University of Windsor
INDE 8900: Lean Manufacturing and Process Improvement
Assignment -1
Submitted To
Dr. Asif Khan
Professor, Mechanical, Automotive & Materials Engineering
University of Windsor
Submitted By
Md Sadman Sakib
Student ID: 110060937
Fall-2021
Date of Submission: 21 October 2021
Summary:
Furniture manufacturing companies are one of the SMEs. There is less competition among national
furniture companies in Brazil, however internationally it’s much more competitive because of
Chinese companies. Several Factors are identified for this complex situation. lack of productivity
growth, lack of innovative performance, backdated technology, low qualification, zero waste
reduction tendency of many SMEs, are some of the remarkable criteria. Without increasing
productivity, reducing waste it becomes quite impossible to compete with them. For this reason, a
pilot project, implementing partial lean manufacturing, is conducted in the furniture industry. Lean
Furniture Framework (LFF), an innovative concept, is used in this pilot project. There are three
basic steps (preparation, execution, continuous improvement) along with some specific activities
for the LFF framework. Initially, several barriers are encountered while forming the committee,
however, two teams are formed. One is responsible for lean manufacturing implementation, called
the implementation team. Another one is responsible for process improvement observation, called
the process improvement committee. Several meetings are conducted, using a 15-day interval. For
improving productivity value stream mapping (VSM) is used to evaluate the current state.
Standardize work and Single minute exchange of die (SMED) are used for minimizing material
handling waste. Lack of sufficient top management support and unwillingness to accept standard
machine setup procedures are the main challenges, faced during this project time. In this industry
mass production is used for rack manufacturing because of its highest sales volume. In total there
are six processes for manufacturing rack. Analyzing VSM becomes difficult due to many shared
machines however some components are grouped into simplify the process. Two types of data
(cycle time and inventory) are used to identify the scope of improvement. Due to the highest cycle
time and comparatively higher inventory, the drilling process is selected for improvement. Several
issues are identified in the drilling process such as movement of material, maintenance of the
machine, rework, etc. After implementing the future state of a VSM, 27% of productivity growth
is observed. By proper implementation of SMED and standard operating procedure, both setup
time and material movement are decreased 41.67% and 33% respectively. The last step is not
conducted due to time constraints; however, a proper guideline is generated for it.
Current State of VSM:
While drawing the current state of VSM, the researchers encountered some difficulties as the same
machine is used for different operations. Finally, the present stage is drawn using 6 processes in
figure 1.
From the current state of the VSM diagram, we can easily identify that the total value-added time
is only 26 seconds, and the total lead time is 21.48 days. The cycle efficiency is 1.4×10-5%.
According to the researcher, value-added time is 0.037%. Using cycle time and inventory plotting,
the scope of improvement is identified. The setup time of drilling machine is the highest among
all processes.
1
Figure 1: Current State of VSM (Recreated of PowerPoint using the paper information) [1]
From figure 2 it is visible that the cycle time of the drilling machine is maximum (8 sec), however
the takt time is 3.5 sec in this process. Not only the drilling process but also edge banding #1,
cutting process #2, and packing process cycle time is higher than takt time. From this graph and
current state of VSM it is observed that packaging process has the maximum inventory, and the
second highest is for drilling process.
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Cycle Time
Inventory
Cutting process #1
Edge Banding #1
Edge Banding #2
Drilling Process
Cutting process #2
Packaging Process
Figure 2: Cycle time and Inventory of each process from current state of VSM [1]
Problem Identification & Scope of Improvement
Edge banding #1, cutting process #2, drilling process, and packaging process are selected by
considering cycle time only. If we consider inventory, drilling process and packaging process are
selected. If we consider change over time, drilling process is selected.
2
Table 1: Process of improvement selection
Selection criteria
Selected process
i.
Edge banding #1
ii.
Cutting process #2
Cycle Time
iii.
Drilling process
iv.
Packaging process
i.
Packaging process
Inventory level
ii.
Drilling process
iii.
Edge banding #1
Change over time &
i.
Drilling process (3 setup/day)
Setup time
Considering previous analysis, drilling process is selected and for its operation change over time,
inventory level, and cycle time. According to process improvement committee, some wastes are
selected. These arei.
High inventory level
ii.
Long waiting time
iii.
Unnecessary movement
iv.
Defects
v.
Rework
Moreover, Long setup time is another problem in drilling process. Normally it takes more than 36
minutes and per day this operation is performed three times. There are some problems in setup
procedure. They are unnecessary movement, confusion between operator and assistant, not
identifying required drill bit, etc. High chance of collision is also observed form the spaghetti
diagram.
Then there are several meetings and discussions between these 2 teams. And a future state is
proposed by them as follows:
Figure 3: Future State of VSM (Recreated of PowerPoint using the paper information) [1]
3
From this future state of VSM, it is visible that setup, incorrect production, inspection, and
maintenance are some of the problems. Considering these problems solutions are identified.
LM Implementation Procedure:
In this case study, one of the basic five-stage (research question, instrument development, data
collection, data analysis, disseminate) research model is used. Lean furniture framework (LFF) is
used as a research instrument. Operational practice (toolbox lean), operational philosophy
(leanness), strategic practice (becoming lean), strategic philosophy (lean thinking) are the four
steps of lean manufacturing implementation. Preparation, execution, continuous improvement are
the three phases of evaluating lean manufacturing.
Phase 1: Preparation
In this phase, a diagnosis is conducted to identify the status of the company concerning lean
manufacturing. For doing this initially there is a discussion among the researcher, the company
representative, and the consultant. Then proper planning is developed for implementing lean
manufacturing. Value stream mapping is the main LM tool for this case study. An analysis is
conducted thoroughly for the present state of VSM of the furniture production process is done
using VSM. There are five operations (cutting, edge gluing, machining, painting, and packaging)
in this production process. In this case study, only one part family (Rack) is analyzed. After
evaluating the current level according to the lean manufacturing, the plan for LM implementation
is developed. Here the LM approach, LM implementing scope, objective of implementation,
performance indicators, necessary training, evaluation of current value stream mapping are
defined. For executing this phase teamwork is mandatory. A workshop is conducted for required
training. Also, a consultant is hired for getting proper information about the implementation
procedure.
Phase 2: Execution
In this stage, LM is implemented according to the scope of improvement. It also makes the
implementation process easier. This is a teamwork. Kaizen and Gemba are used for continuous
improvement and monitoring respectively. They collect all the data and analyzed the improvement.
Based on this analysis a plan is prepared for actual implementation. Finally, there is a comparison
between expected and actual outcomes. Throughout this pilot project, three basic lean
manufacturing tools are used to fulfill the objective. In this phase, scope of the pilot project is
defined. Then data collection and analysis process are conducted as a teamwork. Identify the
required physical, administrative, human, and financial resources for implementing LM.
According to the scheduled plan, necessary actions are performed. Continuous monitoring is
conducted, and critical situations are evaluated. Several LM tools are used for executing the plan
and for achieving the targeted objective. They are
i.
Value Stream Mapping: This tool is used for scope identification. A detailed analysis
of the present state of VSM is conducted by the team. After proper analysis and several
meetings and discussions, future state of VSM for this production process is proposed.
4
ii.
SMED: As there are multiple operations and same machine is shared by all, several
setups are required throughout the production process. Using SMED all the activities
are observed and recorded. Then the main three steps are performeda. Identify the internal activities
b. Identify the external activities
c. Conversion of internal activities to external activities where possible.
d. Then all the activities are streamlined.
e. Finally, the internal and external activities are streamlined.
iii.
Spaghetti diagram: this diagram is used to visualize the actual movement of the
material and workers. Several problems are identified in setup procedure. High chance
of collision is detected. Then after proper analysis of the movement a new working
procedure is proposed.
iv.
5s: From spaghetti diagram movement analysis and all the external activities identified
by SMED, the necessity of 5S is evaluated. 5S is used to organize the workplace. Select
appropriate location for the drill bit for reducing confusion. Proper workshop is
organized for the worker.
v.
