The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-11508-9

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A new Lean tool for efficiency evaluation in SMED projects

Marcello Braglia1 · Francesco Di Paco1 · Leonardo Marrazzini1

Received: 10 January 2023 / Accepted: 28 April 2023 / Published online: 13 May 2023
© The Author(s) 2023

Abstract
The ability of companies to rapidly conduct a changeover from one product to another as part of a production process is a
fundamental step towards a more flexible production system that can deal with an increasingly dynamic and competitive
market. Single-Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) is the best-known lean tool that aims to reduce time consumption in the
changeover process. This paper presents a new lean tool called Set-up Saving Deployment (SSD), which improves set-up
efficiency by classifying, analyzing, and removing set-up losses within a changeover process, and which supports decision-
making for SMED implementation. SSD uses three matrices, constructed sequentially from the first (L-Matrix) to the last
(ECE-Matrix), in order to assess the possible time savings that can be achieved by eliminating losses and, in addition, to
forecast possible improvements resulting from implementing a SMED project. SSD also provides a new basket of tailored
set-up efficiency indicators that allow the analysis team to correctly assess set-up efficiency and compare the “as is” condition
with the subsequent “to be” condition from an operational perspective. The effectiveness of SSD in addressing set-up losses
and predicting time savings is illustrated using an industrial case study of a resin-doming machine. Thanks to its structured
step-by-step procedure, SSD significantly improves the efficiency of the changeover process.

Keywords Set-up · SMED · Changeover reduction · Lean manufacturing · Cost deployment

1 Introduction Single-Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) is a fundamental

In the current competitive global marketing, the key to
manufacturing business success is to build a leaner, more
flexible, and more responsive manufacturing environment.
Companies’ ability to quickly change from one product to
another is a key step towards this achievement. Changeo-
ver is one of the most time-consuming, no-value-added
activities in several manufacturing environments [1]. Lean
manufacturing aims at maximizing the value of the product
through the minimization of no-value-added activities and
dedicates particular attention to set-up time reduction to get
rapid changeover of dies and equipment [2].
* Francesco Di Paco
francesco.dipaco@phd.unipi.it
Marcello Braglia
m.braglia@ing.unipi.it
Leonardo Marrazzini
leonardo.marrazzini@unipi.it
1
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile e Industriale, Università
di Pisa, Largo Lucio Lazzarino 2, 56122 Pisa, Italy
tool for improving flexibility in production processes [3].
SMED is part of the lean tools, which aim to reduce no-
value-added activities in the production system. This quick
change, under 9 min or less (single-digit minute), can be
performed by the machine operator and preparer [4]. Briefly,
this tool represents the key to reducing production lot sizes,
even individual batch sizes (i.e., one-piece flow), thereby
improving material flows. It is noteworthy that SMED and
quick changeover programs have improved productivity by
up to 70% [5].
SMED projects have to be carried out on several work-
stations but needed resources are missing. Indeed, these
are performed following an “oil-spot approach”, initially
implementing on a pilot machine to gradually spread to all
other machines. It enables the SMED work team to manage
expensive and time-consuming operations. Hence, a prior-
itization of to-be-done actions is required. Initially, it is sim-
ple to identify which set-up of the production unit requires
attention and improvement, but later it may become more
challenging. As in all lean projects, up to a certain point, it
is relatively straightforward to obtain improvements, since
they are achieved by performing activities that are easy to

