Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-020-01675-x

An integrated SMED-fuzzy FMEA model for reducing setup time

Kübra Yazıcı1 · Seda Hatice Gökler2 · Semra Boran2

Received: 30 January 2020 / Accepted: 18 September 2020 / Published online: 14 October 2020
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Today, the companies apply lean or customized production methods, which enable the production of different kinds of products
in small quantities, to meet different customer demands. But, the increase in the product variety leads to an increase in the
number of setups and thus production time. The companies aim to reduce the setup time by improving activities and by
eliminating the problems causing extending setup time. Single minute exchange of die (SMED) method is the most common
setup method that makes it possible to perform equipment setup operations in fewer than 10 min, i.e. several minutes expressed
by a single digit. It is possible to further reduce setup times by integrating quality tools and methods into the SMED method.
In this study, it is developed a novel SMED model that integrating the traditional SMED and fuzzy failure modes and effects
analysis (fuzzy-FMEA) methods. Fuzzy FMEA method is used to prevent problems causing further extending setup time
on setup activities. A new operation worksheet, “Setup Observation and Analysis Form” that leads the analyst in during the
investigation of the machine and its set-up process, is also designed. The new approach is applied to set up a plastic injection
mold for a pen manufacturing company. The setup time is reduced from 71.32 to 36.97 min, achieved a 48% improvement.

Keywords SMED · Fuzzy FMEA · Reducing setup time · Lean production

Introduction the number of minutes expressed by a single digit (Shingo

The setup process not only extent production time but also
negatively affects product quality and customer satisfaction
and it does not add any value to the product. It is known that
the setup times are very long especially in the companies
producing different kinds of products. Therefore, companies
aim to reduce setup time to make more flexible the production
line and thus respond more quickly to changing requirements
of the customer.
The setup time reduction can be achieved using, single
minute exchange of die (SMED), which is a common method.
The SMED method makes it possible to perform equipment
setup (changeover) operations in less than 10 min, i.e., in
B Kübra Yazıcı
kubra.yazici@tau.edu.tr
Seda Hatice Gökler
shgokler@sakarya.edu.tr
Semra Boran
boran@sakarya.edu.tr
1 Department of Industrial Engineering, Türkisch-Deutsche
Universität, Istanbul, Turkey
2 Department of Industrial Engineering, Sakarya University,
Sakarya, Turkey
1985). It allows us to quickly pass from after finishing pro-
cessing a product to the next new product processing during
the manufacturing process.
In the literature, some studies contain the SMED method
has successfully implemented in various industries such as
textile processing (Moxham and Greatbanks 2001) automo-
tive (Cakmakci 2009), electronic assembly (Trovinger and
Bohn 2005), aluminum profile extrusion (Assaf and Haddad
2014), electrical power control (Ribeiro et al. 2011) and food
processing (Maalouf and Zaduminska 2019; Lozano et al.
2019). Quantitative techniques and tools are not usually used
to achieve the requirements of having shorter setup times in
the traditional SMED method. However, SMED can always
be accompanied by another type of tool or technique to maxi-
mize the results of its application (Lozano et al. 2019). There
are very few studies using different methods in SMED in the
literature. Taguchi experimental design method was used to
determine the parameter values of a plastic injection mold
changeover operation, to achieve the correct product in the
first trial (Karasu et al. 2014). Fuzzy inference system (FIS)
was applied for parameter adjustments during changeovers
on plastic injection molds (Karasu and Salum 2018). The FIS
captured the highest level of domain expertise and made it

