Lean Transformation in a High Mix Low Volume (HMLV)

Electronics Assembly Environment

Presented to: Presented by:

Prof. APS Rathore Lavnimesh Agnihotri 2015UME1461
Hasandeep Singh 2015UME1679
 INDEX
• Introduction
• DMAIC Approach
(1) Define
(2) Measure : SIPOC
(3) Analyze : a) Fishbone diagram
b) VSM
c) Identified Areas for improvement
(4) Improve : a) Flow diagram of PLP
a) Facility layout change
b) Kanban based production
(5) Control
• Summary
• References
 Introduction

 Electronics manufacturing services (EMS) providers often build electronic assemblies and chassis based on
specific requirements of their customers, such as original equipment manufacturer .

 It is obvious in EMS to face inventory-related challenges because of frequent product revision changes
from the OEMs.

 It is thus critical for EMS providers to equip themselves with world-class manufacturing and assembly
operations.

 The 5 lean principles are :

(1) specifying Value from the customer perspective
(2) Identifying all steps in the Value Stream that adds value.
(3) Creating a smooth Flow of products by sequencing steps.
(4) Allow the customer to Pull value from next steps.
(5) Master perfection by iteratively involving in previous four principle.
 Important Definitions

• Kit = A “kit” consists of all different parts required to assemble a product.

• Detrash zone = A part of the facility area just before the mechanical assembly area where all
components of the kit are removed from their packaging boxes and made ready for assembly.

• lower- and upper-level assemblies: the upper-level assemblies are assembled using the lower-
level assemblies.
DMAIC Approach
Process Flow Diagram
 Define

1. The main objective of this research is to enhance operational activities and set up a lean manufacturing line
with an aim to decrease product cycle time and manufacturing floor space utilization.

2. It has been implemented on the pilot-product family, which requires most of the assembly and test operations
in the facility.

3. The product itself is referred to as the pilot-line product (PLP), and the MAIC phases have been applied.
 Measure
In the measure phase, SIPOC, time study and process flow/process time charts were
utilized to measure different parameters of the processes.

• Suppliers : Planning department and incoming quality department.

• Inputs: Inspected parts from incoming quality department and work order demand from planning
team.

• Processes: Release work orders, group together all the different part types that make a product
(forming a kit) and send the kit to kit-release department.

• Outputs : The physical kits and the online “kit- release” information.

• Customers : Kit- release department.

Analyze

Fish Bone Diagram

Value Stream Mapping
Identified Areas for Improvement

• Outputs from P1 and P2 remained in the kit-release department until demand for upper level product is
available.

• Increased workload and time at the quality control department when building sub-assemblies separately.

• Longer travel distance for WIP.

• Inventory accumulation in the kit-release and finished goods area.

• Excessive wait times before the mechanical assembly area, caused by push-system.

• Excessive wait times before the testing area, caused by push-system.

IMPROVE PHASE
Flow Diagram of PLP

Before

After
Facility Layout Change
 Kanban based production

• The Kanban system was introduced for addressing this excessive WIP by adopting a pull-based inventory
flow system.

• This research identified the test area as a bottle-neck in the pilot line (based on the new facility layout).

• The output capacity for each day was calculated as 24 for the PLP. Material for producing 24 units of the
product would be placed in the “Kanban” area as indicated in Figure6(b).

• This method reduced both the excessive inventory on the manufacturing floor and the cycle time of the
product.
 Control

Before After
 Summary
• The implementation of a Kanban-based pull system has significantly reduced the product cycle time by
40 percent with potential for further reducing the cycle time.

• The manufacturing floor space has also decreased due to the modified facility layout.

• Excessive movement of WIP has also been reduced, which would decrease the opportunities for
defects due to mechanical breakages during transport and handling.

•Reduced cycle time has created an opportunity for releasing work orders to the assembly floor just
before assembly operation (rather than waiting at detrash area).

•This would imply that inventory/material can be purchased and brought into the plant a little later than
is being presently done. This would reduce inventory carrying cost, which is another expectation of this
case study.
 References
Abdulmalek, F.A. and Rajgopal, J. (2007), “Analyzing the benefits of lean manufacturing and
value stream mapping via simulation: a process sector case study”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 107 No. 1, pp. 223-236.
Åhlström, P. (1998), “Sequences in the implementation of lean production”, European
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 327-334.
Al-Fandi, L., Lam, S.S. and Ramakrishnan, S. (2010), “A simulation approach to determine
inventory release times for a pull system”, in Johnson, A. and Miller, J. (Eds), Proceedings of
the Industrial Engineering Research Conference, Mexico.
Bohnen, F., Maschek, T. and Deuse, J. (2011), “Leveling of low volume and high mix production
based on a group technology approach”, CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Technology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 247-251.
Cournoyer, M.E., Renner, C.M. and Kowalczyk, C.L. (2011), “Lean six sigma tools for a glovebox
glove integrity program original research article”, Journal of Chemical Health and Safety,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 13-21.
Crute, V., Ward, Y., Brown, S. and Graves, A. (2003), “Implementing lean in aerospace –
challenging the assumptions and understanding the challenges”, Technovation, Vol. 23
No. 12, pp. 917-928.
Demeter, K. and Matyusz, Z. (2011), “The Impact of lean practices on inventory turnover”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 154-163.