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

432 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446
observe and measure, even to implement. But at some point,
improvements are more complicated because they are no
longer evident, and this requires more precise and targeted
tools. Therefore, the rank of interventions to be performed
and the production units on which to perform them play a
critical role in making companies flexible in response to
rapid market changes. During a SMED project, it is also
useful to understand what economic benefits can be achieved
and how these impact on costs. Hence, “as-is” data are com-
pared with forecasted information resulting from SMED
implementation.
There are several tools and methods in the literature for
improving and supporting the SMED implementation. How-
ever, most focus on implementation in specific scenarios
and, except for a few studies in which authors have proposed
rules and guidelines for adapting/designing new machines,
tools, and equipment from a “design for changeover” per-
spective, little effort has been made to develop operational
tools to support the analysis of the production system from
a changeover perspective.
A structured approach is thus needed that can identify
and classify the no-value-added activities, i.e., losses, that
occur during set-up operations, and that can provide the right
intervention strategy for each of these.
The present paper introduces Set-up Saving Deployment
(SSD) which is a novel lean tool that aims to (i) improve
set-up efficiency by classifying, analyzing, and removing
set-up losses within a changeover process; (ii) quantify pos-
sible time savings from improvement actions; and (iii) sup-
port decision-making for SMED implementation. The SSD
adopts a logical and well-structured approach, derived from
Manufacturing Cost Deployment (MCD) [6]. The aim is to
achieve an optimal solution for a SMED project in accord-
ance with any budget constraints within the factory. In addi-
tion, the tool provides a new basket of tailored set-up effi-
ciency indicators that allow the analysis team to correctly
assess set-up efficiency and compare the “as is” condition
with the subsequent “to be” condition from an operational
perspective.
By simultaneously applying this logical approach to sev-
eral machines, fixtures, or equipment, it is possible to assess
which unit requires specific attention. If properly managed,
our new tool is ideal for planning interventions and moni-
toring the results of projects, while also highlighting their
benefits in economic terms. In this sense, it can be seen
as the compass of set-up improvement, as it highlights the
activities to be made more efficient with reference to their
impact on the time and thus the cost of a changeover.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Sec-
tion 2 overviews the literature on SMED and MCD. Sec-
tion 3 describes the SSD. Section 4 describes the imple-
mentation of SSD in a resin-doming machine, within an
important firm in Italy. Finally, Sections 5 and 6 are devoted
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
to discussion, conclusions, and possible future develop-
ments, respectively.
2 State of the art: SMED and MCD
The aim of SSD is to identify and classify the losses that
occur during set-up operations, quantify possible time sav-
ings resulting from improvements, and support decision-
making for SMED implementation. SSD adopts a logical
and well-structured approach, derived from MCD, to achieve
an optimal solution for a SMED project in accordance with
any budget constraints within the factory.
SMED and MCD are well-established tools in the scien-
tific literature and industrial practice. Although both SMED
and MCD have been combined with other tools to improve
effectiveness and efficiency of several processes, none of the
studies in the literature formalizes and specifies how they
can be integrated effectively.
2.1 Single‑Minute Exchange of Die
Many studies have addressed how to speed up changeover and
lead to an overall increase in productivity [1]. There are sev-
eral benefits or reducing set-up time, such as greater produc-
tivity [7]; less waste and rework, reduced inventory and lead
time, greater system flexibility [8]; greater machine efficiency,
in addition to the decrease in batch sizes [9]; and enhanced
expertise of personnel involved in production (operators,
mechanics, etc.) and maintenance optimization [10].
Implementation of SMED projects depends on the type
of production that is to be analyzed. Various types of case
studies involving the conventional SMED application have
been presented. For instance, Deros et al. [11] exploited
SMED to reduce the set-up time in an automotive battery
assembly line. Sahin and Kologlu [12] reduced the machine
set-up time on the turning line using the SMED in a bear-
ing manufacturing company. Sousa et al. [13] reduced the
changeover time by applying SMED in cork stopper pro-
duction. Monteiro et al. [14] used SMED to improve the
machining process in the metalworking industry. Vieira et al.
[15] exploited SMED in the cold profiling process, using a
population of five separate pieces of profiling equipment.
There is also an improved version of the SMED, i.e.,
when the conventional SMED is integrated with other tools,
approaches, concepts, or when the steps of the conventional
SMED are modified. For example, Patel et al. [16] applied
mistake proofing (also known as poka-yoke) to the concept
as a strategy to reduce the set-up time. Kumar and Bajaj
[17] highlighted the 5S concept for integration into the
conventional SMED steps to reduce the set-up time for the
mechanical press machine. Ibrahim et al. [18] also investi-
gated applying the 5S concept in the conventional SMED.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446
Stadnicka [19] combined the conventional SMED with other
tools including FMEA, survey method, five-whys analysis,
Pareto analysis, and statistical analysis. Karasu et al. [20]
integrated the conventional SMED with Taguchi methods
in an injection molding production. Almonani et al. [21]
proposed a novel approach, based again on the traditional
SMED, incorporating multiple criteria decision-making
techniques (MCDM) within the implementation phase
devoted to transform operations from internal to external.
Again, Braglia et al. [22] proposed an integrated approach
to enhance the conventional SMED. Recently, Pattaro Jun-
ior et al. [2] developed a framework based on a practical
application of strategies such as improvements by ECRS
(eliminate, combine, reduce, and simplify), Standardized
Work (SW), and Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE).
The impact of design on set-up operations represents
another important area of discussion in the SMED literature.
The availability of design principles or guidelines reduces
the necessity of a posteriori set-up reduction projects. Sev-
eral authors have already recognized the need for this a
priori approach, by proposing and integrating an existing
set of design rules [23]. Given that during the design phase
the set-up times can be influenced considerably, Reik et al.
[24] identified this approach as “Design For Changeover.”
Singh and Khanduja [25] completed the set of design rules
specifically for foundry dies and tooling. Cakmakci [26]
investigated the relationship between the SMED and design
“quality” of the equipment. Braglia et al. [27] introduced the
concept of “duplication strategy,” which helps practition-
ers to identify all the items that impact on the changeover
process.
The literature outlines several tools and methods for sup-
porting and improving the SMED implementation. How-
ever, little effort has been made to develop operational tools
to support the analysis of the production system from a
changeover perspective. This justifies the development of
novel operational tools that help practitioners to highlight
not-optimized set-up conditions and to provide the right
intervention strategy to remove inefficiencies.
2.2 Manufacturing Cost Deployment
The main purpose of MCD is to establish a systematic cost
reduction program [6]. Cost deployment is the fundamental
pillar of the World Class Manufacturing (WCM) model,
referred to as the “Cost Deployment” pillar [28]. In fact,
it cuts across all the other pillars of the WCM and acts
as the necessary causal link between the identification of
improvement actions in the targeted areas, and the evalua-
tion of the results achieved through the implementation of
specific pillars.
MCD uses an accurate and framed procedure, rigorously
supported by five matrices:
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
433
• A-Matrix classifies losses within a production system.
• B-Matrix highlights cause-and-effect relationships
among losses.
• C-Matrix converts losses into manufacturing costs.
• D-Matrix identifies potential improvements for losses.
• E-Matrix carries out a cost-benefits analysis to prioritize
improvements.
Many intangible benefits can be achieved by applying
MCD. First of all, a critical feature of MCD is that it can
be used to display all inefficiencies affecting a production
process in a structured and straightforward manner. Further-
more, MCD concentrates on areas where the major ineffi-
ciencies are located, thus offering opportunities for greater
efficiency and effectiveness in reducing and eliminating
them. Finally, MCD simplifies the selection of improve-
ments to be implemented to reduce/remove the root causes
of such losses.
Due to its several benefits and thanks to its structured
step-by-step procedure, MCD has been recently integrated
with other tools and adapted to production contexts different
from the automotive industry. Carmignani [29] developed
a structured approach to assess the Supply Scrap Manage-
ment Process (SSMP), and Abisourour et al. [30] proposed
an integration of Value Stream Mapping (VSM) with cost
deployment. Bertolini et al. [31] developed Project Time
Deployment to identify the critical losses affecting an Engi-
neer-To-Order (ETO) project, focusing on the business pro-
cesses where causal losses occur, and providing opportuni-
ties for greater efficiency and effectiveness by reducing or
even eliminating them. On the other hand, the MCD assess-
ment model was extended, with appropriate modifications,
to different industrial realities. Braglia et al. [32] studied a
modified MCD tool designed to cope with the inefficiencies
of ETO manual assembly tasks. Furthermore, MCD-based
efficiency tools have been proposed from an energy perspec-
tive in the process industry [33] and material consumption
for manufacturing processes [34].
3 The proposed tool: Set‑up Saving
Deployment
Set-up Saving Deployment (SSD) is a new lean tool whose
purpose is to classify and analyze losses that occur during
set-up operations and quantify possible time savings from
improvement actions and support decision-making for SMED
implementation. The implementation of this tool has significant
advantages when applied to a production system consisting of
several machines or production lines subject to frequent or long
set-up processes. In fact, it compares the different production
changeovers and identifies those that can lead to greater time
savings. For example, the pressing department in a job or flow
13
434 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446
shop production system may be a suitable candidate for SSD
implementation. The SSD adopts a logical and well-structured
approach to achieve an optimal solution for a SMED project in
accordance with any budget constraints within the factory. The
flowchart of the proposed tool is reported in Fig. 1.
3.1 Set‑up Saving Deployment losses classification
structure
In order to correctly identify the possible time savings that
may result from the implementation of SMED improve-
ments, we present a possible classification of set-up losses.
This classification detects the losses that arise during a
set-up and enables the analysis team to assess the tempo-
ral impact of each loss. Figure 2 shows the structure of the
losses, which highlights where a loss occurs, and the portion
of time lost. The actual set-up time is defined as the time
recorded before the implementation of improvements and
Fig. 1  The flowchart of the proposed SSD tool
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
provides the current condition. The ideal set-up time is the
condition that the analysis team expects to be achieved by
implementing a SMED project on the selected machine tool/
production line. The gap between the actual set-up time and
the ideal set-up time is the result of multiple losses. Figure 2
shows the three categories of losses that can be adopted:
• Process Losses (PLs). This category includes deviations
from set-up standard procedures or the absence of the
standard itself. This results in performing activities while
the machines are stopped (internal operations) but should
actually be performed while they are running (external
operations). PLs involve, for example, a lack of personnel
for set-up operations, missing equipment and parts, and
their non-optimized transport to production units (e.g.,
machine tools or production lines).
• Design Losses (DLs). This category includes losses due
to the current non-optimal design of machines and set-up
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446 435