123
1548
applicable by machine operators. It was developed JMP/SAP
based Six Sigma method and applied it in SMED (Chen et al.
2017). They also used the FMEA method in analyze phase
of the six sigma method. The quality methods were used
such as Pareto analysis, statistical analysis, and FMEA in
SMED steps (Stadnicka 2015). A new approach was devel-
oped called “changeover-FMEA (CFMEA)” to tackle the set
up effectively (Singh and Khanduja 2012). It is possible
to minimize a setup time using the FMEA method aim-
ing to prevent the problems that cause the extension of the
setup time (Singh and Khanduja 2012). But in the traditional
FMEA method, to assess risk factors, severity, occurrence,
and detection, it is used experts’ judgements. Experts make
their evaluations with incomplete information and in cases
of uncertainty. Therefore, assessments differ from expert to
expert, and further, experts tend to express their opinions
in linguistics rather than numbers. Fuzzy logic is applied to
FMEA to better reflect real-world uncertainty.
In this study, a novel integrated model is developed using
the traditional SMED and fuzzy FMEA methods. Although
the FMEA method has been used in the SMED method, no
study has been found so far using fuzzy FMEA in the SMED
method. On the other hand, a “Setup Observation and Anal-
ysis Form” also is designed for the new integrated method.
The proposed model was applied to a plastic injection
mold in a pen manufacturing company to demonstrate effec-
tiveness in the real case. The setup time was reduced from
71.32 to 36.97 min, achieved a 48% improvement.
The paper is organized as follows. Methods are explained
in “Methods” section, the new SMED model using fuzzy
FMEA is introduced in “Proposed integrated SMED-fuzzy
FMEA model” section, how the model is applied to a real case
example is presented in “Implementing integrated SMED–
fuzzy FMEA model” section, results and discussions are
explained in “Results and discussion” section, and finally,
the conclusion is summarized in “Conclusion” section.
Methods
SMED method
The SMED method is an effective method that provides
to reduce setup time that can be applied to any machine
in any company. The method makes it possible to perform
equipment setup operations in less than 10 min by rapidly
providing to convert from processing the current product to
processing the next product in the manufacturing process.
The method can increase the utilization rate of any element
of any production process by significantly reducing waiting
time and increasing the overall efficiency of the equipment.
123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561
The setup activities are performed on the machine before
each lot is started to process. The activities are defined into
two groups: external and internal. External activities can be
carried out during the normal operation of a machine before
the machine is shut down. On the other hand, internal activi-
ties are ones that can be performed only when the machine is
shut down. Since the production is stopped during complet-
ing internal activities, the production time is extended and the
amount of product produced decreases. Therefore, all possi-
ble internal activities are converted to external activities. So
that both machines and employees simultaneously work and
the idle times are decreased.
The steps of the SMED method are as follows (Shingo
1985):
Step 1 The setup activities and their times are usually deter-
mined by the video recording method. The method is also
used to define the necessary equipment. The times provides
to realize and to compare the change and development in
the next process.
Step 2 The setup activities are separated as internal and
external activities. In this step, the equipment, the employ-
ees, the tools, and the mold involved in the changeover
process are made available before the process and the set-
tings of the machinery and tools are checked.
Step 3 The internal activities are converted to external
activities. For this, activities are standardized as much as
possible using operations such as assembly, fixing and cen-
tering, and conditions are prepared in advance to reduce
waiting times.
Step 4 Corrective activities are developed to shorten setup
time by considering both internal and external activities.
Step 5 Action plans are created to eliminate the rea-
sons that cause time extension in activities planned to be
improved. The procedures are documented by making a
joint decision with the employees involved in the process.
The improved setup activities are standardized, and control
lists are created. In this the last step, the skill and educa-
tion levels of the employees are a point to be taken into
consideration (Ulutas 2011).
The SMED method optimizes machine utilization, enables
small lot sizes, reduces production times, machine adjust-
ment times, stocks, product lead times and setup scrap,
decreases setup labour and manufacturing costs, and
enhances productivity (Pannesi 1995; Coimbra 2009). Also,
inventory costs are reduced, as the SMED method acceler-
ates product flow (McIntosh et al. 2007). Besides the method
has economic benefits, it also has other benefits, such as
standardization, improving ergonomic conditions, and sup-
porting teamwork (Ribeiro et al. 2011).
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561 1549

Fuzzy FMEA method values in the range [0–1]. The fuzzy logic system consists of
four main phases (Fig. 1).
The FMEA method is an important method to define and Fuzzification is the process that converts a crisp value
to eliminate known or potential failures to avoid or reduce into linguistic fuzzy information using membership func-
the potential failure modes and their effect on operations tions. The linguistic variables are defined such as very low,
(Stamatis 1995). Risk priority number (RPN) is a risk crite- low, medium by experts to enable them to deal easily with
rion providing to evaluate the failures in a process’s activities. variables. Membership functions can be in different shapes
The RPN is commonly calculated by the multiplication of as triangular, trapezoidal, Gaussian, and sigmoid. The tri-
three factors, which are the probability of the failure (occur- angular membership function is appropriate for quantifying
rence), the effect of the failure (severity), and the probability the vague information about decision problems. The pri-
of not detecting the failure (detection). Each of the risk fac- mary reason for using triangular fuzzy numbers can be stated
tors that are severity (S), occurrence (O), and detection (D), is as their intuitive and computational-efficient representation
evaluated using a 10-point scale, and failure causes with high (Liu et al. 2016). It has a smooth transition from one linguis-
RPN values are more important and have a higher risk prior- tic term to another and also provides easy defuzzification
ity than lower RPN values. Failure causes are being ranked of each linguistic term (Zaman et al. 2014). The triangular
by the RPN values and then, proper preventive or corrective membership function is defined by three different parameters
actions are being taken. which are a lower limit ‘a’, a middle value ‘b’, and an upper
In the traditional FMEA method, RPN has some short- limit ‘c’ (Eq. 1). where µ A is a membership function for a
comings as follows: fuzzy set A, and c ≥ b ≥ a ≥ 0.
⎧
⎨a ≤ x ≤ b
x−a
b−a
• The three risk factors are of the same importance or equally µ A (xi , a, b, c)  b ≤ x ≤ c c−x
(1)
weighted. However, in real-world applications, it may be ⎩ c−b
x <a∪x >c 0
desirable to have different importance weights of risk fac-
tors. Severity value with 9 and 10 scores is usually accepted An FMEA team that consists of a few experts from different
as highly risky, therefore it must be assigned to upper-risk functional areas is constituted to decide the rating of severity,
class regardless of the scores of occurrence and detection occurrence, and detection for each failure cause. The ratings
(Stamatis 1995; Ford Company 2008). for each failure cause are calculated by averaging the experts’
• The mathematical formula of RPN is sensitive to a small statements. The formulas to be used according to the trian-
variation on the factor scores and the variation may lead to gular fuzzy number are as follows (Eq. 2):
occurring different effects on the RPN value. For example,
  
