Ed.), (2016), Research Methods for Operations Management, 2nd ed., Routledge.
LEI (2008), Lean Lexicon: A Graphical Glossary for Lean Thinkers, 4th ed., Lean Enterprise Institute.
Li, D., Åsa, F.-B., Dan, L., Anna, D. and Lars, R. (2017), “Digitalization of whiteboard for work task
allocation to support information sharing between operators and supervisor”, IFAC 2017 World
Congress, The 20th World Congress of the International Federation of Automatic Control.
Liff, S. and Posey, P.A. (2004), Seeing Is Believing: How the New Art of Visual Management Can Boost
Performance throughout Your Organization, Amacom Books, New York, NY.
Liker, J. and Hoseus, M. (2008), Toyota Culture: The Heart and Soul of the Toyota Way, Mc-Graw-Hill.
Liker, J. and Meier, D. (2006), The Toyota Way Fieldbook: A Practical Guide for Implementing Toyota’s
4Ps, Mc-Graw-Hill.
Lu, Y. (2017), “Industry 4.0: a survey on technologies, applications and open research issues”, Journal of
Industrial Information Integration, Vol. 6, pp. 1-10.
Mann, D. (2014), Creating a Lean Culture - Tools to Sustain Lean Conversions, 3rd ed., CRC Press.
Martin, T. and Bell, J. (2011), New Horizons in Standardized Work: Techniques for Manufacturing and
Business Process Improvement, CRC Press.
Misiurek, B. (2016), Standardized Work with TWI: Eliminating Human Errors in Production and
Service Processes, CRC Press.
Mittal, S., Khan, M., Romero, D. and Wuest, T. (2017), “Smart manufacturing: characteristics,
technologies and enabling factors”, Journal of Engineering Manufacture, pp. 1-20.
Mrugalska, B. and Wyrwicka, M.K. (2017), “Towards lean production in industry 4.0”, Procedia
Engineering, Vol. 182, pp. 466-473.
Mukherjee, A., Mitchell, W. and Talbot, F.B. (2000), “The impact of new manufacturing technologies
and strategically flexible production”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 139-168.
Müller, R., Vette, M., Hörauf, L., Speicher, C. and Burkhard, D. (2017), “Lean information and Shop floor
communication tool to connect shop and top floor in small and medium-sized enterprises”,
Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 11, pp. 1043-1052. management
Parry, G.C. and Turner, C.E. (2006), “Application of lean visual process management tools”, Production system
Planning and Control, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 77-86.
Pohl, J. (2017), “Digital shop floor management the backbone of the smart factory”, Inside the Smart
Factory: How the Internet of Things Is Transforming Manufacturing, ROI Management
Consultants, p. 8, available at: www.roi-international.com/fileadmin/ROI_DIALOG/ab_DIALOG_
44/EN-ROI-DIALOG-49_web.pdf (accessed November 2017).
Radziwon, A., Bilberg, A., Bogers, M. and Madsen, E.S. (2014), “The smart factory: exploring adaptive
and flexible manufacturing solutions”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 69, pp. 1184-1190.
Roblek, V., Mesko, M. and Krapez, A. (2016), “A complex view of industry 4.0”, SAGE Open, pp. 1-11.
Sanders, A., Elangeswaran, C. and Wulfsberg, J. (2016), “Industry 4.0 implies lean manufacturing:
research activities in industry 4.0 function as enablers for lean manufacturing”, Journal of
Industrial Engineering and Management JIEM, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 811-833.
Suzaki, K. (1993), The New Shop Floor Management: Empowering People for Continuous Improvement,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Syberfeldt, A., Holm, M., Danielsson, O., Wang, L. and Brewster, R.L. (2016), “Support systems on the
industrial shop-floors of the future – operators’ perspective on augmented reality”, Procedia
Cirp, Vol. 44, pp. 108-113.
Tao, F. and Zhang, M. (2017), “Digital twin shop-floor: a new shop-floor paradigm towards smart
manufacturing”, IEEE Access, Vol. 5, pp. 20418-20427.
Wang, S., Jiafu, W., Di, L. and Chunhua, Z. (2016), “Implementing smart factory of industrie 4.0: an
outlook”, International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 10.
Waurzyniak, P. (2013), “Shop-floor intelligence at your fingertips”, Manufacturing Engineering,
Vol. 151 No. 3, pp. 107-117.
Yin, R. (2014), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed., SAGE Publications.
Zuehlke, D. (2010), “SmartFactory – towards a factory-of-things”, Annual Reviews in Control, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 129-138.

Further reading
Filippini, R. (1997), “Operations management research: some reflections on evolution, models and
empirical studies in OM”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 655-670.
Huberman, M. and Miles, M.B. (2002), The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion, SAGE.
Ketokivi, M. and Choi, T. (2014), “Renaissance of case research as a scientific method”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 232-240.
Malhotra, M.K. and Grover, V. (1998), “An assessment of survey research in POM: from constructs to
theory”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 407-425.
Pinsonneault, A. and Kraemer, K. (1993), “Survey research methodology in management
information systems: an assessment”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 75-105.
Wacker, J.G. (1998), “A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research
methods in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 361-385.
IJLSS Appendix
Survey
This framework is intended to support a research regarding the characterization of a shop floor management (SFM)
system in the context of smart manufacturing.