Fig. 2  The SSD losses classifi-

cation structure

processes. These can be solved by a partial redesign to
convert activities from internal to external. Examples of
DLs are the lack of advanced preparation of operating
conditions, the lack of reference systems for part posi-
tioning, and the non-standardization of key functions.
• Internal activity Losses (ILs). This category involves losses
due to the non-optimal design of internal activities. These
losses are partially fixable by techniques that speed up and
simplify internal set-up operations. For instance, this category
includes a disorganized working area, the non-use of non-
standardized parts, and functional fast clamping system.
To better understand this classification, some examples
of losses are reported in Table 1. To reinforce standardiza-
tion, each loss is coded through a loss ID. The first two
letters refer to the loss category to which the loss belongs,
while the next three letters identify the specific loss. Fur-
thermore, this coding simplifies integration with manage-
ment software to provide real-time visibility of all assets to
determine which machines in the plant are not operating at
peak efficiency. In the following paragraphs, this coding is
omitted to increase the readability during the description of
the various steps of the tool.

Table 1  Set-up loss types Loss category Loss type Loss ID

Process Losses (PL) Lack of advanced preparation of personnel PL-LPP

Lack of advanced preparation of equipment PL-LPE
No functional checks on equipment PL-NCE
Non-optimized transport PL-NOT
Parameter setting errors PL-PSE
Design Losses (DL) Lack of advanced preparation of operating conditions DL-LOC
Non-standardized main functions DL-NSF
Lack of reference systems for part positioning DL-LSP
Lack of equipment duplication for externalized operations DL-LDP
Excessive time in changeover due to design DL-ECD
Internal activity Losses (IL) Disorganized working area IL-DWA
Non-use of functional fast clamping systems IL-NFC
Non-use of standard parts IL-NSP
Excessive adjustment time IL-EAT
Lack of wildcard operators for parallel activities IL-LPA

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

436 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446
3.2 The decomposition of a set‑up process
Once the set-up losses have been classified, it is fundamen-
tal to investigate at which phase the losses occur within a
set-up process. Set-up processes appear to vary depending
on the type of operation and the type of equipment being
used. Yet when these processes are analyzed from a dif-
ferent viewpoint, it can be seen that set-ups comprise a
sequence of phases. In traditional set-up changes, there are
five fundamental phases: preparation, extraction, mounting,
establishing control settings, and first-run capability [35]:
• Preparation (P) — This phase ensures that all parts and
tools are where they should be and that they are function-
ing properly. Also included in this step is the period after
processing when these items are removed and returned to
storage, machinery is cleaned, etc.
• Extraction (E) — This involves the removal of parts and
tools after the completion of processing.
• Mounting (M) — This involves the attachment of the
parts and tools for the next lot.
• Establishing control settings (C) — This step refers to
all the measurements and calibrations that must be made
to perform a production operation, such as centering,
dimensioning, and measuring temperature or pressure.
• First run capability (F) — This includes any adjustments
(re-calibrations, additional measurements) required after
the first trial pieces have been produced.
The above five phases are a first-level decomposition. We
do not divide the set-up phases up into elementary opera-
tions, because such a second-level decomposition structure
depends on product complexity and consequently changes
considerably from case to case.
3.3 The Set‑up Saving Deployment steps
SSD uses a precise and well-structured procedure that is
rigorously developed in three sequential steps, each of which
is supported by building a specific matrix:
• Step 1. Identification and evaluation of time savings
through the L-Matrix.
• Step 2. Correlation of time savings through TC-Matrix
and calculation of “as is” set-up efficiency.
• Step 3. Evaluation and prioritization of improvement
actions through ECE-Matrix and calculation of “to be”
set-up efficiency.
The following section describes in detail each step of the SSD.
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
3.3.1 Step 1
The first step of the SSD implies building the loss matrix
(L-Matrix) but before doing so, a pre-selection of the
machines that can be applied to the tool is required. As
already mentioned, the implementation of SMED follows
an oil-spot approach, since time and economic resources are
limited, a pre-selection of candidate production units (i.e.,
machine tools or production lines) is necessary. The analyst
team has to consider all the aspects that affect the identifi-
cation of which production units are suitable candidates for
implementing a SMED project, such as the number of set-
ups performed on the single production units and the criti-
cality in terms of relevance within the production system of
the units themselves (bottlenecks, special order realization,
brand production, etc.). Once the set of production units has
been identified, an L-Matrix can be constructed for each pro-
duction unit (Fig. 3). This matrix classifies losses highlight-
ing where the loss occurs during the set-up process. Each
single loss type is reported in the rows of the matrix, while
the set-up phases where losses occur are shown in the col-
umns. In order to better understand, losses are clustered in
accordance with our three categories (i.e., PL, DL, and IL).
Note that each element of the L-Matrix reports the
expected time-saving which is defined as “a prediction of
the time that can be gained by implementing improvement
action on the specific loss”. Losses are ranked by means of
colors (red, yellow, or green) based on their magnitude in
terms of time-saving value. Each class is bounded by time-
saving threshold values decided by the analysis team in order
to present the priorities of intervention. Specifically, red refers
to very big losses, yellow to big losses, and green to small
losses. Analysts can adopt any criteria to assign colors, for
instance by calculating the quartiles of the data distribution of
time-savings, and can also adopt a different number of colored
classes.
3.3.2 Step 2
The Time Correlation Matrix (TC-Matrix), shown in Fig. 4,
clarifies the correlation between time-savings identified in the
L-Matrix. Ignoring this correlation may prevent the analysis
team from properly assessing the set-up efficiency and thus,
selecting the right SMED project to implement first. In this
respect, a loss, at a specific set-up phase, is said to be direct if
its correction by a specific improvement action can save time by
eliminating/reducing both the loss itself and other losses, thus
called indirect losses, that occur at a specific phase of the set-up
process. For instance, the standardization of a die decreases the
mounting time (direct loss) and enables the implementation of
fast clamping systems that significantly reduce the time required
for positioning and locking (indirect loss).
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446 437