failure 1 (5 × 6 × 6) and failure 2 (9 × 4 × 5) have the same k
  i1 Si ja, Si jb , Si jc
RPN values, 180. If the occurrence score of both failures Si  Sia , Sib , Sic 
is increased by one, the RPN value of 210 (5 × 7 × 6) for   k 
failure 1 is smaller than the RPN value of 225 (9 × 5 × 5)  
k
i1 Oi ja, Oi jb , Oi jc
for failure 2 (Park et al. 2018). Oi  Oia , Oib , Oic 
  k
• Experts who are members of the FMEA team, usually pre- k 
fer linguistic terms such as “high” or “very high” instead   i1 Di ja, Di jb , Di jc
Di  Dia , Dib , Dic 
of crisp values in assessment three risk factors (Safari et al. k
2016). Experts make risk assessments according to their i  1, 2, . . . , n and j  1, 2, . . . , k (2)
knowledge and opinions when data usually is unreliable
and insufficient. Therefore, the risk factors’ values are dif- where i is ith failure cause, j is jth expert and k is the total
ferent from expert to expert. number of expert s.
The fuzzy rule base is structured in that each rule has
Fuzzy logic providing better reflect real-world uncertainty the general form of if–then. Experts create rules defining the
is applied to the traditional RPN to overcome its criticized relationship between inputs and outputs. If–then rules are
shortcomings. Fuzzy set theory was first introduced by Zadeh used within fuzzy inference systems to infer outputs based on
(1965) to solve uncertain, imprecise, and fuzzy problems. In inputs. Inference rules are usually developed using Mamdani
the theory, a crisp set A becomes a fuzzy set where x is defined or Sugeno fuzzy inference system. An example of Mamdani’s
by a membership function displaying its membership degree if–then rule is as follows (Eq. 3).
to A by µ A . A fuzzy logic system formulates the relationship
between input and output using fuzzy logic. In the system, If X 1 is M F1 and X 2 is M F2 and X 3 is M F3 . . .
each input and output has a membership function that takes X i is M Fi then Y is O (3)

123
1550
Fig. 1 Fuzzy logic system
Crisp input Fuzzification
where X i is ith input variable, M Fi is a membership function
of ith input variable, Y is fuzzy output variable and O is fuzzy
output value.
By using the fuzzy inference system an output fuzzy set
is obtained from the if–then rules and the input variables.
After the aggregation operation, defuzzification is used to
transform the fuzzy output into a crisp value. The center of
gravity method given in Eq. 4 is one of the most commonly
used defuzzification method (Van Broekhoven and De Baets
2006).
∫ab µ A (x)xd x
y (4)
∫ab µ A (x)d x
where a is the lower limit for defuzzification and b is the
upper limit for defuzzification, y is the crisp value of the
output.
The fuzzy FMEA steps can be summarized as follows:
• Determining failure mode, cause, effect and detectability
for each activity
• Determining linguistic variables for risk factors and RPN
value
• Fuzzification each risk factors and RPN value
• Determining inference rules by using experts’ knowledge
• Defuzzification fuzzy RPN to obtain crisp RPN value
• Ranking “failure causes” according to their RPN values
• Developing preventive or corrective actions for critical
failure cause.
Proposed integrated SMED-fuzzy FMEA
model
The new integrated model using the traditional SMED and
fuzzy FMEA methods contains two phases. In the first phase,
the steps of the SMED methodology are applied. In the sec-
ond phase, fuzzy FMEA is utilized to further reduce the
internal activities times which are cannot be converted into
external activities. Failure causes leading to the long-time of
the internal activities are determined and risk assessments are
made. Failure causes the highest priority risk value is deter-
mined as the most effective in the long setup time. The results
obtained by applying the steps are recorded in the newly
designed Setup Observation and Analysis Form (Table 5).
The proposed method’s flowchart is as Fig. 2.
123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561
Fuzzy Rule-Base
Fuzzy Inference
Defuzzification Crisp output
System
Implementing integrated SMED-fuzzy FMEA
model
The new integra SMED-fuzzy FMEA model is implemented
in the plastic injection mold setup of a pen manufacturing
company. Plastic injection molding that is one of the most
favorite manufacturing techniques can be described as the
process of injecting melted plastic into a mold that is held
under pressure until it is solidified (Karasu and Salum 2018).
12 plastic injection machines are used to product pen com-
ponents in the company. Since many different products are
produced, setups are frequently made in the machines. The
longest setup time is chosen to implement developed inte-
grated SMED and fuzzy FMEA model. Injection processing
is a very short time like 2 s, however, setup times are long.
In the first phase of the proposed model, the SMED
method’s steps are implemented to the chosen setup pro-
cess. Setup activities are recorded 3 times by a camera. The
recorded setup activities are carefully examined and then
their times and classes are determined. More information
needed is collected from the operator. The setup process con-
sists of 25 activities that all of them are defined as internal
activities. Setup activities are performed by only a single
machine operator. Different total setup times ranging from
50 to 90 min are recorded for 3 observations. The mean setup
time is calculated as 71.32 min. It can be noticed that the
control activity making by the quality department is the step
consuming the most time. 7 out of 25 internal activities are
converted to external activities to reduce overall setup time.
By redesigning the material handling system, it is possible to
transform activities 1, 4, 6, and 7 to become external activi-
ties’ steps. It can be suggested performing it by two operators
at a time because it was consumed extra time for activity 18.
In activity 3, the mold protective spray can be used after
being taken to the molding room after setup. In activity 24,
the operator connecting the mold performs the first control
process before the quality control personnel. While the trial
production continues, the products of the previous batch can
be checked. Simultaneous production and control operations
reduce total time. The overall setup time is reduced from
71.32 to 58.88 min with SMED method.
The columns of the “Setup Observation and Analysis
Form” are filled with corresponding obtained data (Table 5).
In the second phase, the fuzzy FMEA method is applied
to further reduce setup time. It is aimed to improve internal
activities that cannot be converted into external ones. The
risks that cause the internal activities times to belong are
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561 1551

PHASE 1 PHASE 2

Defining failure modes, causes, and effects of

NO
internal activities

Defining linguistic variables for occurence,

severity, detection and RPN

START
Developing if-then rules defining relationship
between risk factors and RPN

Determining setup activities and times

Determining fuzzy RPN values

Separating of the internal and external

activities
Defuzzyfing fuzzy RPN to obtain crisp

Can the internal activities be Ranking fuzzy RPN of failure causes

converted to the external activities?