We define smart manufacturing as a set of manufacturing practices that use networked data and information and
communication technologies for governing manufacturing operations. Moreover, we define shop floor management
as an integrated managerial system that facilitates the communication, control of performance and implementation of
lean methods on the shop floor.
Part A. Company and respondents’ profile
Please indicate the following data to characterize your company and your role in the company:

- Sector:

- Company location (country):

- Primary products:

- Primary technologies:

- Your firm’s position in the supply chain:

- Number of employees:

- Your job title:

- Your job responsibilities:

- Your experience in the job title (years):

Part B. Smart manufacturing technologies influence on SFM

For the following smart manufacturing technologies please give your perception about their influence on the
SFM components listed below, using the following scale:
1 – Not at all influential;
2 – Slightly influential;
3 – Somewhat influential;
4 – Very influential and
5 – Extremely influential.

Shop floor Management

Daily accountability process
Change point management

components
Competency development
Continuous improvement

Leader standard work

Work standardization
Visual management

Problem solving

KPI tracking

Smart manufacturing
technologies

Intelligent control systems are computer-controlled

systems where at least part of the control tasks
performed require intelligent methods or artificial
intelligence techniques, such as expert systems, fuzzy
logic, machine learning and neural networks.
Energy saving/efficiency Technology is the technology
that can reduce the required energy to provide a product
and service.
Cyber security is related to the data secure from cyber
threats. As smart manufacturing is largely based on
digitization and data-based services, cyber security is an
integral technology for smart manufacturing systems.
Visual technology makes use of visual representation of
an object, built with the help of electronic devices.
Augmented reality, virtual reality and holograms are
examples of visual technologies.

(continued)
Cyber physical systems (CPSs), also known as Cyber- Shop floor
management
physical production systems (CPPSs), describe
technologies used by computer algorithms to solve and
work with physical mechanisms/ components. CPSs
create the connection between the physical and the
digital world and are composed by embedded systems,
system
which detect physical objects directly by sensors and
interact with physical processes via actuators. These
systems are linked through digital networks and
exchange data and services globally.
Data analytics generally deals with turning the volume,
variety, velocity and veracity of data into actions and
insights within a manufacturing system. As data
analytics can deal with a very high volume of data, the
popular technology ‘‘big data’’ can be understood as
being part of this technology; since data analytics can
also process a high velocity of data, it can communicate
in real-time with the customers.
Internet of things (IoT)/Internet of services (IoS) The
IoT enables the communication between physical and
Internet-enabled devices. When IoT capabilities are seen
as services, they are referred as IoS. Although both CPS
and IoT/IoS consider physical and virtual world, a major
difference is that the computer algorithms may or may
not use the Internet.
Cloud manufacturing is driven by cloud computing,
which is a model for enabling extensive, convenient, on-
demand network access to a shared pool of configurable
computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage,
applications and services) that can be rapidly
provisioned and released with minimal management
effort or service provider’s interaction. Cloud
manufacturing makes use of real-time communication to
enable the users to exchange data with the systems in
real-time.
3D printing/additive manufacturing is the technology
that can print a 3D image into an object with the help of
laser beam, electron beam and so on. As the objects are
printed layer by layer, this technology is also referred as
additive manufacturing.
Smart products can be considered as a cyber physical
system, which additionally use and integrate Internet-
based services in order to perform a required
functionality. Moreover, a smart product should be able
to carry data about itself. Those data are collected along
its product life cycle, which then can be stored, updated,
and used in real time due to the Internet connectivity.
IT-based production Management includes the use of
information systems that help to integrate and coordinate
different parts of the business, including the
manufacturing processes. Examples include: enterprise
resource planning (ERP), Manufacturing execution
systems (MESs), computer-aided design (CAD), and
computer-aided manufacturing (CAM).

Part C. Digital shop floor features influence on SFM

For the following digital shop floor features please give your perception about their influence on the SFM
components listed below, using the following scale:

1 – Not at all influential;

2 – Slightly influential;
3 – Somewhat influential;
4 – Very influential;
5 – Extremely influential.

(continued)
IJLSS
Shop floor Management

Daily accountability process

Change point management
components

Competency development
Continuous improvement

Leader standard work

Work standardization
Visual management

Problem solving

KPI tracking
Digital shop floor
features

Automated data collection

Real time monitoring and access

Automated report generation and notification

Seamless integrated systems
(e.g. ERP with MES and with Design systems)
Use of mobile devices and applications
(e.g. smartphones, tablet PCs)
Use of real time digital visualization tools
(e.g. dashboards, clipboards, screens)
Globally replicable solutions across different
sites
Traceability

Wireless networks

Cloud based solutions

Data analytics (e.g. big data, predictive
analytics)
Direct connection to shop floor intelligent
devices (e.g. SCADA systems)
Data security protocols

Corresponding author
Carina Pimentel can be contacted at: carina.pimentel@ua.pt

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com