Kanban: From SMED and Spaghetti diagram, the confusion between the worker is
visible. Kanban is used for a visual communication that will reduce the communication
error. Also, the standard sequence of the setup process will be clearer than before.
Proper training is provided to the worker to understand the Kanban system.
vi.
Gemba: While implementing the LM this tool is used for monitoring all the critical
activities. It allows the worker to visit the spot of occurrence. For auditing and
maintaining proposed standard this tool is used.
Phase 3: Continuous Improvement
In this stage, the committee observes the outcome after implementation. Then it will identify the
recent state of the organization considering lean manufacturing. Six months is a suitable cycle for
this monitoring and updating the plan. For continuous improvement, the team collected all the data
regarding LM implementation. Using the data, the situation of the organization is evaluated. After
evaluation, for this selected problem proper solution is proposed and training and workshop is
arranged for the worker.
Due to the time constrains the last step is not conducted, but proper plan is developed and will be
conducted with the guidance of the formed committee. For evaluation six months period is selected
for reevaluation of the process and problem identification.
5
Solution:
Throughout this pilot project mainly 2 problems are solved in drilling process, setup time and
unnecessary movement due to time constraints. Solution is as follows:
Table 2: Solution and Eliminated Waste
Problem
Solution
Setup time
Standardized Work procedure
SMED
5S (Organizing Drill Bits)
Kanban
Unnecessary
movement
Visual Communication (Kanban),
Standardize working procedure,
5S (Clean workplace)
New proposed drill plan
Before
After
Eliminated
Waste
36 min
15 min
(targeted)
25 min
(achieved)
Waiting time
184 meters
Waiting
time,
Unnecessary
movement,
Defects,
Rework
276 meters
For solving the identified problem, the below described solution is used,
Solution of setup time reduction: Standardized work process is used for solving this problem.
All the tasks are standardized, and SOP is established for each activity. Using SMED all the
internal and external activities are identified and some of the internal activities are converted into
the external activity. As a solution of drill bit location problem 5S is used. 5S helps to organize the
drill bit and an organized box is used. Kanban is used as a solution to the confusion among the
worker and assistant regarding the difficulties in identifying the accurate sequence of the activities.
Solution of Unnecessary Movement: For this problem Kanban is used for creating a proper
awareness among the workers. As it is a visible communication system so the is no confusion
about the sequence. It also reduces the chance of collision. 5S is used for a making the working
place neat and clean which accelerate the movement. A new drilling plan is developed by using
this solution that reduce the unnecessary movement.
Eliminated Waste and Result
The researchers tried to eliminate all the waste, unfortunately some of them are not eliminated due
to time constraints. Eliminated wastes are described below:
i.
Waiting Time: Waiting time for long setup time is removed by using SMED tools.
Initially the setup time was 36 minutes and after the solution it becomes 25 minutes.
So, for each setup 11 minutes waiting time is reduced. And for a full day the production
3 setup is required. Ultimately 33 minutes waiting time is reduced throughout a full day
production.
6
ii.
Unnecessary Movement: Using Kanban system and standardized working procedure
the movement of material and workers is reduced. Initially, total 276-meter movement
was required for the drilling process. Now, it becomes only 184-meter. So, 33%
unnecessary movement is reduced.
iii.
Defects: As the standard working procedure is used for drilling operation. Now there
is fewer defective products. Using 5S, the location for drill bit is now fixed so there is
no confusion. As right drill bit is used, rate of defective product is reduced.
iv.
Rework: This waste is eliminated indirectly. As there are fewer defects so rework is
also fewer. Moreover, standard working process, Gemba helps to reduce critical
situation. This ensures the quality of the product.
v.
Work in Process Inventory: Setup time is reduced by implementing LM tools that
indirectly reduce the inventory level. Also, using the proposed drilling operation the
production process becomes more efficient. Initially, there are 1330 pcs/day production
but now it becomes 1686 pcs/day. So, the WIP is also reduced indirectly.
There is a target to increase productivity by at least 20% and decrease movement by 30%. Using
the proposed solution, the average production rate becomes 3314 pieces/day, where the targeted
value is 3500 pieces/day. By using the above-mentioned LM tools, the productivity is improved
and setup time movement of material and change over time of drill machine is decreased. It also
reduces 1322.29 BRL monthly cost and 13.61 months is the return on investment. For reducing
the setup time of the drill machine, a new plan is proposed, and a box is used to organize drill bits.
Attribute
Productivity
Setup time
Movement of Material
Change over time
Table 1: Outcome of the pilot project [1]
Initial Value
Present Value
Improvement (approx..)
1330 pc/day
1686 pc/day
27 %increase
36 minutes
25 minutes
30 %decrease
276 meters
184 meters
33 %decrease
6.57 sec/pc
0.92 sec/pc
86 %decrease
In conclusion, the objective is fulfilled by this partial implementation of lean manufacturing.
Though the full processes are not implemented because of time shortage, the targeted goals are
achieved. And a proper plan for the LM implementation is developed,
7
Proposed Suggestion:
If I were in the same situation, I would use the VSM in a different way for searching the critical
area. Also, I would use some other lean manufacturing tools. Let’s start:
VSM
Researcher’s Method: Analyze some observed and pre-recorded data to identify the problem and
decide over this analysis.
Proposed Method: For proper utilization of VSM, we need to observe the process. We must
observe all the value-added (VA) and non-value added (NVA) activities closely. In this way, we
can identify the unnecessary NVA activity also the problem in VA activities. For this process flow
chart of the present state is one of the suitable tools.
Distance
(unit)
Description of Process
Time
(unit)
Storage
Inspect
Transport
Operation
Step
Date:
Analyst:
Delay
Table 3: Process Flow Chart
Location:
Process
1.
2.
3.
Several researchers used this flow chart to identify the critical area to improve. Jasti et al. used this
tool and improve the process ratio by around 269% and takt time reduced to 24.3% [2]. One more
LM tool can be used for problem identification. That is Root Cause Analysis (RCA). For this
5W1H, Cause and effect (fishbone) diagram, 5 Why and 4M tools can be used.
Major Cause
Major Cause
Minor Cause
Drilling Problem
Major Cause
Major Cause
Figure 4: Cause and effect diagram
Similarly, for cutting #2 and packaging process, this type of analysis can be conducted.
In one research paper, these LM tools are used, and the percentage of VA activity is increased to
4% [3]. By using these LM tools, I would identify the area of improvement in the present state of
VSM and propose the future state of VSM.
There is another crucial problem that is sheared machine. To solve this problem, some other LM
tools can be used as follows:
8
Kanban: Using this visual system material movement can be controlled more efficiently. As the
same machine is used for multiple operations. By using this LM tool collision, accident can be
minimized. That will reduce not only the waste of material but also increase the efficiency of
movement. Though Kanban is used in only setup process, for each process we can use it to reduce
confusion. It will increase the communication efficiency. In several pieces of research, Kanban is
used for efficient visual communication that reduces the cycle time to 9.9% and productivity
improved to 11.5% [3] [4].
5S: This LM tool will help the organization to be more organized and sustainable and reduce labor
costs. From the spaghetti diagram of the paper, it is visible that there is a high probability of
collision and accident while the movement of material. In this case study, 5S is used for only setup
procedure. But we can use this effective organization tool in other operation process where
multiple tools are used like packaging. According to the product family, different packaging
materials and equipment are used. That will minimize the confusion among the workers. As 5S
allows quicker movement in the warehouse and production floor, it reduces the setup time of the
machine. So, along with SMED if we used 5S, the outcome would be more effective and traveling
distance also be reduced more [5].
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE): This LM tool is more effective in evaluating the
performance, availability rate, and quality. In this furniture manufacturing company, OEE
calculation can be used for identifying the area of improvement. It is also helpful for increasing
quality and reducing finished goods inventories. A combination of OEE and VSM is more effective
than only VSM [6].
Cellular Layout: For the drilling and packing process the work in process inventory is higher than
in another process. The cellular layout will reduce this problem. This tool also makes the process
easy to understand. It also helps to identify the part family efficiently. Moreover, the worker feels
empowerment that increases the performance of each worker. It also helps to reduce material
handling time and cost. Another characteristic of this tool is smooth material flow with less buffer.