YES Fuzzy RPN ≥ average fuzzy RPN

YES

Developing and implementing Developing and implementing

suggestions to reduce external suggestions to reduce internal
activities times activities times

NO NO

Is improvement sufficient? Is improvement sufficient?

YES YES
Completing setup observation and
NO
analysis form

END

Fig. 2 Proposed novel integrated SMED-fuzzy FMEA model

examined, and corrective and preventive actions are imple-
mented to shorten the times. An FMEA team consisting
of three experts is created. The current and potential fail-
ure modes, causes, effects, and detectability, which lead to
belong to internal activities times are identified by experts.
23 failure causes are determined for 18 internal activities and
the risk analysis is made based on these causes. Linguistic
terms for risk factors and RPN are determined by consulting
with experts (Table 1).
Severity, occurrence, and detection risk factors are defined
as input parameters in five classes such as very low, low,
medium, high, and very high while as the output parameter,
fuzzy RPN (FRPN), is defined in seven classes that are trivial,
minor, noncritical, tolerable, significant, major and critical
(Chang et al. 2014; Ma et al. 2019). All these factors and
RPN are defined within the range of 1–10. The ranges of
the input membership functions are determined according to
triangular membership function by the common opinion of
the experts (Table 2).
The ranges of output’s membership function are also deter-
mined by experts (Table 3).
The triangular membership functions of inputs and output
are shown in Figs. 3, 4, 5 and 6.
In the fuzzy logic model, inputs are risk factors, severity,
occurrence and detection, and output is RPN. Inference rules
are developed using the Mamdani fuzzy inference system.
Since each risk factor has five linguistic variables, the total
number of rules is equal to 125 (Table 4).
For example, the first three and the last three if–then rules
are defined as following.

123
1552 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561

Table 1 Linguistic terms

Linguistic term Occurrence Severity Detection

Very low Failure hardly ever occurs A failure that has no effect
on the setup time
Low Failure occurs very rarely A failure that would cause
slight to extent setup time
Moderate Failure may occur in every A failure that would cause
setup a high degree of operator
dissatisfaction and
extending setup time
High Failure occurs in every A failure that causes
setup significantly extending
setup time
Very high Failure certainly occur in A failure that would cause
every setup seriously to extent setup
time
Failure cannot be detected
in any way
Failure remains undetected
until visual inspection is
carried out
Failure remains undetected
until setup time is
severely lengthened
Failure remains undetected
until setup time is
lengthened
Failure is easily detected

Table 2 Fuzzy numbers for

inputs Linguistic term Abbreviation Inputs

Occurrence Severity Detection

Very low VL (0, 0, 3.333) (0, 2, 3.5) (7.8, 10, 10)

Low L (1.667, 3.333, 5.778) (2.778, 5, 6.111) (4.8, 7, 9.2)
Moderate M (5, 6.111, 6.889) (5.333, 7.222, 8) (1.5, 4, 6.2)
High H (6.111, 7.222, 9.222) (7.222, 8.444, 9.778) (1, 2.2, 4)
Very high VH (7.556, 10, 10) (8.667, 10, 10) (0, 1, 2)

Rule 1: If Severity and and Occur- Then Table 3 Fuzzy numbers for output
is VL Detection rence is FRPN is
Linguistic term Abbreviation FRPN
is VL VL TR
Rule 2: If Severity and and Occur- Then Trivial TR (0, 2, 3)
is VL Detection rence is FRPN is
Minor M (2, 3, 5)
is VL L M
Noncritical N (3, 5, 6)
Rule 3: If Severity and and Occur- Then
is VL Detection rence is FRPN is Tolerable T (5, 6, 7)
is VL M M Significant S (6, 7, 8)
. Major MA (7, 8, 9)
. Critical C (8, 9, 10)
Rule 123: If Severity and and Occur- Then
is VH Detection rence is FRPN is
is VH M C
Rule 124: If Severity and and Occur- Then
is VH Detection rence is FRPN is
is VH H C
Rule 125: If Severity and and Occur- Then
is VH Detection rence is FRPN is
is VH VH C

Fig. 3 Triangular membership function for occurrence

Experts are asked to evaluate each risk factors of failure
cause with linguistic expressions, triangular numbers corre-
sponding to each linguistic term are determined, and averages
are calculated using Eq. 2, and then the corresponding expres-
sion is determined. Since there are a lot of rules, achieving a
fuzzy output necessitates aggregation of different member-
ship degrees related to different crisp inputs. In this study, the
type of inference system based on using a compositional min-
imum operator is used, developed by Mamdani and Assilian
(1975).