Fig. 3  The L-Matrix

The TC-matrix places the direct losses and their set-up
steps in the rows, while the columns report indirect losses
and the step where they occur. The non-empty cells pro-
vide the temporal evaluation of the correlation. In order to
estimate the set-up efficiency, two different contributions
are assessed. The direct saving time ( DST dh ,z ) is the time
saved by tackling the direct loss dh in the set-up phase
z. The indirect saving time ( IST dh ,z ) is the sum of all the
indirect savings ( Tdh ,z (ij , k) ) due to the implementation of
the action that eliminates/reduces the indirect losses ij , in
the set-up phase k, related to the direct loss dh occurring
in the set-up step z. The total saving time (TST dh ,z ) is thus
evaluated by adding the aforementioned contributions.
Analytically, it is expressed as follows:
J,K
∑ sents the current process efficiency. By removing all the
TST dh ,z = DST dh ,z + IST dh ,z = T(dh , z) + Tdh ,z (ij , k)
j,k=1
Using the L and TC matrices, it is possible to highlight
how and where losses occur and the correlation in terms of
time savings between direct and indirect losses.
At this point, we propose a new lean indicator, called
Set-Up Efficiency (SUE), which summarizes the information
reported in the TC-Matrix and provides the analysis team
with a means to quickly assess set-up efficiency and compare
different machines:
Ideal set − up time
Set − Up Efficiencyas−is = SUEas−is =
Actual set − up time (2)
As stated above, the gap between Ideal and Actual set-
up times is the result of many losses which progressively
increase the time associated with carrying out activities.
The subscript “as-is” underlies that the indicator repre-
(1)
losses reported in L and TC matrices, the efficiency of the
changeover can be maximized. However, in an industrial