It also reduces setup time, lead time, WIP. In a case study, it is observed that using a cellular layout
in LM implementation, reduces material handling time to 37% [7].
Kaizen: For reducing bottleneck, continuous improvement, reducing production cost, this LM tool
is used. Due to globalization, competition among similar companies becomes higher than before.
To keep pace with the rapid modernization, the manufacturing organization must use updated
technology to increase productivity and decrease cost. In this industry for drilling LIDEAR F500
is used. This is one of the oldest drilling machines. In one case study, it is observed that using
kaizen 2.5% performance is improved in six months [8].
Overall, continuous problem identification is the main criterion of continuous improvement. If
there is excess inventory it will be tough to identify the problem. My initial target would be
identifying the reason behind the high level of inventory for drilling and packaging. Then after
9
prioritizing the identified problem, above mentioned LM tools would be used according to the
requirement.
References
[1] A. G. d. Oliveira and W. d. R. Junior, "Productivity Improvement Through the Implementation
of Lean Manufacturing in a Medium-Sized Furniture Industry: A Case Study," South African
Journal of Industrial Engineering, pp. 172-188, 2019.
[2] N. . V. K. Jasti and . A. Sharma, "Lean manufacturing implementation using value stream
mapping as a tool A case study from auto components industry," International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, pp. 89-116, 2014.
[3] A. U. Rehman, Y. S. Usmani, U. Umer and M. Alkahtani, "Lean Approach to Enhance
Manufacturing Productivity: A Case Study of Saudi Arabian Factory," Arabian Journal for
Science and Engineering, p. 2263–2280, 2020.
[4] N. A. A. Rahman, S. M. Sharif and M. M. Esa, "Lean Manufacturing Case Study with Kanban
System Implementation," in International Conference on Economics and Business Research
2013 (ICEBR 2013), 2013.
[5] P. Dhiravidamani, A. S. Ramkumar, S. G. Ponnambalam and N. Subramanian,
"Implementation of lean manufacturing and lean audit system in an auto parts manufacturing
industry – an industrial case study," International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, p. 579–594, 2018.
[6] A.-A. Dadashnejad and C. Valmohammadi, "Investigating the effect of value stream mapping
on overall equipment effectiveness: a case study," Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, pp. 1-17, 2017.
[7] L. N. Pattanaik and B. P. Sharma, "Implementing lean manufacturing with cellular layout: A
Case Study," International Journal of Advance Manufacturing Technology, pp. 772-779,
2009.
[8] B. Modarress, A. Ansari and D. L. Lockwood, "Kaizen costing for lean manufacturing: a case
study," International Journal of Production Research, pp. 1751-1760, 2007.
10
South African Journal of Industrial Engineering December 2019 Vol 30(4), pp 172-188
PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEAN MANUFACTURING IN A
MEDIUM-SIZED FURNITURE INDUSTRY: A CASE STUDY
A.L. Gazoli de Oliveira1* & W.R. da Rocha Junior2
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article details
Submitted by authors
4 Jan 2019
Accepted for publication 16 Aug 2019
Available online
12 Dec 2019
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are very important to
national economies. In Brazil, the furniture sector has many SMEs
that suffer from international competition, especially from Chinese
companies. To reduce this difficulty, this study provides a case
study of the partial implementation of lean manufacturing (LM) in a
medium-sized furniture industry with the aim of increasing
productivity. As a result, the company increased its productivity by
27 per cent in the drilling sector. In addition, the case study shows
how to implement LM in a medium-sized furniture industry,
demonstrating the need to adapt the system to companies outside
the automobile sector.
Contact details
*
Corresponding author
andre.gazoli@ufpr.br
Author affiliations
1
Industrial and Systems
Engineering, Pontifical Catholic
University of Parana, Curitiba,
Brazil & Industrial Engineering,
Federal University of Parana,
Jandaia do Sul, Brazil
2
Instituto SENAI de Tecnologia em
Madeira e Mobiliário, Arapongas,
Brazil
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.7166/30-4-2112
1
OPSOMMING
Klein- en mediumgrootte ondernemings is baie belangrik vir
nasionale ekonomieë. In Brasilië bevat die meubelbedryf vele kleinen mediumgrootte maatskappye wat swaar kry as gevolg van
internasionale mededinging, veral van Sjinese ondernemings. Om
hierdie uitdaging te oorkom bied dié artikel ʼn gevallestudie van die
gedeeltelike implementering van lenige vervaardiging in ʼn
mediumgrootte meubelmaatskappy met die doelstelling om
produktiwiteit te verhoog. Die maatskappy se produktiwiteit is
verhoog met 27 per sent in die boorsektor. Verder toon die
gevallestudie hoe om lenige vervaardiging te implementeer in ʼn
mediumgrootte meubelmaatskappy. Sodoende word die behoefte
om hierdie konsep aan te wend in ondernemings buite die
tradisionele motorvervaardiging-sektor geïllustreer.
INTRODUCTION
Lean manufacturing (LM) emerged from the International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP) research
project developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At the end of the IMVP, the book
The machine that changed the world [1] was published and disseminated by the term lean production
[2] worldwide. LM has evolved since its inception, and is currently used in manufacturing, services,
and research and development, and is being adopted by the public and private sectors [3]. Modig
and Åhlström [3] identified 17 different definitions based on the concept’s level of abstraction.
Given this wide diversity of definitions, in this study we adopt the approaches presented by
Pettersen [4]: toolbox lean, leanness, becoming lean, and lean thinking. In these four different
approaches, Pettersen [4] established that LM has a philosophical (ostensive) focus by approaching
a general philosophy defined only by examples and a practical (performative) focus when
emphasising the execution of activities. The existence of two strands is also emphasised: operational
(discrete), which is directed to the specific improvement of isolated events, characterised by
toolbox lean and leanness; and strategic (continuous), which is process-oriented (improvement of
production flow), characterised as becoming lean and lean thinking.
LM has also been studied in the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) environment. Several
authors have conducted research on LM in SMEs, such as critical success factors (CSFs) [5, 7, 8];
172
enablers and inhibitors [6, 10]; frameworks, road maps, and methodologies [11-17]; and LM
implementation in SMEs [9, 18, 19].
SMEs are very important for national economies. Gonzales Hommes and Mirmulstein [20] emphasised
the importance of these companies by presenting global numbers: 28.7 million formal SMEs
employing approximately 325.5 million people. However, these SMEs generally have disadvantages
in relation to large companies, such as difficulty in obtaining economies of scale through volume
production or volume purchasing of raw materials. The fact that many SMEs do not have a vision of
waste reduction is also unfavourable, as they are thus more vulnerable to economic fluctuations and
financial losses, and so must prioritise investments. In this scenario, LM contributes to resolving and
improving several problems faced by SMEs [5], rationalising internal production and allowing the
company to adapt to external changes and the needs of the global market [15], as well as providing
these companies a new competitive advantage [22].
According to a report from the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) [23], the furniture industry in
Brazil has low competitiveness, mainly in the international market, because of a lack of productivity
gains, poor innovative performance, low qualifications, and technological backwardness. These
factors negatively impact the companies in this sector, especially with the increasing penetration
of China into the Brazilian economy. In this scenario, some institutions linked to the furniture sector
have developed LM implementation initiatives.
There is a lack of research on LM to improve productivity in the furniture sector. Few documents
reporting initiatives to implement LM techniques, tools, or practices in the furniture industry in
Brazil have been identified [24-29]. This fact motivated the development of this study. This article
presents a case study on LM implementation in a medium-sized enterprise in the Brazilian Southern
Furniture Sector. We used a specific framework, called the lean furniture framework (LFF), to
conduct the case study. The LFF was developed by the authors, from a systematic literature review
and semi-structured interviews with experts, to attend to the needs of the small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) of the Brazilian furniture sector. In this article we use the LFF as a way to increase
productivity through implementing the LM; thus we do not detail the development of the LFF.
The remainder of the article is arranged as follows. The next section presents the research
methodology and the details of the LFF. Section 3 presents the case study conducted in a mediumsized enterprise. Section 4 presents the lessons learned and implications for production. Finally,
section 5 presents the conclusion.