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561
Fig. 4 Triangular membership function for detection
Fig. 5 Triangular membership function for severity
Fig. 6 Triangular membership function for RPN
In the defuzzification step, the membership function
obtained from the aggregation phase is converted by Eq. 4
to a crisp number, understandable in the FMEA analysis.
Defuzzification provides a crisp RPN ranking from the fuzzy
conclusion set. The RPN ranking is used to express the
criticality level of the failure causes so that predictive or cor-
rective actions can be prioritized accordingly. FRPN values
range from 3.9 to 8.
The fuzzy linguistic assessment model is developed using
MATLAB R2018A. It permits the experts to combine the
value of occurrence, severity, and detection of failure causes
in a more flexible and realistic manner by using their judg-
ment, experience, and expertise.
The average of the FRPN values of 23 failure causes whose
risks are analysed is calculated as 6.53. Improvement sugges-
tions are developed for failure causes of internal activities
that have FRPN above 6.53 (Chanamool and Naenna 2016).
The FRPN values of 10 failure causes are greater than 6.53.
1553
Improvement suggestions to reduce setup time are developed
and implemented to the prioritized 10 causes so that a fur-
ther 21.92 min shortening is achieved with the fuzzy FMEA
method. Considering that the injection time is approximate
2 s, 21.92 min reduction in setup time is very important,
corresponding to the production of many units.
36% of the total improvement was achieved by the SMED
method and the remaining 64% by the Fuzzy FMEA method.
Data obtained by the fuzzy FMEA method is provided to be
included in the relevant columns in Table 5.
Results and discussion
Setup time is reduced to 36.97 min and a 48% improve-
ment in the setup time has been achieved using the new
proposed integrated method. The setup time is reduced a total
of 34.35 min provided by reducing 12.43 min by applying
the SMED method and 21.92 min using the fuzzy FMEA
method (Table 5). For the setup activities, the improvement
times obtained separately with the SMED method and the
fuzzy FMEA method are as in Table 6.
The changes in the 25 setup activity times before and after
the application of the integrated SMED and fuzzy FMEA
method are as given in Fig. 7. By using the integrated SMED
and fuzzy FMEA model, a significant reduction in duration
is observed in 17 of 25 activities. There is no change in the
remaining 8 activity times. For example, while the first activ-
ity takes 10 s before the integrated SMED and fuzzy FMEA
method, this activity has been converted to external activity
after the SMED method.
Verification of the effectiveness of the fuzzy FMEA
method is performed by comparing the traditional FMEA.
For this, the traditional FMEA method is applied to the same
internal activities. The results of the traditional and fuzzy
FMEA method are given in Table 7.
As can be seen in Table 7, fuzzy FMEA has some advan-
tages over traditional FMEA:
• In FRPN, it is accepted that failure cause has to be in the
first place in ranking if its severity score is high or very
high. For example, for the FC23 , severity is very high is
ranked 14th in the traditional FMEA method, while it is
determined as the failure cause that should be corrected in
1st place in the fuzzy FMEA method. In the ranking, 2nd,
3rd, and 4th failure causes have also very high and high
severity scores.
• The FRPN is more effective in differentiating the risk pri-
orities of failure causes that have the same RPN values.
Failure causes that receive the same RPN values for dif-
ferent combinations in traditional FMEA are prioritized
according to the value of the risk factors, which is consid-
ered more important in FRPN than others. For example, the
123
 Table 4 Rules for FRPN
1554

Severity

VL L M

123
Occurence

VL L M H VH VL L M H VH VL L M H VH

Detection VH N T T T S S S S MA MA MA MA MA MA C
H N N N T T T S S S MA S S MA MA C
M M N N N T N T T S S S S S S MA
L M M M N N N T T T S T S S S MA
VL TR M M N N M N N T T T T T S S
Severity

H VH
Occurence

VL L M H VH VL L M H VH

Detection VH MA MA MA C C MA MA C C C
H MA MA MA C C MA MA C C C
M S MA MA MA C MA MA MA C C
L S S MA MA C MA MA MA C C
VL S S S MA C MA MA MA MA C
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561
 Table 5 Setup observation and analysis form
No Activity tb (s) I/E C Potential failure Failure cause O Failure effect S Controls D FRPN Suggestions for ta (s)
time reduction

1 Bringing the tool 10 I E – – – – – – – – The tool car can be 0

car prepared before
the mold change
2 Removal of 180 I I No required Use of another VH There is a waste of M Failure remains VL 7.5 In the hydraulic 10
clamping equipment for operator (FC1 ) time because of undetected until clamping system,
equipment of the removing searching setup time is there is no need
mold severely to remove and
lengthened connecting the
shoes
3 Protective spraying 30 I E – – – – – – – – Mold protective 0
on mold spray can be
done after setup
4 Bringing of the 141 I E – – – – – – – – The crane can be 0
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561

crane on the moved to the

machine machine before
setup
5 Mold centering 98 I I No attached to The carelessness of L There is a waste of L Failure remains H 6.18 98
and connect mold mold required the operator time because of undetected until
to chain block component for (FC2 ) searching visual inspection
connecting to the is carried out
chain block
6 Taking of mold to 165 I E – – – – – – – – The removed mold 0
molding room can be taken to
with a chain the mold car and
block carry the molding
room after the
setup
7 Taking the mold 140 I E – – – – – – – – The mold to be 0
from the shelf clamped can be
and moving it to bring to the
the beside of the machine with the
machine mold car before
the setup
8 The setting of the 60 I I The mold program Clamping the mold VL Locating and M Failure remains H 5.57 60
mold program is not in the to the machine setting the undetected until
from the machine machine for the first time program extends visual inspection
(FC3 ) the processing is carried out
time
9 Fitting the flange 64 I I Not able to center The flange is not L Centering process H Failure remains H 6.14 64
of the mold to the bench plate suitable for the takes longer undetected until
of the mold mold (FC4 ) visual inspection
is carried out

123
1555
 Table 5 continued
1556

No Activity tb (s) I/E C Potential failure Failure cause O Failure effect S Controls D FRPN Suggestions for ta (s)
time reduction