Fig. 4  The TC-Matrix

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

438 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446
environment, there may be constraints that restrict the
number of improvement actions that can be implemented,
such as budget. SUE must thus be re-evaluated after select-
ing a subset of improvement actions that can be executed
through the following ECE-matrix. In order not to burden
the notation, the subscript as-is will hereafter be omitted.
The lower the SUE value is from the ideal value of 1,
the greater the need for attention for the specific set-up
process. If the team deals with equivalent machine tools
or production lines, SUE becomes a critical discriminant
factor.
By evaluating the SUE of several set-up processes, the
analysis team can select which SMED project should start
first. This is because Actual set-up time does not provide
any information on how the process is performed, and nei-
ther does the OEE [36]. In fact, OEE recognizes set-up
processes as losses that decrease the availability of the
production unit [37], but it does not provide any further
information about set-up performance. An Actual set-up
time of 10 min could be worse than an Actual set-up time
of 1-h set-up if the former takes ideally only 1 min to
execute and the latter needs an hour.
The SUE can also be obtained as the product of three
separate indicators, namely, Standard Set-up Efficiency,
Design Set-up Efficiency, and Internal Set-up Efficiency.
This is shown in the following Formula (3):
SUE = Standard Set − Up Ef f iciency × Design Set − Up Ef f iciency × Internal Set − Up Ef f iciency
where:
Standard set − up time
Standard Set − Up Ef f iciency =
Actual set − up time
(4)
Target set − up time
Design Set − Up Ef f iciency =
Standard set − up time
(5)
Ideal set − up time
Internal Set − Up Ef f iciency = (6)
Target set − up time
Formula 3 helps to interpret t the causes behind set-up
inefficiency. While SUE is a global assessment of cur-
rent performance concerning global efficiency, each of the
three components of SUE pinpoints specific aspects of the
process that can be targeted for improvement:
• Standard Set-Up Efficiency (Formula 4) considers all
losses related to deviations from standard procedures,
or the absence of the standard itself. A low value of this
indicator stresses that most of the elementary operations
are performed with the machine stopped, although they
can be operated with the unit running.
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
• Design Set-Up Efficiency (Formula 5) evaluates the time
lost due to elementary operations that are performed
externally but could be performed internally by redesign-
ing the process or machine. A poor value of this indicator
pinpoints that equipment, such as the height of a die,
and the functional conditions necessary for operating the
equipment itself, such as the temperature of a die, are not
properly standardized.
• Internal Set-Up Efficiency (Formula 6) considers time
losses caused by internal operations that could be
improved by better management and machine redesign.
A low value of this indicator highlights the need to reor-
ganize the internal operations and alter the positioning
and locking systems.
The reading of these indicators is simple: the farther the
KPI value deviates from the ideal value of 1, the greater the
need for attention within the cluster defined by the indicator.
For instance, a low Standard Set-up Efficiency value, com-
pared with other indicators, suggests a more careful alloca-
tion of internal and external operations.
With this perspective, the SSD provides an evaluation of
the current set-up efficiency that enables the analysis team
to correctly select which SMED projects to start first, and
furthermore, it pinpoints which aspects need improving.
(3)
3.3.3 Step 3
By using L-Matrix and TC-Matrix and the set of lean set-up
indicators, the analysts can identify which SMED project
may generate more time savings than those currently being
investigated. SSD is able to support the decision-making
process for the SMED implementation by selecting a series
of appropriate corrective actions to cope with each loss pre-
viously detected. It can eliminate losses through the most
effective measures, reducing changeover times and simplify-
ing the tasks to be carried out.
We propose two kinds of improvements: organizational-
procedural and engineering. Organizational-procedural
improvements entail management interventions such as the
implementation of lean management tools, while engineer-
ing entails machine/production line redesign to convert
many external operations into internal and thus improve the
internal operations themselves. The set of techniques pre-
sented here can be modified depending on the case being
analyzed.
The ECE-Matrix (Fig. 5) places losses and the set-up
phases where they occur in the rows, while the improvements
are reported in the columns. Furthermore, the ECE-Matrix
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446
provides an index for prioritizing the implementation of cor-
rective actions. This index, named ECE (Efficacy, Cost, and
Ease), addresses the time impact saving capability (i.e., Effi-
cacy), the cost to sustain to roll out the intervention (i.e., Cost),
and the ease of implementation in terms of time and needed
resources (i.e., Ease). Given a direct loss, each possible tech-
nique is evaluated according to these three criteria by assigning
a score from 1 to 5. The higher the score given with respect to a
factor, the greater the capacity to satisfy the property associated
with that factor. The product of the three scores, i.e., the ECE,
represents a qualitative estimate, ranging from 1 to 125, of the
value of the technique to tackle that direct loss:
ECEdh ,z,tj = Ef dh ,z,tj × Cdh ,z,tj × Eadh ,z,tj (7)
where:
• Efficacy factor ( Ef d ,z,t ) expresses the mitigation power
h j
of improvement technique tj on the direct loss dh in the
set-up step z. Ef = 1 means low impact, while Ef = 5
means complete time saving.
• Cost factor (Cd ,z,t ) expresses the economic weight of
h j
cost that should be sustained to adopt the improvement
technique tj on the direct loss dh in the set-up step z. C = 1
means high cost, while C = 5 means low cost.
• Ease factor ( Ead ,z,t ) expresses the simplicity, in terms of
h j
resources and time, of the improvement technique tj that
are needed to reduce/eliminate the direct loss dh in the
Fig. 5  The ECE-Matrix
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
439
set-up step z. Ea = 1 means low-level ease, while Ea = 5
means high-level ease.
After determining the highest ECE index, different
implementation strategies can be identified. For example,
selected techniques can be implemented strictly follow-
ing the order of priority obtained with the ECE. A com-
pany could decide to implement, whenever possible, only
one improvement in different phases, without rigorously
following the priority order. Alternatively, the analysis
team could adopt different criteria, such as a cost–benefit
analysis on the subset of improvements selected accord-
ing to the previous ECE ranking. The policy that a com-
pany decides to adopt will promote the implementation
process of one strategy over another to obtain the most
benefits.
We believe that the simplest and most operational way to
use SSD is to rank the improvement techniques according to
their index value, also considering the chain of direct–indi-
rect losses previously detected in the TC-matrix, and then
implement the first n improvement actions (where n is a
number set a priori by the analysis team considering the
budget). Once the n improvement actions to be implemented
have been selected, it is possible to assess the “to be” set-up
efficiency (SUEto−be ), which represents the expected effi-
ciency achievable with the existing constraints of the SMED
project. Using the same criterion, the other intermediate
indicators can be recalculated.
13
440 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446
4 Case study
We now report how our SSD was applied to an Italian com-
pany that produces self-adhesive resin labels. The company
was chosen for two main reasons (Fig. 6). Firstly, we had
already collaborated with the managers, which guaranteed
a direct face-to-face relationship with them throughout the
study and gave us full access to data on the set-up operations.
Secondly, given that the company operates in a very competi-
tive scenario, and considering that changeover is one of the
most time-consuming activities, it needs to dedicate particular
attention to set-up time reduction in order to reduce the lead
time and to increase the overall quality of its products.
The company was thus a perfect environment for test-
ing SSD. The company felt that SSD would be a useful
tool to classify and analyze losses that occur during set-up
operations, quantify possible time savings from improve-
ment actions, and support decision-making for SMED
implementation.
As this was the first implementation of the tool, it was
decided to focus on a consolidated machine. A resin-doming
machine designed for the production of self-adhesive resin
labels for the fashion and automotive sectors was selected.
The SSD was carried out by a team composed of engineer-
ing, maintenance, production, and academic personnel. As
part of this task, the company collected and classified the
information required for the implementation of the SSD fol-
lowing the steps presented in this paper.
4.1 Description of the resin‑doming machine
In order to better describe the operational aspects of the
SSD, the resin-doming machine and the corresponding
changeover process were thoroughly analyzed. Doming
Fig. 6  The resin-doming machine
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
consists in applying a layer of transparent two-component
polyurethane resin to a two-dimensional label to create a
three-dimensional effect that makes the product much more
attractive, while at the same time, the UV-resistant film pro-
vides additional protection. This process is performed by an
automated line made of several components including:
• Manual station for loading and unloading the sheets
• Metering pump
• Mixer
• Ovens
• Control system
• Linear robot
• Vacuum pump
• Motion system
• Frame with needles to pour the resin onto the labels
As the line is highly automated, the operator has to load
the sheets into the manual station and remove them once the
process is complete. The resin is poured, row by row, onto
the labels through several needles mounted on a metal bar
positioned on a rectangular frame. The frame is moved by a
linear robot by means of linear guides.
4.2 Description of the set‑up process
The machine undergoes two set-ups. We filmed all the
details of the changeover and noted that it took the operator
an average of 17 min to perform the set-up process. The set-
up process is as follows:
• Washing. Washing is an automated process involving
washing mixers, tubes, and needles using a methylene
chloride solution. During this nothing can be done on
the machine. It must be performed within 5 min of stop-
ping the machine, as the resin immediately begins to cure
inside the mixer, tubes, and needles. This is also a prob-
lem during breakdowns and micro stops.
• Tool removal. This involves disconnecting the tubes from
the mixer head by unscrewing them with pliers. If neces-
sary, the operator must replace the needles by removing
them from the metal bar.
• Tool substitution. This involves fitting the new mixing
head by first screwing it in manually and then using a
spanner. Next, the operator has to select the correct num-
ber of needles and tubes, check the length of the tubes to
ensure an even flow of resin, and insert the needles into
the new bar, avoiding tube entanglement.
• Program loading. If there is one, the work program is
loaded from the machine or must be written from scratch.
In any case, the operator has to set the “zero point” of
the linear robot, as differences of a few millimeters can
occur due to centering errors during the previous print.
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446 441