2
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
We employed a case study as the research strategy. Yin [30] describes a case study as an empirical
investigation that aims to ascertain a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context. The
author also explains that a case study is a good method for answering ‘how‘ and ‘why‘ questions. To
conduct this case study, the five stages of the research model defined by Stuart et al. [31] were
used (Figure 1).
Figure 1: The five-stage research process model (Adapted from Stuart et al. [31])
As shown in Figure 1, this research presents the following characteristics:



Stage 1 — Research question: How can a medium-sized furniture industry increase productivity
by implementing LM tools and practices?
Stage 2 — Instrument development: We developed a specific framework for furniture industries
(the lean furniture framework) and used it as a guideline to implement lean manufacturing and
data collection. We used the steps of the LFF to report the case study (Section 3).
Stage 3 — Data collection: The data were collected by participation in meetings, through direct
observation, from company and consultant reports, and through a semi-structured interview
with a technical consultant who conducted the entire LM implementation process.
173


Stage 4 — Data analysis: The data were triangulated for the discussion of the study.
Stage 5 — Dissemination: Disseminate the information through the publication of this article.
The next section presents the lean furniture framework used in this study.
2.1 Framework for LM implementation in furniture sector SMEs
A framework was developed by the authors to guide LM implementation in the SMEs of the furniture
sector. The LFF was developed through a systematic literature review (SLR) that was conducted on
LM implementation in small and medium enterprises (SMEs), with searches performed in the
following databases: Scopus (Elsevier), Science Direct (Elsevier), Web of Science, Wiley Online
Library, Academic Search Premier (ASP) (EBSCOhost), Emerald Insight, and SciELO. The database
searches were performed on 08/18/2018, and resulted in 718 articles. After reading the titles,
abstracts, introductions, and conclusions, 95 articles were selected.
From these 95 articles we identified 36 critical success factors (CSFs), 55 LM tools and practices,
and 19 initiatives to implement LM in SMEs. From these 19 initiatives we selected the following
frameworks as the foundation for LFF development: Belhadi, Touriki and Fezazi [13], Dombrowski,
Crespo and Zahn [15], Hu, Mason, Williams and Found [16], and Medbo and Carlsson [17]. Table 1
summarises the items from each framework that were used to construct the LFF.
Table 1: Summary of each framework that was used to construct the LFF (Source:
Researchers’ own construction)
Articles
Dombrowski et
al. [15]
Items from each framework
Steps necessary for implementing LM in SMEs: Basic planning (centralised), setting up
(centralised), rollout (decentralised), daily operations (decentralised).
Medbo & Carlsson
Methodology: ‘The wave’.
[17]
Hu et al. [16]
Lean staircase road map: evolutionary ladder for LM implementation.
Belhadi et al.
[13]
Three stages: Preparation (pre-implementation), execution (implementation), and
generalisation (post-implementation).
At this point, we have the first version of the framework used to conduct semi-structured interviews
with experts in the furniture industry. During the interviews, the experts emphasised that the
majority of the furniture industry has no knowledge about LM. They also emphasised that the
approach used by the LFF must be the initial focus of presenting LM as a toolbox for productivity
improvement and waste reduction, because this approach is most promising in demonstrating the
benefits of LM for SMEs. As results of the interviews, we incorporated the pilot project approach
and we defined the set of activities, practices, tools, and participants at each of the LM
implementation steps in line with the experts’ experiences and the literature findings (Table 2).
The framework proposes an evolutionary ladder for LM implementation, inspired by Pettersen [4]
and Hayes and Wheelwright [32]. The first stage of LM implementation is defined as operational
practices (toolbox lean) in which companies consider LM only as a set of tools for reducing
operational waste.
In the second stage, operational philosophy (leanness), the production system has already adopted
the LM philosophy and reached the lean state. In this case, the companies implement LM in an
integrated way, improving the flow of production. In the third stage, strategic practices (becoming
lean), the company goes beyond operational concepts and adopts LM tools at a strategic level;
specifically, there is planning based on LM principles. Here, the adoption of the lean office also
begins.
In the last stage of implementation, strategic philosophy (lean thinking), LM conducts all strategic
business and organisational planning following Hoshin planning. At this stage, the company reaches
the Toyota Way [33].
174
Figure 2: Lean furniture framework (Source: Researchers’ own construction, based on
Pettersen [4] and Hayes & Wheelwright [32])
To evolve through the framework stages, a procedural approach was elaborated (Figure 3 and Table
2), divided into phases, stages, and activities. Three phases were defined: preparation, execution,
and continuous improvement, which are represented in the framework as the arrows above the
stages (Figure 2). These phases are divided into five major steps (Figure 3): (1) LM diagnostic; (2)
planning the LM implementation project; (3) executing and monitoring the pilot projects; (4) LM
deployment; and (5) assessment of the implementation. Then each step is divided into a set of
activities, along with the suggested practices, tools, and participants (Table 2). These activities
were developed based on the systematic literature review and, mainly, on the opinion of the
experts.
The next section presents the case study.
175
Figure 3: Lean furniture framework phases and steps (Source: Researchers’s own construction)
3
CASE STUDY
This case study presents the partial implementation of LM to increase the productivity of a furniture
industry, following the lean furniture framework (LFF). The company in this case study operates in
the living room furniture segment, and has operated for more than 25 years in the furniture sector.
The company’s main focus is to serve the domestic market. Its main customers are large retailers,
but the company also has a special line for furnishing interior decoration stores. The company’s
basic raw materials are medium density particleboard (MDP) panels, and the company’s production
is divided into five major departments: (1) cutting; (2) edge gluing; (3) machining; (4) painting; and
(5) packaging. These departments group together a number of similar machines. Production, in most
cases, follows the same flow, in terms of the sequence of departments, going through all production
operations. It is important to note that this LM implementation was monitored by a technical
consultant specialising in LM and the furniture industry.
The first stage is the preparation, detailed below.
3.1 Phase 1: Preparation
This phase of the framework is characterised by the preparation for LM implementation. The first
step is LM diagnostic, in which the objective is to define the company’s stage in the evolutionary
ladder proposed by the framework (Figure 2). Then, with this information, the LM implementation
project planning is carried out. In this step, all of the company’s limitations (including time, costs,
participants, and training) are considered.
3.1.1 Step 1: Lean manufacturing diagnostic
Initially, before applying the LM diagnostic form, the framework was presented and explained to the
company representatives. Afterwards, the diagnostic form was presented to them, and a brief
discussion was conducted by the consultant to identify the stage in which the company was located
on the evolutionary ladder proposed by the framework. There was a consensus among all those
present that the company was in the first stage: operational practices — toolbox lean. At this stage
of the study, due to its strictly operational nature, the diagnostic forms for stage 1 and stage 2 were
used. The diagnosis was based on the opinions of the production manager, engineering coordinator,
a representative from production planning and control (PPC), and through direct observation on the
factory floor. Figure 4 presents the results of the form application.
176
Table 2: Detailed phases, steps, and activities (Source: Researchers’ own construction)
Phases
Steps
Preparation
1. Lean
manufacturing
diagnostic
2. Lean
manufacturing
implementation
planning
Continuous
improvement
Execution
3. Execution and
follow-up of
pilot projects
Activities
1.1. Evaluate the current level of
adherence of the furniture industry
to LM
2.1. Define the LM approach;
2.2. Define the LM implementation
scope (limit of action);
2.3. Define the objectives of the LM
implementation;
2.4. Define performance indicators;
2.5. Define the implementation
team and the process improvement
committee;
2.6. Define the necessary training
for project participants;
2.7. Perform the value stream
mapping (VSM) of the current state,
identify the opportunities for
improvement, and elaborate the
VSM of the future state for the
implementation scope.
3.1. Define the scope of the pilot
project;
3.2. Collect and analyse detailed
data on the process to be improved;
3.3. Estimate the necessary
resources (physical, financial,
human, administrative);
3.4. Define the actions necessary for
improvement and establish a plan of
action (schedule);
3.5. Supervised implementation of
improvement actions in kaizen
projects;
3.6. Monitoring of activities using
gemba (‘go and see’ approach);
3.7. Compare planned vs
accomplished;
3.8. Critical evaluation of the
implementation process.