123
10 Vise adjustment 370 I I Vise speed, Clamping different L Adjustment of the VH Failure remains L 7.78 Clamping the same 180
pressure setting molds to the process takes undetected until sized molds to
is not correct for same machine longer setup time is the same
mold (FC5 ) lengthened machines can
reduce this time
loss
11 Removing and 363 I I Not enough The incorrect key L During the H Failure remains L 7.69 In the hydraulic 10
reattaching the tightening of the being used (FC6 ) production undetected until clamping system,
shoes of the nuts of the shoes process, the plate visual inspection there is no need
female plate may fall and this is carried out to remove and
will increase the connecting the
setup time shoes
12 Vise automatic 206 I I The distance Clamping different L Setup time is H Failure remains M 7.34 Clamping the same 120
adjustment cannot be molds that extended undetected until sized molds to
(opening/closing adjusted produce different depending on the setup time is the same
distance) according to products to the length of the vise severely machines can
product same machine setting lengthened reduce this time
(FC7 ) loss
13 Closing force 57 I I The minimum The force is not L The mold can be L Failure remains H 6.18 57
adjustment closing force is adjusted opened back undetected until
not enough according to raw during injection visual inspection
material type, and the is carried out
product thickness processing time
and product is extended
weight (FC8 )
14 Removing the 10 I I The hook of the Failure in pulley VL The processing VL Failure remains M 3.9 10
chain block from chain block system of chain time is extended undetected until
the mold jamming block (FC9 ) as the mold setup time is
between the cannot be severely
machine columns separated from lengthened
the chain block
15 Fitting the male 115 I I Not enough A incorrect key L During the H Failure remains M 7.34 In the hydraulic 10
plate shoes tightening of the being used production undetected until clamping system,
nuts of the shoes (FC10 ) process, the plate setup time is there is no need
may fall and this severely to remove and
will increase the lengthened connecting the
setup time shoes
16 Connecting water 51 I I Different Lack of VL It causes faulty M Finding of cooling M 5.53 51
inlet and outlet connection and information and products and thus inlet ducts by
hoses faulty cooling carelessness prolongs setup holding air to the
(FC11 ) time cooling ducts
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561
 Table 5 continued
No Activity tb (s) I/E C Potential failure Failure cause O Failure effect S Controls D FRPN Suggestions for ta (s)
time reduction

17 Setting of mold 114 I I Wrong information Lack of L Incorrect values M Failure remains H 6.96 Raising the 60
information entering information and prolong the mold undetected until awareness of the
carelessness clamping process visual inspection operators on
(FC12 ) is carried out mold setting
18 Changing of the 200 I E – – – – – – – – The conveyors can 0
conveyor (two be changed
people) before setup
19 Cleaning of feed 195 I I Inadequate Use of different H If the throat is not M Failure remains L 7 Color changes can 120
throat cleaning of the colors (FC13 ) completely undetected until be preferred for
throat cleaned, quality setup time is close colors in
errors may occur lengthened transitions. Color
in the products to changes from
be produced, light to dark
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561

prolong the trial accelerate

production cleaning
period
20 Raw material 324 I I Use of unsuitable Operator’s M Trial production H Failure remains VL 7.71 Storage of raw 298
addition and raw materials carelessness, time is extended undetected until materials in a
adjustment irregular working setup time is clean and tidy
environment severely place
(FC14 ) lengthened
21 Opening of water 30 I I Leakage in water Water inlet and L It causes loss of L Control of mold M 6.22 30
valves connections outlet time by halves before
connections are correcting water trial production
not made connections
correctly (FC15 )
22 Trial production 226 I I Burns in products Burning of used L As the burns in the L Inspection is H 6.47
(16 times) material with products require carried out rarely
burnt material or re-production,
burning of a hot the trial
spot plastic production
during injection period is
(FC16 ) extended
Formation of In the material L Trial production L Inspection is H 6.47
bubbles in used in the gas time is extended carried out rarely
products phase can be
passed very
quickly (FC17 )

123
1557
 Table 5 continued
1558

No Activity tb (s) I/E C Potential failure Failure cause O Failure effect S Controls D FRPN Suggestions for ta (s)
time reduction

123
Formation of burr The pressure of the L Trial production L Inspection is M 6.5
material filling time is extended carried out
the mold cavity occasionally
exceeds the
pressure of the
mold (FC18 )
Formation of Insufficient L Trial production L Inspection is M 6.5
incomplete parts material pressure time is extended carried out
(FC19 ) occasionally
Discoloration in Changing the M Trial production M Inspection is M 6.57 Using a 120
the product product color of time is extended carried out mold-protective
the mold occasionally spray that does
protective spray not affect product
(FC20 ) properties
Adhesion of the High injection VL Trial production L Inspection is L 5.47
product to the speed and time is extended carried out
mold pressure (FC21 ) absolutely
23 Machine setting 170 I I Temperature, Lack of knowledge VL Trial production L M 5.38 170
(after each trial pressure, speed and experience time is extended
production) such as (FC22 )
parameters are
not given
correctly
24 Control of product 60 I E – – – – – – – – The operator can 0
by the operator control the
products of Part 1
after starting the
production of
Part 2
25 Control of product 900 I I Engaged of quality Checking another L Quality control VH Failure remains VL 8 Increasing the 750
by quality control control personnel product (FC23 ) period increases undetected until number of
department due to standby setup time is quality control
severely personnel
lengthened
 
tb (min) 71.32 ta (min) 36.97
tb , setup time before SMED; ta , setup time after SMED; I, internal; E, external; C, conversion
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561 1559