Table 2  Set-up time structure considered in the application of the SSD tool were classified
Set-up operation Phase Average
by the analysis team according to three different levels of criti-
time (s) cality (Fig. 7). Red cells depict time savings of > 180 s, yellow
between 90 and 180 s, and green cells represent minimal time
Washing Preparation 200
savings of < 90 s. This first screening criterion regards the
Tool removal Extraction 80
amount of time saved as qualitatively estimated by the team.
Tool substitution Mounting 160
The TC-Matrix (Fig. 8) was constructed highlighting
Program loading Establish control setting 140
the relationship between losses whose resolution in a spe-
Test cycle First run capability 280
cific set-up phase (direct losses) enables the resolution of
Pallet preparation Preparation 120
other losses in the same set-up phase or outside it (indi-
rect losses). By managing direct losses with tailored cor-
rective actions, other improvements can be implemented
The operator positions the needles on the first dot to be that eliminate indirect losses and increase time savings.
resined according to the last set of coordinates, and then In addition, the TC-Matrix shows the estimated time that
repositions the needles on the label dots where resining the analyst team expected to save by removing losses. In
is to begin. Hence, a test cycle is required. particular, the team identified a direct–indirect loss chain
• Test cycle. This involves placing a sheet of silicone paper related to the outsourcing of tool removal and replace-
on the line and starting the machine, which runs a full ment that can represent a major time-saving opportunity.
cycle. The operator checks the position and height of the It is then possible to summarize all the information of the
needles and the correct amount of resin on the label. TC-Matrix by evaluating the SUEas−is and other intermediate
• Pallet preparation. This last task entails preparing the indicators.
pallets for the forthcoming job.
1070 − 880
SUEas−is = = 18% (8)
1070
By monitoring and analyzing OEE, we observed that the
greatest cause of inefficiency was due to the set-up process,
which accounted for between 30 and 40% of the total losses. 950
Standard Set − Up Efficiencyas−is = = 89% (9)
Table 2 shows the set-up operation, the phases into which 1070
the process was broken down, and the average time required
by each activity. 250
Design Set − Up Efficiencyas−is = = 26% (10)
950
4.3 Application of the SSD tool to the doming
machine Internal Set − Up Efficiencyas−is =
190
= 76% (11)
250
The result of the SSD application is presented below, with
a detailed description of each matrix. The set-up losses

Fig. 7  Case study L-Matrix

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

442 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446

Fig. 8  Case study TC-Matrix

As the indicators show, the set-up process is affected by a and Ease according to the expected time required to implement
non-set-up-oriented design, justified by a low value of Design corrective actions (Table 6).
Set-Up Efficiency which makes it difficult to perform opera- The team of experts decided to select six improvement tech-
tions while the machine is running and, as a result, significantly niques to be implemented, considering improvements with an
increases the time required for the entire changeover process. ECE value of at least 20 and in accordance with the chain of
At this point, the presence of a non-empty cell in a TC-Matrix direct–indirect losses previously identified as being valid. The
element implies the need to implement corrective actions to optical detection system was discarded due to its high cost, low
achieve the estimated time savings reported in the cell. The experts efficacy, and ease of implementation. Once the improvement
in the analysis team are responsible for identifying and classifying techniques had been selected, the team evaluated the SUEto−be
a series of corrective actions to manage specific losses (Table 3). and other intermediate indicators.
The set-up losses are shown in the rows of the ECE-Matrix
1070 − 880 190
(Fig. 9), while the improvement actions with the corresponding SUEto−be = = = 90% (12)
1070 − 860 210
ECE value are in the columns. Based on the ECE score, improve-
ment actions can then be selected.
Tables 4, 5, and 6 summarize the technical data used to 210
Standard Set − Up Efficiencyto−be = = 100% (13)
assign the three ECE scores and thus assess the ECE value 210
for each element in the ECE-Matrix. Specifically, Efficacy is
assessed as a function of the Actual set-up time (Table 4), Cost 190
Design Set − Up Efficiencyto−be = = 90% (14)
according to the costs required for implementation (Table 5), 210

Table 3  List of the improvement techniques

Improvement technique Details Identification

Set-up cycle redesign Preparation of sheet pallets while the machine is running IT1
Standardized work Adoption of a checklist for process parameter IT2
Equipment duplication Creating an additional washing station to perform the washing phase while the machine is running IT3
Equipment redesign New support with holes for reference pins that are fixed to the frame and fast locking with quick IT4
release tension rod, new spray head with a quick bayonet lock
Equipment duplication Creating an additional tooling bench for externalized tooling placement IT5
Reference system introduction Creating a reference system of the numerical controller with respect to the pallet through a leaf of IT6
graph paper
Standardized main function Introduction of an optic detection system for “zero point” automatic detection IT7

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446 443

Fig. 9  Case study ECE-Matrix

Internal Set − Up Efficiencyto−be =

190
= 100% (15)
5 Discussion
190
As emerged from the industrial application, SSD has
It can be seen that the values of the indicators increased
achieved good results with a significant reduction in change-
significantly. The Design Set-Up Efficiency rose from 26
over times. Compared to traditional SMED implementation,
to 90%, while the Standard and Internal Set-Up Efficiency
SSD has several advantages. For starters, SSD is a step-
reached its maximum attainable value. In fact, implementing
by-step procedure that aims to harness the full potential of
the selected improvement techniques would eliminate all the
SMED since its implementation has proven to be challeng-
process and internal losses and significantly reduce design
ing. L-Matrix and TC-Matrix identify which and where set-
losses. This resulted in an expected SUEto−be of 90% with
up losses occur and provide an assessment of achievable
an enhancement of 72%. Overall, the total changeover time
time savings.
dropped from 1070 to 210 s. In addition, operators reported
In addition, by simultaneously applying this logical
that the improvements implemented resulted in a significant
approach to several machines, fixtures, or equipment, it is
simplification and standardization of activities.