Practices/tools
- Lean manufacturing
diagnostic form
Suggested
participants
- Preferably a person
outside the
organisation.
- Teamwork;
- Workshops;
- Value stream mapping;
- Elaborate a ‘senior
management commitment
contract with LM
implementation‘ to ensure
support and resource
availability;
- Evaluate hiring a
consultant.
- Project
implementation
manager;
- Representative from
organisation’s board
of directors;
- Managers (or
representatives) of
the areas affected by
the implementation.
- Teamwork;
- Workshops;
- Value stream mapping;
- LM tools (as needed);
- Project management
approach to
implementation;
- Audits.
- Implementation
team;
- Employees directly
involved in the
activities;
- Process
improvement
committee;
- Project manager;
- Management
representative.
4. Lean
Manufacturing
Deployment
4.1. Define a new scope for the pilot
project;
4.2. Repeat activities 3.2 to 3.7
(three-month cycles).
- Teamwork;
- Workshops;
- Value stream mapping;
- LM tools (as needed);
- Project management
approach to
Implementation;
- Audits.
5. Assessment of
the
implementations
5.1. Monitor results at the end of
implementation projects (six-month
cycles);
5.2. Re-evaluate the level of
adherence of the furniture industry
to LM.
- Teamwork;
- Workshops;
- Audits;
- Lean manufacturing
diagnostic form.
- Implementation
team.
- Employees directly
involved in the
activities.
- Process
improvement
committee.
- Project manager.
- Management
representative.
- Process
improvement
committee.
- Implementation
team.
- Project manager.
- Management
representative.
In Figure 4, the red line represents the current level of implementation of the LM practices and tools
identified in the company. In the diagnostic form, level 1 means ‘no tool use’, while level 5 means
that culture change has been achieved. As noted, the company has adopted few LM practices and
tools, which confirms its classification within the first stage of LM implementation. These results
were presented at the beginning of the LM implementation planning meeting, as detailed below.
177
Figure 4: Results of lean manufacturing diagnostic (Source: Researcher’s own construction)
3.1.2 Step 2: Lean manufacturing implementation planning
After the diagnosis, the researchers, consultant, production manager, engineering coordinator, and
a representative from PPC met to plan the LM implementation. This group analysed the results of
the LM diagnosis and defined some goals, the main one of which was to achieve level 2 in all LM
practices and tools of the stage 1 in a period of one year. During the three-month case study, the
group conducted the LM implementation using the detailed activities in Table 1, and defined the
lean manufacturing implementation planning, shown in Table 3. These activities were developed at
three different times. First, there was an initial meeting in which the researchers, the consultant,
the production manager, the engineering coordinator, and a representative from PPC were present.
At that meeting, activities (2.1) and (2.2) were discussed and carried out. Second, the VSM of the
current state was developed for the defined scope, which is part of the activity (2.7). This mapping
was developed by the consultant with the participation of the production manager, engineering
coordinator, and a representative from PPC. Third, a new meeting was held to carry out activities
(2.4), (2.5), and (2.6) and to finalise activity (2.7). It is important to emphasise that the researchers
acted as observers, limiting themselves to answering questions about the framework.
Table 3 — Step 2 results (Source: Researcher’s own construction)
Activities
Results
(2.1)
Stage 1 — Operational practices (Toolbox lean)
(2.2)
Partial implementation of LM for the production line of the rack product family, considering
the restrictions of three months, budget of 18,000.00 BRL, and availability of employees for
four hours per week.
(2.3)
Increase productivity by 20%;
Reduce movement by 30%.
(2.4)
Productivity = pieces produced per day;
Movement = meters during activity execution;
Annual rate of return (%) = (monthly cost reduction * 12 * 100) / amount invested
(2.5)
Implementation team = production manager, sector supervisor, machine operator and
assistant machine operator.
Process improvement committee = production manager, engineering coordinator, and a
representative from PPC.
(2.6)
Value stream mapping (VSM); single minute exchange of die (SMED); and standard work.
To finalise the planning stage, it is necessary to elaborate on the VSM of the current state, to identify
the opportunities for improvement, and to elaborate on the VSM of the future state. To this end,
data on the company’s products were collected to identify the family of products with the largest
sales volume, and then to delimit the scope for the VSM. After collecting this data, a Pareto chart
was created that identified the rack product family as the most relevant for the company,
considering the sales volume. With this information, the VSM of the current state was elaborated
using a systemic approach that prioritised the most critical item of the final product that would
affect getting the product into its packaging. This is because a rack is currently produced by
components in multiple batches of 80, indicative of pushed and mass production. In addition, the
178
furniture industry is characterised by having several shared machines, which makes elaborating the
VSM difficult. Based on this information, the most critical component of the rack product was
determined to be the front footer component, which is grouped together with the other components
in the packaging sector. The front footer also represents a large volume of production, and is used
in other products. Figure 5 is the result.
Figure 5: VSM current state (Source: Researcher’s own construction)
With shared resources, the takt time calculation becomes a challenge because, in traditional VSM
approaches [34], resources are dedicated; but this is not the case in the furniture industry.
Therefore, to define the available time of the resources for the front footer component, we
considered the volume of parts that the component represents within the plant, which is 12%. Based
on this, we considered that the time available for the production of this component per day was
equivalent to 12 per cent of eight hours of work — that is, 57.6 minutes. In a given shift,
approximately 990 pieces are produced. Considering these values, a takt time of 3.5 seconds was
calculated.
From Figure 5, the value-adding time was observed to be 26 seconds, and the lead time was 21.48
days. Thus the company had a value-adding of 0.037 per cent for this product. To define the scope
of implementation, it was also necessary to expand the VSM based on the takt time analysis, the
cycle times of the operations, and the in-process inventory. When analysing the cycle time of each
operation and comparing this time with the takt time (Figure 6), four operations having a longer
time were observed: skirting 1, drilling, cutting 2, and packaging.
Figure 6: Cycle time of operations (Source: Researcher’s own construction)
179
The drilling operation had the longest cycle time, well above the takt time, which indicated a need
for priority improvement. Next, to complement the analysis, the in-process inventory before the
operations was also verified (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Inventory before operations (in days) (Source: Researcher’s own construction)
The cutting 1 and dispatch operations were excluded to focus the analysis on the component’s main
value chain. The inventory prior to the packaging operation is the greatest, but this operation
receives all the components of the previous operations to pack the final product; thus the large
volume of parts is understandable. The drilling operation has the second-largest amount of inprocess inventory. Based on the data collected and analysed, the points for improvement were
identified, and a VSM of the future state was proposed (Figure 8). Analysing the necessary points for
improvement, the two most critical operations were drilling and cutting 2. In drilling, the following
problems were identified: setup, movement, incorrect production, and checking. In cutting 2,
problems were identified in the following: rework, maintenance, movement, and balancing between
the stages of the production process. These problems were identified from the analysis of the VSM
current state carried out by the process improvement committee. Given these problems, the focus
of improvement would be the drilling operation because it had the longest cycle time and the secondlargest in-process stock of the value chain.
Considering the points highlighted above, the improvement would occur in the drilling operation
setup. This machine performs at least three setups per day, each lasting about 36 minutes, which
takes up a considerable amount of time from the machine. In addition, even eliminating the setup
completely would not solve the problem, because the machine’s operating cycle time (eight
seconds) is longer than the takt time (3.5 seconds). Considering the deadline and the budget
available for executing the project, the improvement was limited only to the setup of the operation.
At the end, improvements were identified in order for the company to continue the implementation
project.
3.2 Phase 2: Execution
In this phase, the objective is to work with smaller implementation scopes in the form of pilot
projects. Doing so implies breaking down the scope defined for LM implementation into smaller
scopes to reduce the complexity and obtain a faster return on the developed actions. This breakdown
helps to reduce one of the demotivating factors of LM implementation: complexity and delays in
obtaining results [35].