Table 6 Improvement of setup

times according to SMED and Activity Before (s) Improvement (s) Activity Before (s) Improvement (s)
fuzzy FMEA methods based on SMED Fuzzy FMEA SMED Fuzzy FMEA
activities
A1 10 10 – A14 10 – –
A2 180 – 170 A15 115 – 105
A3 30 30 – A16 51 – –
A4 141 141 – A17 114 – 54
A5 98 – – A18 200 200 –
A6 165 165 – A19 195 – 75
A7 140 140 – A20 324 – 26
A8 60 – – A21 30 – –
A9 64 – – A22 226 – 106
A10 370 – 190 A23 170 – –
A11 363 – 353 A24 60 60 –
A12 206 – 86 A25 900 – 150
A13 57 – – Total (min.) 71.32 12.43 21.92

Fig. 7 Activity times before and 1000

after integrated SMED and 900
fuzzy FMEA model 800
700
Times (sec.)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Before Model 10 180 30 141 98 165 140 60 64 370 363 206 57 10 115 51 114 200 195 324 30 226 170 60 900
Aer Model 0 10 0 0 98 0 0 60 64 180 10 120 57 10 10 51 60 0 120 298 30 120 170 0 750

Acvity

RPN value of FC4 and FC12 with different combinations both detection and occurrence factors on FRPN is ignored
is the same score, 75, and they have the same risk priority. because of their importance weights are equal.
In FRPN, because severity is considered more important
than other factors, FC4 is considered more important than
FC12 because the severity value is higher.

Improvements to prioritized failure cause in FRPN will
result in more setup time shortening than an improvement to
traditional RPN prioritized ones.
An accurate rule base generates ascending trends for
FRPN relative to risk factors; otherwise, rules must be revised
(Geramian et al. 2020). Since severity is considered more
important than other factors, three-dimensional plots are cre-
ated based on factor combinations such as severity detection
and FRPN or severity, occurrence, and FRPN (Fig. 8). In
Fig. 8, the ascending trends of FRPN relative to the inputs
indicate that a valid logic was considered in the rule that is
the higher the risk factors, the higher the FRPN. Especially,
increases in severity seem to lead to more increases in RPN
compared to other factors. The plot showing the effects of
Conclusion
The new integrated SMED–fuzzy FMEA method was devel-
oped to reduce setup time. Fuzzy FMEA is intended to using
order to identify existing or potential problems that will
lead to extent setup time and to eliminate them by apply-
ing necessary corrective actions. The method is applied to
internal activities to assess their risk of failures which can
cause extending the setup time. Fuzzy logic increases the effi-
ciency of the traditional FMEA method. The use of linguistic
terms in the fuzzy FMEA allows the experts to assign a more
meaningful value for the risk factors, and hence improve the
applicability of the method.
The contribution of using fuzzy FMEA method in SMED
applications can be summarized as follows:

123
1560 Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561

Table 7 Comparison of
traditional FMEA and fuzzy Traditional FMEA Fuzzy FMEA
FMEA Failure cause O S D RPN Rank Failure cause O S D Fuzzy RPN Rank

FC6 4 8 6 192 1 FC23 L VH VL 8 1

FC13 6 6 5 180 2 FC5 L VH L 7.78 2
FC5 4 8 5 160 3 FC14 M H VL 7.71 3
FC20 6 5 5 150 4 FC6 L H L 7.69 4
FC7 4 7 5 140 5 FC1 VH M VL 7.5 5
FC10 4 7 5 140 5 FC7 L H M 7.34 6
FC1 4 7 4 112 6 FC10 L H M 7.34 6
FC18 4 5 4 80 7 FC13 H M L 7 7
FC19 4 5 4 80 7 FC4 L H H 6.96 8
FC4 5 3 5 75 8 FC20 M M M 6.57 9
FC12 5 5 3 75 8 FC18 L L M 6.5 10
FC22 4 4 4 64 9 FC19 L L M 6.5 10
FC16 3 5 4 60 10 FC16 L L H 6.47 11
FC17 3 5 4 60 10 FC17 L L H 6.47 11
FC21 2 5 5 50 11 FC15 L L M 6.22 12
FC2 3 5 3 45 12 FC2 L L H 6.18 13
FC8 3 5 3 45 12 FC8 L L H 6.18 13
FC11 2 5 4 40 13 FC12 L M H 6.14 14
FC23 2 9 2 36 14 FC3 VL M H 5.57 15
FC15 3 5 2 30 15 FC11 VL M M 5.53 16
FC3 1 5 3 15 16 FC21 VL L L 5.47 17
FC14 1 7 2 14 17 FC22 VL L M 5.38 18
FC9 1 2 4 8 18 FC9 VL VL M 3.9 19

Fig. 8 The three-dimensional plots representing dependency between factors and FRPN

• It is determined the causes and effects causing extension
of time in setup activities,
• Since there are many setup activities to be improved, the
order of priority is determined by the FRPN values.
Developed integrated SMED and fuzzy FMEA model was
implemented to plastic injection mold setup in pen manufac-
turing. All twenty-five activities identified were defined as
internal activities. Setup time was 71.32 min. Seven internal
activities were converted to external activities. Corrective
activity suggestions were developed and implemented to
reduce setup time. The setup time was reduced by 12.4 min
with the SMED method and an additional 21.92 min with the
fuzzy FMEA method.