Table 4  Ratings for the Efficacy Efficacy Score

value
The expected time-saving is < 0.05 Actual set-up time 1
The expected time-saving is ≥ 0.05 Actual set-up time and < 0.1 Actual set-up time 2
The expected time-saving is ≥ 0.1 Actual set-up time and < 0.15 Actual set-up time 3
The expected time-saving is ≥ 0.15 Actual set-up time and < 0.2 Actual set-up time 4
The expected time-saving is ≥ 0.2 Actual set-up time 5

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

444 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446

Table 5  Ratings for the Cost value

Cost Score

The economic weight of costs that should be sustained is ≥ 0.05 ∙ cost of the doming machine 1
The economic weight of costs that should be sustained is ≥ 0.03 ∙ cost of the doming machine and < 0.04 ∙ cost of the doming machine 2
The economic weight of costs that should be sustained is ≥ 0.02 ∙ cost of the doming machine and < 0.03 ∙ cost of the doming machine 3
The economic weight of costs that should be sustained is ≥ 0.01 ∙ cost of the doming machine and < 0.02 ∙ cost of the doming machine 4
The economic weight of costs that should be sustained is < 0.01 ∙ cost of the doming machine 5

possible to assess which unit requires specific attention.
Indeed, SSD can pass the critical phase of identification of
the pilot testing area for SMED projects. Specifically, the
set of lean indicators allows the analysis team to determine
whether a change-over process is executed efficiently and
thus which SMED projects should be developed first. By
comparing the different SUE values, it is possible to evaluate
which unit requires special attention, and moreover, by com-
paring the “as-is” values with the “to-be” values it is pos-
sible to quantify the expected gains. Another important dif-
ference between traditional SMED and SSD is that the first
investigates the correlations between savings to establish
the implementation sequence of the most effective improve-
ments. Finally, SSD constitutes a more detailed analysis as it
considers critical factors beyond effectiveness, such as ease
of implementation and cost.
To reach its full potential, the tool must be tested in dif-
ferent production contexts. This could allow us to identify
the possible limitations that the previous application did not
provide.
6 Conclusions
This paper presents a new lean tool called Set-up Saving
Deployment, which improves set-up efficiency by classify-
ing, analyzing, and removing set-up losses within a changeo-
ver process, and supports decision-making for SMED imple-
mentation. By simultaneously applying this logical approach
to several machines, fixtures, or equipment, it is possible to
assess which unit requires specific attention.
To systematically support the application of this new tool,
three novel matrices were proposed. In particular, (i) the
L-Matrix identifies the losses related to a specific set-up
phase and provides an initial qualitative screening, (ii) the
TC-Matrix investigates the possible relationship between
the losses resolutions and quantitatively estimates the time
savings achievable by removing the losses, and (iii) the
ECE-Matrix clarifies which corrective actions are most
suitable for each loss in relation to many aspects such as
the time impact of the improvements on the specific loss
(Efficiency), the costs that should be incurred to implement
the action (Cost), and the feasibility required to implement
the improvement activities (Ease).
The validity of the tool was confirmed during a case study
of an industrial application. The site production manager
reported that SSD was very effective in standardizing set-
up activities, which were usually performed without a sys-
tematic approach. The results obtained demonstrate that the
SSD achieves an optimal solution for a SMED project in
accordance with any budget constraints within the factory.
Using this tool, the team of analysts identified losses occur-
ring during the set-up process, classified them, and imple-
mented tailor-made corrective actions that improved set-up
efficiency by 72%. This resulted in the total changeover time
dropping from 1070 to 210 s.
As industrial digitization continues to grow, in accord-
ance with the principles of Industry 4.0, we believe that SSD
can be integrated into business software and thus become
easier to implement and maintain. Indeed, its well-structured
step-by-step procedure ensures ease of electronic implemen-
tation through interconnected worksheets. In addition, this
integration could provide real-time visibility of all assets to
determine which machines in the plant are not operating at
peak efficiency.
Future activity can concern the develop tools and meth-
ods that can accurately quantify implementation costs while
maintaining an operational view of set-up optimization. One

Table 6  Ratings for the Ease Ease Score

value
The expected value to complete the action is ≥ 1 month 1
The expected value to complete the action is ≥ 2 weeks and < 1 month 2
The expected value to complete the action is ≥ 1 week and < 2 weeks 3
The expected value to complete the action is ≥ 1 day and < 1 week 4
The expected value to complete the action is < 1 day 5