180
Figure 8: VSM future state (Source: Researcher’s own construction)
181
3.2.1 Step 3: Execution and follow-up of pilot projects
In this step, everyone involved in LM implementation participates in the pilot project to learn the
implementation process so that they can then execute the LM deployment stage (step 4). The
deployment consists of expanding the learned knowledge to other areas of the company. In this
step, the following activities are performed, detailed in Table 1: (3.1) define the scope of the pilot
project; (3.2) collect and analyse detailed information on the process to be improved; (3.3) estimate
the necessary resources (physical, financial, human, administrative); (3.4) define the actions
necessary for improvement and establish a plan of action (schedule); (3.5) supervise the
implementation of improvement actions in kaizen projects; (3.6) monitor activities using gemba (’go
and see’ approach); (3.7) compare what was planned with what was accomplished; and (3.8)
critically evaluate the implementation process.
Based on the scope of implementation and the VSM, the scope of the pilot project (3.1) was
determined: (a) reduce the setup time of the LIDEAR F500 drilling machine to 15 minutes; (b)
establish a standard for executing the setup (standardised work); and (c) move production closer to
the daily production target (3,500 units/day). We selected the LIDEAR F500 because it was the oldest
and most technologically outdated machine that the machining department used for drilling. The
data collected on this machine were the number of pieces produced per day (Figure 9) and the mean
setup time per day (Figure 10) (3.2). These measurements were made between November 22, 2016
and December 15, 2016. The process improvement committee defined the resources needed to carry
out this pilot project (3.3): training, specialised consulting, camcorder, machine availability, and
employees.
Figure 9: Number of pieces produced (Source: Researcher’s own construction)
As shown in Figure 9, during the 18-day follow-up the LIDEAR F500 machine achieved an average
production rate of approximately 3,314 pieces per day, which was close to the daily production
target of 3,500 pieces per day. Almost every day the mean setup time was greater than the goal of
15 minutes. The overall mean setup time over the 18-day follow-up period was about 25 minutes.
Based on this information, a set of necessary actions for implementation (3.4) was elaborated on,
and is presented in Table 4 in a schedule format.
182
Figure 10: Average setup time per day (Source: Researcher’s own construction)
Table 4: Schedule of the pilot project (Source: Researcher’s own construction)
Improvement actions
Nov/17 Dec/17 Jan/18 Feb/18
Training in VSM, SMED, and standard work
Survey of machine information on LIDEAR F500
Analysis of the current state
Drawing of the future state
Implementation of the future state
Standardisation of improvement actions
Follow-up meetings were scheduled every 15 days, and a set of actions to be implemented between
the meetings was established. Based on the data collected, the current state was analysed using a
spaghetti diagram to determine the movements when executing the setup (Figure 11). From the
diagram, the operator and the assistant move 276 meters to execute the setup over about 36
minutes. The analysis of the setup was performed based on the three stages setup improvement
created by Shingo [36]: (1) Separating internal and external setup; (2) Converting internal to
external setup; and (3) Streamlining all aspects of the setup operation. During setup, the operator
and assistant lost considerable time interpreting the drilling plan, locating the required bits, and
requesting assistance from PPC. The following improvement points were developed: an activity plan
for executing the setup, a visual management panel to control the setup, a standardised operating
procedure, a new proposed drilling plan, an organising box to separate the drill bits, and a visual
management panel for the programming of parts to be drilled.
The next step was activity (3.5), supervised implementation of improvement actions in kaizen, which
took about 30 hours. The purpose of this supervision was learning, since the goal was for the
implementation team members and the process improvement committee to learn the step-by-step
procedure for LM implementation with the help of the consultant and the researcher. An example
of this process was the elaboration of the plan of activities for the setup of the LIDEAR F500 machine.
The setup filming, spaghetti diagram elaboration, and SMED tool application activities were observed
by the operator and assistant, who mainly helped to define the set of activities required to perform
the setup. The activities for which the operator and assistant were responsible for were separated
to reduce the setup time to less than 15 minutes.
183
Figure 11: Spaghetti diagram (Source: Researcher’s own construction)
The other improvement activities were carried out under the supervision of the consultant, who
supported the members of the implementation team. Another point also emphasised and carried out
by the process improvement committee was (3.6) — follow-up of activities using gemba (‘go and
see’ approach). This approach emphasises the importance of the implemented improvement, and
helps to maintain the established standard. It is advisable to perform this activity at least twice a
week, carrying out a brief audit of the implemented improvements.
Meetings were held every 15 days with the members of the implementation team, the process
improvement committee, the consultant, and the researcher to monitor the activities. At these
meetings, which lasted about an hour, the planned and accomplished activities were compared,
which involved evaluating the implementations and critically evaluating the LM implementation
process. The difficulties encountered in implementing the activities were also discussed to identify
the points to be improved and reinforced. In some meetings, the SMED and standard work training
was reinforced. The adequacy of the approach used for the LM implementation was also discussed,
which was fundamental for improving the framework. These meetings represented the development
of activity (3.7), comparing what was planned with what was accomplished, and activity (3.8),
critical evaluation of the implementation process.
All of these activities were carried out within the three-month deadline — the limit stipulated by
the company for executing the activity. At the end, the improvements performed generated the
results presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Pilot project results (Source: Researcher’s own construction)
Indicator
Productivity
Movement
Initial measurement Objectives Final measurement
Results
1330 pieces/day
20%
1686 pieces/day
27%
276 meters
30%
184 meters
33%
Monthly cost reduction 1,322.29 BRL
Return on investment 13.61 months
Unfortunately, step 4 (lean manufacturing deployment) did not run because no time was available,
due to the three-month deadline for conducting the case study. Therefore, together with the process
improvement committee, the consultant and the researcher developed a set of guidelines for
implementing step 4, LM deployment, suggesting the extension of the knowledge developed about
the LIDEAR F500 machine to the other machines in the machining department. This activity would
be the responsibility of the process improvement committee.
3.3 Phase 3: Continuous improvement
Every six months it is appropriate to make a critical assessment of the entire LM implementation
project. This assessment identifies the difficulties confronted and the points to be improved, and
reviews the project plan.
184
The objective of the evaluation stage of the implementation is to maintain the LM evolution cycle
so that the company develops with each new pilot project. To achieve the second stage of the
framework, for example, the company needs to fully master the VSM tool and use it to make processoriented improvements to the production flow, not just one-off improvements to single machines.
3.3.1 Step 5: Assessment of the implementation
At this stage, the following activities are conducted: (5.1) monitor the results at the end of project
implementation (six-month cycles), and (5.2) re-evaluate the company’s level of adherence to LM.
Activity (5.1) involves a critical analysis of the implementation project every six months. This
activity should be performed by the process improvement committee, which also performs activity
(5.2) at the same time. This activity consists of reapplying the LM diagnostic form. After carrying
out these activities, it is advisable to re-evaluate the LM implementation scope (activity 2.3) based
on the new diagnosis and on the critical evaluation of the implementation. Then the company
resumes the LM implementation cycle, evolving in small steps towards the Toyota Way [33].
4
DISCUSSION AND LESSONS LEARNED
The process improvement committee developed adequate support for the development of the pilot
project, contributing process improvement ideas, following the kaizen project, encouraging the
operator, assisting in the development of the activities, and conducting audits to ensure the
implementation of the improvement actions. The results were achieved according to the objectives
established at the beginning of the project. To be sure, this pilot project does not represent the full
LM implementation, but only a small step within a long-term implementation.
Several challenges were faced during the case study. At the beginning, there was a delay in defining
the process improvement committee because there was no adequate support from top management,
which hampered the start of implementation. This delay negatively affected the research and,
consequently, there was no time to conclude step 4. Furthermore, getting the employees involved
in the activities was challenging. At first, for example, the operator and assistant showed no interest
in improving the machine setup. However, after they had watched the setup shoot, they were able
to visualise the improvements that could be made in the setup, and were involved in the
improvement.