123
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing (2021) 32:1547–1561
Thus, 71.32 min, in the beginning, was reduced to
36.97 min and a 48% improvement in the setup time has
been achieved. With the reduction of setup time, an increase
in daily production and machine availability was observed.
In the mold consisting of 20 eyes, injection takes 15 s.
This means producing 20 products in 15 s. As a result, the
reduction in setup time increased production from 21,000 to
23,720. In addition, reducing internal setup activities reduced
idle time and machine utilization increased from 80 to 92%.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Assaf, R., & Haddad, T. (2014). Performance improvement using
the single minute exchange of die (SMED) methodology in an
aluminium profiles extrusion production system. In The 1st inter-
national conference on industrial, systems and manufacturing
engineering (ISME’14).
Cakmakci, M. (2009). Process improvement: performance analysis of
the setup time reduction-SMED in the automobile industry. Inter-
national Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 41(1),
168–179.
Chanamool, N., & Naenna, T. (2016). Fuzzy FMEA application to
improve decision-making process in an emergency department.
Applied Soft Computing, 43, 441–453.
Chang, K.-H., Chang, Y.-C., & Lai, P.-T. (2014). Applying the concept
of exponential approach to enhance the assessment capability of
FMEA. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 25, 1413–1427.
Chen, S., Fan, S., Xiong, J., & Zhang, W. (2017). The design of
JMP/SAP based six sigma management system and its application
in SMED. Procedia Engineering, 174, 416–424.
Coimbra, E. A. (2009). Total flow management: Achieving excellence
with Kaizen and lean supply chains. Zug: Kaizen Institute.
Ford Motor Company, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General
Motors Corporation. (2008). Potential failure mode and effects
analysis (FMEA) Reference Manual (3rd ed., pp. 57–59).
Geramian, A., Shahin, A., Minaei, B., & Antony, J. (2020). Enhanced
FMEA: An integrative approach of fuzzy logic-based FMEA and
collective process capability analysis. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 71(5), 800–812.
Karasu, M. K., Cakmakci, M., Cakiroglu, M., Ayva, E., & Demirel-
Ortabas, N. (2014). Improvement of changeover times via Taguchi
empowered SMED/case study on injection molding production.
Measurement, 47, 741–748.
Karasu, M. K., & Salum, L. (2018). FIS-SMED: A fuzzy inference
system application for plastic injection mold changeover. Inter-
national Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 94,
545–559.
Liu, H. C., Chen, Y. Z., You, J. X., & Li, H. (2016). Risk evaluation in
failure mode and effects analysis using fuzzy digraph and matrix
approach. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 27(4), 805–816.
Lozano, J., Saenz-Diez, J. C., Martinez, E., Jimenez, E., & Blanco,
J. (2019). Centerline-SMED integration for machine changeovers
improvement in food industry. Production Planning & Control,
30(9), 764–778.
1561
Ma, H., Chu, X., Xue, D., & Chen, D. (2019). Identification of to-
be-improved components for redesign of complex products and
systems based on fuzzy QFD and FMEA. Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing, 30, 623–639.
Maalouf, M. M., & Zaduminska, Z. (2019). A case study of VSM
and SMED in the food processing industry. Management & Pro-
duction Engineering Review, 10(2), 60–68.
Mamdani, E. H., & Assilian, S. (1975). An experiment in linguistic
synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. International Journal of
Man-Machine Studies, 7(1), 1–13.
McIntosh, R., Owen, G., Culley, S., & Mileham, T. (2007). Changeover
improvement: Reinterpreting Shingo’s “SMED” methodology.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(1), 98–111.
Moxham, C., & Greatbanks, R. (2001). Prerequisites for the implemen-
tation of the SMED methodology a study in a textile processing
environment. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Man-
agement, 18(4), 404–414.
Pannesi, R. T. (1995). Lead time competitiveness in make-to-
order manufacturing firm. International Journal of Production
Research, 3(6), 150–163.
Park, J., Park, C., & Ahn, S. (2018). Assessment of structural risks using
the fuzzy weighted Euclidean FMEA and block diagram analysis.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
99, 2071–2080.
Ribeiro, D., Braga, F., Sousa, R., & Carmo, Silva S. (2011). An appli-
cation of the SMED methodology in an electric power controls
company. Romanian Review Precision Mechanics, Optics and
Mechatronics., 40, 115–122.
Safari, H., Faraji, Z., & Majidian, S. (2016). Identifying and evaluat-
ing enterprise architecture risks using FMEA and fuzzy VIKOR.
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 27, 475–486.
Shingo, S. (1985). A revolution in manufacturing: The SMED system.
Productivity Press, USA translated by Dillon, A.P.
Singh, B. J., & Khanduja, D. (2012). Risk Management in complex
changeover through CFMEA: An empirical investigation. Inter-
national Journal ofIndustrial and Systems Engineering, 10(4),
470–494.
Stadnicka, D. (2015). Setup analysis: Combining SMED with other
tools. Management and Production Engineering Review., 6,
36–50.
Stamatis, D. H. (1995). Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from
theory to execution. Milwaukee: ASQ Quality Press.
Trovinger, S. C., & Bohn, R. E. (2005). Setup time reduction for elec-
tronics assembly: Combining simple (SMED) and IT-based meth-
ods. Production and Operations Management, 14(2), 205–217.
Ulutas, B. (2011). An application of SMED methodology. Interna-
tional Journal of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, 5(7),
1194–1197.
Van Broekhoven, E., & De Baets, B. (2006). Fast and accurate centre of
gravity defuzzification of fuzzy system outputs defined on trape-
zoidal fuzzy partitions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157(7), 904–918.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3),
338–353.
Zaman, M. B., Kobayashi, E., Wakabayashi, N., Khanfir, S., Pitana, T.,
& Maimun, A. (2014). Fuzzy FMEA model for risk evaluation of
ship collisions in the Malacca Strait: Based on AIS data. Journal
of Simulation, 8(1), 91–104.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
123
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.