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446
way to do this would be to introduce a cost/benefit analy-
sis to assess the appropriateness of a decision by weighing
its potential costs and benefits. This will entail develop-
ing structured cost metrics to increase the accuracy of the
analysis by modifying the construction of the ECE-Matrix.
In addition, the implementation of corrective actions
could consider not only economic aspects but also sustain-
able aspects such as work ergonomics and operator stress.
Finally, because of the qualitative nature of the scores used
to evaluate the ECE, a future analysis using fuzzy logic can
be proposed to make the analysis more consistent.
Author contribution Braglia Marcello, Di Paco Francesco, Marrazzini
Leonardo: conceptualization. Braglia Marcello, Di Paco Francesco,
Leonardo Marrazzini: methodology. Di Paco Francesco, Leonardo
Marrazzini: data curation, writing—original draft preparation. Bra-
glia Marcello: supervision. Di Paco Francesco, Marrazzini Leonardo:
validation. Di Paco Francesco, Marrazzini Leonardo: writing—review-
ing and editing.
Funding Open access funding provided by Università di Pisa within
the CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Data availability Not applicable.
Code availability Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics approval Not applicable.
Consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication The journal has the author’s permission to
publish our research paper.
Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
References
1. da Silva IB, GodinhoFilho M (2019) Single-minute exchange
of die (SMED): a state-of-the-art literature review. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 102:4289–4307. https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 1 007/​
s00170-​019-​03484-w
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
445
2. Pattaro Junior RG, Inácio RH, da Silva IB, Hassui A, Barbosa
GV (2022) A novel framework for single-minute exchange of
die (SMED) assisted by lean tools. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
119:6469–6487. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00170-​021-​08534-w
3. Pacheco DAJ, Heidrich GDG (2021) Revitalising the setup reduc-
tion activities in operations management. Prod Plan Control.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09537​287.​2021.​19648​81
4. Moreira AC, Pais GCS (2011) Single minute exchange of die. A
case study implementation. J Technol Manag Innov 6(1):129–146.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​4067/​S0718-​27242​01100​01000​11
5. Das B, Venkatadri U, Pandey P (2014) Applying lean manufactur-
ing system to improving productivity of airconditioning coil man-
ufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71(1–4):307–323. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00170-​013-​5407-x
6. Yamashina H, Kubo T (2002) Manufacturing cost deployment.
Int J Prod Res 40(16):4077–4091. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00207​
54021​01571​78
7. Rosa C, Silva FJG, Pinto Ferreira L, Campilho R (2017) SMED
methodology: the reduction of setup times for steel wire-rope
assembly lines in the automotive industry. Procedia Manuf
13:1034–1042. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​promfg.​2017.​09.​110
8. Allahverdi A, Soroush HM (2008) The significance of reducing
setup times/setup costs. Eur J Oper Res 187(3):978–984. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ejor.​2006.​09.​010
9. Mackelprang AW, Nair A (2010) Relationship between just-in-
time manufacturing practices and performance: a meta-analytic
investigation. J Oper Manag 28(4):283–302. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jom.​2009.​10.​002
10. Bin Che Ani MN, Bin Shafei MSS (2014) The effectiveness of
the single minute exchange of die (SMED) technique for the pro-
ductivity improvement. Appl Mech Mater 465–466:1144–1148.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​4028/​www.​scien​tific.​net/​AMM.​465-​466.​1144
11. Deros BM, Mohammad D, Idris MHM, Rahman MNA, Ghani JA,
Ismail AR (2011) Setup time reduction in an automobile battery
assembly line. Int J Syst Appl Eng Dev 5(5):618–625
12. Sahin R, Kologlu A (2021) A case study on reducing setup time
using SMED on a turning line. J Sci 35:60–71. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
35378/​gujs.​735969
13. Sousa E, Silva FJG, Ferreira LP, Pereira MT, Gouveia R, Silva
RP (2018) Applying SMED methodology in cork stoppers pro-
duction. Procedia Manuf 17:611–622. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
promfg.​2018.​10.​103
14. Monteiro C, Ferreira LP, Fernandes LP, Sá JC, Ribeiro MT, Silva
FJG (2019) Improving the machining process of the metalworking
industry using the lean tool SMED. Procedia Manuf 41:555–562.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​promfg.​2019.​09.​043
15. Vieira T, Sá JC, Lopes MP, Santos G, Félix MJ, Ferreira LP, Silva
FJG, Pereira MT (2019) Optimization of the cold profiling process
through SMED. Procedia Manuf 38:892–899. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​promfg.​2020.​01.​171
16. Patel S, Shaw P, Dale B (2001) Set-up time reduction and mistake
proofing methods. A study of application in a small. Bus Process
Manag J 7:65–75. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​14637​15011​03839​53
17. Kumar V, Bajaj A (2015) The implementation of single minute
exchange of die with 5’s in machining processes for reduction of
setup time. Int J Recent Technol Mech Electr Eng 2:32–39
18. Ibrahim MA, Mohamad E, Arzmi MH, Rahman MAA, Saptari A,
Shibghatullah AS, Sulaiman MA, Ali MAM (2015) Enhancing
efficiency of die exchange process through single minute exchang-
ing die at a textile manufacturing company in Malaysia. J Appl
Sci 15(3):456–464. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3923/​jas.​2015.​456.​464
19. Stadnicka D (2015) Setup analysis: combining SMED with other
tools. Manag Prod Eng Rev 6(1):36–50. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1515/​
mper-​2015-​0006
20. Karasu MK, Cakmakci M, Cakiroglu MB, Ayva E (2014)
Improvement of changeover times via Taguchi empowered
13
446 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 127:431–446
SMED/case study on injection molding production. J Meas
47:741–748. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​measu​rement.​2013.​09.​035
21. Almonani MA, Aladeemy M, Abdelhadi A, Mumani A (2013) A
proposed approach for setup time reduction through integrating
conventional SMED method with multiple criteria decision mak-
ing techniques. Comput Ind Eng 66:461–469. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​cie.​2013.​07.​011
22. Braglia M, Frosolini M, Gallo M (2017) SMED enhanced 5-whys
analysis to improve set-up reduction programs: the SWAN
approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 90(5–8):1845–1855. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00170-​016-​9477-4
23. Van Goubergen D, Van Landeghem H (2002) Rules for integrating
fast changeover capabilities into new equipment design. Robot
Comput-Integr Manuf 18(3–4):205–214. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
S0736-​5845(02)​00011-X
24 Reik MP, McIntosh RI, Culley SJ, Mileham AR, Owen GW
(2006) A formal design for changeover methodology. Part 1:
theory and background. J Eng Manuf Proc Inst Mech Eng B
220(8):1225–1235. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1243/​09544​054JE​M527
25. Singh BJ, Khanduja D (2011) Design for set-ups: a step towards
quick changeovers in foundries. Int J Sustain Des 1(4):402–422.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1504/​IJSDES.​2011.​043293
26. Cakmakci M (2009) Process improvement: performance analysis
of the setup time reduction-SMED in the automobile industry. Int
J Adv Manuf Technol 41(1–2):168–179. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00170-​008-​1434-4
27. Braglia M, Frosolini M, Gallo M (2016) Enhancing SMED:
changeover out of machine evaluation technique to implement
the duplication strategy. Prod Plan Control 27:328–342. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09537​287.​2015.​11263​70
28 Chiarini A, Vagnoni E (2015) World-class manufacturing by fiat.
Comparison with Toyota production system from a strategic man-
agement, management accounting, operations management and
performance measurement dimension. Int J Prod Res 53(2):590–
606. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00207​543.​2014.​958596
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
29. Carmignani G (2017) Scrap value stream mapping (S-VSM): a
new approach to improve the supply scrap management process.
Int J Prod Res 55(12):3559–3576. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00207​
543.​2017.​13085​74
30. Abisourour J, Hachkar M, Mounir B, Farchi A (2019) Method-
ology for integrated management system improvement: com-
bining costs deployment and value stream mapping. Int J Prod
Res 58(12):3667–3685. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00207​543.​2019.​
16334​82
31. Bertolini M, Braglia M, Marrazzini L, Neroni M (2022) Project
time deployment: a new lean tool for losses analysis in engineer-to-
order production environments. Int J Prod Res 60(10):3129–3146.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00207​543.​2021.​19124​28
32. Braglia M, Frosolini M, Gallo M, Marrazzini (2019) Lean manu-
facturing tool in engineering-to-order environment: project cost
deployment. Int J Prod Res 57(6):1825–1839. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​00207​543.​2018.​15089​05
33. Braglia M, Castellano D, Gabbrielli R, Marrazzini L (2020)
Energy cost deployment (ECD): a novel lean approach to tackle
energy losses. J Clean Prod 246, Article No° 119056. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​119056.
34. Braglia M, Gallo M, Marrazzini L (2021) A lean approach to
address material losses: materials cost deployment (MaCD). Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 113(1–2):565–584. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00170-​021-​06632-3
35. Shingo S (1985) A revolution in manufacturing: the SMED sys-
tem. Routledge, New York
36. Stamatis DH (2010) The OEE primer: understanding overall equipment
effectiveness, reliability, and maintainability. CRC Press, New York
37. Nakajima S (1988) An introduction to TPM. Productivity Press,
Portland
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com