In summary, the main contributions of this case study to the furniture industry were:



A new way of work was presented for facing production system difficulties using the LFF and
LM tools to help the analysis and to solve problems;
There was cooperation from factory floor workers to generate solutions to the problems. This
participation created greater involvement in the development of improvement activities,
which was not usual for the company;
A new routine was created to analyse production problems periodically and critically. The
paradigm shift in analysing and solving problems has brought new insights to the company, such
as creating templates to perform the setup on all drilling machines, standardisation of external
and internal setup on all drilling machines, and replication of setup improvement in the
painting sector.
The pilot project was a catalyst for further actions within the company, which subsequently
developed six additional projects. The framework presented a structured method of approaching
LM, which was previously unknown to the company, as well as of identifying problems, presenting
solutions, and generating cost reductions.
The main lessons learned from this research can be separated into the following topics:

Lean manufacturing implementation in SMEs: there are several examples of research on LM
implementation in SMEs [13-15, 37-41], but no specific research was identified for the furniture
sector. Therefore, this research contributes when it presents in detail the initiative of the
partial implementation of LM specifically in the furniture sector. The article also contributes
by presenting empirical research that verifies the theory in collaboration with professionals
185

[42]. Another contribution is the presentation of an adapted framework to develop research in
an emerging country [43].
Lean furniture framework: there are several frameworks for implementing LM in SMEs [5, 7, 8,
11-17, 40, 44-50], but there is no specific framework for the furniture sector. Thus the lean
furniture framework is also a contribution of this article, because the LFF is specific to SMEs in
the furniture industries. In addition, the LFF is an implementation framework [51], presenting
stages of evolution and a structured set of steps and activities for the implementation of LM.
Corroborating Belhadi et al. [52], SMEs in Brazil are also affected by the lack of understanding of
the LM, and this affects implementation. This research can be used as a basis for future comparisons
between SMEs in developing countries, as highlighted by Belhadi et al. [52].
5
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE STUDIES
Although consolidated in many sectors, LM is still unknown to most SMEs in the Brazilian furniture
sector. In recent years there have been major investments in LM dissemination to several production
sectors in Brazil, and a major challenge has been establishing a structured approach for
implementation. In the case of the furniture sector, there is great difficulty in accepting LM because
of the production system adopted today, in which companies push production in mass quantities and
have a large amount of work in process. With the support of experts, it was possible to develop a
specific framework and partially to implement LM in a medium-sized furniture industry with the aim
of transferring knowledge so that the company can multiply that knowledge later.
In this case study, based on the VSM, the drilling operation for the production of the front footer
component of a family of rack products was the most critical, being well above the takt time
projected for the component. Thus, considering the limitations established in the planning, a pilot
project was carried out on the LIDEAR F500 drilling machine, which was the most technologically
outdated. The responsibilities of the process improvement committee were defined as having the
critical role of monitoring and strengthening the LM implementation. In addition, a routine was
created to perform a structured critical analysis of the operational problems faced by the company.
There was also a change in the elaboration of problem solutions by including the employees directly
involved in the production activity. Finally, there was a productivity increase on the LIDEAR F500
drilling machine of 27 per cent and a reduction of movement of 33 per cent (Table 5). This represents
a reduction in production costs, which resulted in an annual savings of approximately 15,800.00 BRL.
In summary, this article contributes to the LM literature by addressing some points highlighted by
Jasti and Kodali [42, 43]. The article presents research developed in collaboration between
academics and professionals in order to obtain “better results and useful research articles” [43]. It
also contributes by presenting the research in an emerging country and “developing independent
culture to promote lean principles across the globe” [43]. The research presents a systematic
framework for furniture industries to implement LM principles across all operational and strategic
activities.
The results presented in this article represent the partial application of the LM implementation
framework in a medium-sized company in the furniture sector. This is the main limitation of the
research: the conclusions are exclusive to this industry and to the context in which it operates.
Therefore, in future research, more case studies need to be developed in furniture industries of
different sizes to ascertain the applicability of the framework. Another limitation is that this case
study has a purely operational focus; the strategic focus, represented by stages 3 and 4 of the LFF,
is still in development. For this purpose, also in future research, it is appropriate to conduct
longitudinal studies to follow the evolution of companies in LM, and thus to adapt the framework to
meet all stages of evolution.
Although the LFF was created for furniture industries, the authors consider that it is possible to
adapt the framework for other sectors, and also to use it as a way to compare LM implementation
initiatives between emerging countries.
REFERENCES
[1]
186
Womack, J., Jones, D. & Roos, D. 1990. The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson
Associates.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
Krafcik, J. 1988. The triumph of the lean production system. Sloan Management Review, 30(1), pp. 41–52.
Modig, N. & Åhlström, P. 2015. This is lean. Stocksund, Sweden: Rheologica Publishing.
Pettersen, J. 2009. Defining lean production: Some conceptual and practical issues. The TQM Journal,
21(2), pp. 127-142. doi:10.1108/17542730910938137
Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. & Nelder, G. 2006. Critical success factors for lean implementation
within SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(4), pp. 460-471.
doi:10.1108/17410380610662889
Dora, M., Kumar, M. & Gellynck, X. 2015. Determinants and barriers to lean implementation in foodprocessing SMEs — a multiple case analysis. Production Planning & Control, 27(1), pp. 1-23.
doi:10.1080/09537287.2015.1050477
Jeyaraman, K. & Teo, L. 2010. A conceptual framework for critical success factors of lean Six Sigma:
Implementation on the performance of electronic manufacturing service industry. International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, 1(3), pp. 191-215. doi:10.1108/20401461011075008
Mamat, R., Deros, B., Rahman, M., Omar, M. & Abdullash, S. 2015. Soft lean practices for successful lean
production system implementation in Malaysia automotive SMEs: A proposed framework. Jurnal Teknologi,
77(27), pp. 141-150. doi: 10.11113/jt.v77.6910
Rymaszewska, A.D. 2014. The challenges of lean manufacturing implementation in SMEs. Benchmarking,
21(6), pp. 967-1002. doi:10.1108/BIJ-10-2012-0065
Shrimali, A. & Soni, V. 2017. Barriers to lean implementation in small and medium-sized Indian
enterprises. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 8(6), pp. 1-9. Available at:
http://www.iaeme.com/MasterAdmin/UploadFolder/IJMET_08_06_001/IJMET_08_06_001.pdf
Arcidiacono, G., Costantino, N. & Yang, K. 2016. The AMSE Lean Six Sigma governance model.
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 7(3), pp. 233-266. doi:10.1108/IJLSS-06-2015-0026
Azyan, Z., Pulakanam, V. & Pons, D. 2017. Success factors and barriers to implementing lean in the
printing industry: A case study and theoretical framework. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 28(4), pp. 458-484. doi:10.1108/JMTM-05-2016-0067
Belhadi, A., Touriki, F. & Fezazi, S. 2016. A framework for effective implementation of lean production
in small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Industrial Engineering & Management, 9(3), pp. 786810. doi:10.3926/jiem.1907
Berlec, T., Kleindienst, M., Rabitsch, C. & Ramsauer, C. 2017. Methodology to facilitate successful lean
implementation. Strojniski Vestnik/Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 63(7-8), pp. 457-465.
doi:10.5545/sv-jme.2017.4302
Dombrowski, U., Crespo, I. & Zahn, T. 2010. Adaptive configuration of a lean production system in small
and medium-sized enterprises. Production Engineering, 4(4), pp. 341-348. doi:10.1007/s11740-010-0250-5
Hu, Q., Mason, R., Williams, S. & Found, P. 2015. Lean implementation within SMEs: A literature review.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 26(7), pp. 980-1012. doi: 10.1108/JMTM-02-2014-0013
Medbo, L. & Carlsson, D. 2013. Implementation of Lean in SME, experiences from a Swedish national
program. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 4(4), pp. 221-227. Available at:
http://ijiemjournal.uns.ac.rs/images/journal/volume4/ijiem_vol4_no4_4.pdf
Hu, Q., Mason, R., Williams, S. & Found, P. 2016. The change of production systems through consultancy
involved projects: A multiple case study in Chinese SMEs. Production Planning & Control, 27(7-8), pp. 550562. doi:10.1080/09537287.2016.1165303
Panizzolo, R., Garengo, P., Sharma, M. & Gore, A. 2012. Lean manufacturing in developing countries:
Evidence from Indian SMEs. Production Planning & Control, 23(10-11), pp. 769-788.
doi:10.1080/09537287.2011.642155
Gonzales, E., Hommes, M. & Mirmulstein, M. 2014. MSME country indicators 2014: Towards a better
understanding of micro, small, and medium enterprises. Available at:
http://www.smefinanceforum.org/sites/all/modules/custom/sme_custom/datasites/analysis%20note.pd
f.
Gnanaraj, S., Devadasan, S., Murugesh, R. & Sreenivasa, C. 2012. Sensitisation of SMEs towards the
implementation of Lean Six Sigma — an initialisation in a cylinder frames manufacturing Indian SME.
Production Planning & Control, 23(8), pp. 599-608. doi:10.1080/09537287.2011.572091
Anand, G. & Kodali, R. 2010. Analysis of lean manufacturing frameworks. Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Systems, 1(9), pp. 1-30. doi:10.1142/S0219686710001776
Galinari, R., Teixeira Jr, J. & Morgado, R. 2013. A competitividade da indústria de móveis do Brasil:
Situação atual e perspectivas. BNDES Setorial 37 (mar.), pp. 227-272. Available at:
http://web.bndes.gov.br/bib/jspui/handle/1408/1516.
Oliveira, R., Stefenon, S., Branco, N., Oliveira, J. & Rohloff, R. (2017) Lean manufacturing em associação
à automação industrial: Estudo de caso aplicado à indústria moveleira. Espacios, 38(17), pp. 24-39.
Available at: http://www.revistaespacios.com/a17v38n17/a17v38n17p24.pdf
Vizzotto, M., Fredo, A., Ciconet, B., Rizzotto, M., Tondolo V. & Zanandrea, G. 2015. Identificação das
dificuldades de implantação da produção enxuta: Um estudo de caso no setor moveleiro. Espacios, 36(19),
pp. 20-31. Available at: http://www.revistaespacios.com/a15v36n19/15361920.html
Stahlhofer, E., Luz, R., Pessa, S., Laperuta, D. & Luz, J. 2016. Implantação de ferramentas Lean em
pequenas e médias empresas: Estudo de caso em uma indústria moveleira. Espacios, 37(37), pp. 15-20.
Available at: http://www.revistaespacios.com/a16v37n37/16373716.html
187
[27] Viana, A., Lucas Filho, F., Mellom, M., Santos, R., Lacerda, F., Lira, H., Santos, W., Medeiros, C.,
Bezerra, S., Neto, N. & Freitas, C. 2017. Redução de custos que não agregam valor via melhoria de
processos: Estudo de caso na produção de móveis. Espacios, 38(43), pp. 15-29. Available at:
http://www.revistaespacios.com/a17v38n43/a17v38n43p15.pdf.
[28] Araújo, C.A.C. 2004. Desenvolvimento e aplicação de um método para a implementação de sistemas de
produção enxuta utilizando os processos de raciocínio da teoria das restrições e o mapeamento de fluxo
de
valor.
Master’s
dissertation,
Universidade
de
São
Paulo.
Available
at:
http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/18/18140/tde-31072017113720/publico/Dissert_Araujo_CesarAC.pdf.
[29] Paris, A. 2013. Sistema Toyota de desenvolvimento de produtos: Uma análise em empresas moveleiras no
polo de Bento Gonçalves. Master’s dissertation, Universidade de Caxias do Sul — UCS. Available at:
https://repositorio.ucs.br/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11338/84/Dissertacao%20Adriano%20de%20Paris.pdf?
sequence=3&isAllowed=y.
[30] Yin, R. 2017. Case study research and applications: Design and methods, 6th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE
Publications.
[31] Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfield, R., McLachlin, R. & Samson, D. 2002. Effective case research in
operations management: A process perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 20(5), pp. 419-433.
doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00022-0
[32] Hayes, R. & Wheelwright, S. 1984. Restoring our competitive edge — Competing through manufacturing,
New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc..
[33] Womack, J. & Jones, D. 2003. Lean thinking: Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation, 2nd
ed.London: Simon & Schuster UK Ltd.
[34] Rother, M. & Shook, J. 1999. Learning to see: Value stream mapping to add value and eliminate MUDA,
1st ed. Cambridge: Lean Enterprise Institute.
[35] Grudowski, P., Wiśniewska, M. & Leseure, E. 2015. Lean Six Sigma in French and Polish small and mediumsized enterprises — The pilot research results. Key Engineering Materials, 637, pp. 1-6.
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.637.1
[36] Shingo, S. 1985. A revolution in manufacturing: The SMED system. Portland: Productivity Press.
[37] Bareji, P., Ismail, N. & Leman, Z. 2014. Review of lean adoption within small and medium sized
enterprises. Advanced Materials Research, 903, pp. 414-418.
[38] Belhadi, A., Touriki, F.E. & Fezazi, S.E. 2017. Prioritizing the solutions of lean implementation in SMEs
to overcome its barriers: An integrated fuzzy AHPTOPSIS approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 28(8), pp. 1115-1139.
[39] Chaplin, L., Heap, J. & O’Rourke, S.T.J. 2016. Could “Lean Lite” be the cost effective solution to applying
lean manufacturing in developing economies? International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, 65, pp. 126-136.
[40] Jiménez, H.F. & Amaya, C.L. 2014. Lean Six Sigma in small and medium enterprises: A methodological
approach [Lean Six Sigma en pequeñas y medianas empresas: Un enfoque metodológico]. Ingeniare, 22,
pp. 263-277.
[41] Godinho Filho, M., Ganga, G. & Gunasekaran, A. 2016. Lean manufacturing in Brazilian small and medium
enterprises: Implementation and effect on performance. International Journal of Production Research,
54(24), pp. 1-23.
[42] Jasti, N.V.K. & Kodali, R. 2016. Lean manufacturing frameworks: Review and a proposed framework.
European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 10(5), pp. 547-573. doi: 10.1504/EJIE.2016.078799
[43] Jasti, N.V.K. & Kodali, R. 2015. Lean production: Literature review and trends. International Journal of
Production Research, 53(3), pp. 867-885. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2014.937508
[44] Dora, M. & Gellynck, X. 2015. House of lean for food processing SMEs. Trends in Food Science &
Technology, 44, pp. 272-281.
[45] Gnanaraj, S.M., Devadasan, S., Murugesh, R. & Shalij, P. 2010. DOLADMAICS: A model for implementing
Lean Six Sigma in contemporary SMEs. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 7,
pp. 440-464.
[46] Khan, Z., Bali, R. & Wickramasinghe, N. 2008. A business process improvement framework to facilitate
superior SME operations. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 5, pp. 155-165.
[47] Nguyen, D.M. 2015. A new application model of lean management in small and medium sized enterprises.
International Journal of Simulation Modelling, 14, pp. 289-298.
[48] Thomas, A., Barton, R. & Chuke-Okafor, C. 2009. Applying lean six sigma in a small engineering company
— a model for change. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20, pp. 113-129.
[49] Timans, W., Ahaus, K., Van Solingen, R., Kumar, M. & Antony, J. 2016. Implementation of continuous
improvement based on Lean Six Sigma in small- and medium-sized enterprises. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 27, pp. 309-324.
[50] Vlachos, I. 2015. Applying lean thinking in the food supply chains: A case study. Production Planning &
Control, 26, pp. 1351-1367.
[51] Mostafa, S., Dumrak, J. & Soltan, H. 2013. A framework for lean manufacturing implementation.
Production & Manufacturing Research: An Open Access Journal, 1, pp. 44-64. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2013.862159
[52] Belhadi, A., Touriki, F.E. & El Fezazi, S. 2018. Lean implementation in small and medium‐sized
enterprises in less developed countries: Some empirical evidences from North Africa, Journal of Small
Business Management, 56(S1), pp. 132-153. doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-12-2016-0078
188
Copyright of South African Journal of Industrial Engineering is the property of South African
Journal of Industrial Engineering (University of Pretoria) and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.