Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:772–779

DOI 10.1007/s00170-008-1629-8

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Implementing lean manufacturing with cellular layout:

a case study
L. N. Pattanaik & B. P. Sharma

Received: 29 March 2007 / Accepted: 19 June 2008 / Published online: 19 August 2008
# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Abstract Lean manufacturing is an applied methodology Keywords Lean manufacturing . Cell formation . Takt time .
of scientific, objective techniques that cause work tasks in a Value adding and non-value adding activities .
process to be performed with a minimum of non-value Value stream mapping
adding activities resulting in greatly reduced wait time,
queue time, move time, administrative time, and other
delays. In a cellular manufacturing system (CMS), machines 1 Introduction
are grouped into several cells, where each cell is dedicated to
a particular part family and the objective is to maximize cell Lean manufacturing (LM) has increasingly been applied
independence. CMS helps in reducing the material handling, by leading manufacturing companies throughout the
work-in-process, setup time, and manufacturing lead time world, led by the major automobile manufactures and
and improve productivity, operation control, etc. The facility their equipment suppliers. A core concept of LM is pull
layout used during lean implementation can be either be a production in which the flow on the factory floor is
line layout or in the form of cells. After grouping parts in to driven by demand from downstream pulling production
various part families, machine cells can be formed to produce upstream as opposed to traditional batch-based produc-
those parts well inside the cells. As some of the lean tion in which production is pushed from upstream to
manufacturing concepts are different from that of cellular downstream based on a production schedule. In a recent
manufacturing, e.g., establishment of Takt time, Takt-based survey, approximately 36% of US-based manufacturing
resource balancing, etc., some new cell design methodology is companies have implemented lean or are in the process
required to be explored that is compatible with lean of implementing lean. Some of the changes required by
manufacturing. The rate at which work progresses through LM can be disruptive if not implemented correctly and
the factory is called flow rate or Takt. In the present work, a some aspects of it are not appropriate for all companies
design methodology for cellular layout is proposed for [2]. An LM facility is capable of producing product in
implementing lean concepts and is exemplified in a manufac- only the sum of its value added work content time.
turing industry dealing with ammunition components for Features of a typical LM model include: one unit at a time
defense applications. Based on Takt time for various parts, the production; non-value added time eliminated; production
production flow among cells was optimized thus minimizing in the work content time only; relocation of required
several non-value added activities/times such as bottlenecking resources to the point of usage; and all processes balanced
time, waiting time, material handling time, etc. This case to produce at same Takt rate. The rate at which work
study can be useful in developing a more generic approach to progresses through the shop floor is called Takt. It is a
design cellular layouts in lean environment. time–volume relationship calculated as the rhythm, beat,
or cadence for each process of a flow line and used to
establish resource definition and line balance. The flow of
L. N. Pattanaik (*) : B. P. Sharma the product is achieved by causing all of its work tasks to
Department of Production Engineering,
be grouped and balanced to a calculated Takt time.
Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra,
Ranchi, Jharkhand 835 215, India Cellular manufacturing (CM) is an application of group
e-mail: lnpattanaik@[Link] technology, a manufacturing philosophy in which parts are
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:772–779 773

grouped into part families, and machines are allocated into occurs when it is a job type production unit; this problem
machine cells to take advantage of the similarities among is the main reason for reconfiguration of machines and
parts in manufacturing. The significant benefits of cellular layout design for every demand. To eliminate these
manufacturing are a reduced setup time, reduced work-in- problems, a proper method is required to achieve a rhythm
process inventory, reduced throughput time, reduced mate- in manufacturing lean line by identifying value adding,
rial handling costs, improved product quality and simplified non-value adding, and necessary non-value adding activ-
scheduling, etc. [7]. The cell formation (CF) problem is the ities within a proper cell layout through an optimum
first step of the design of cellular manufacturing systems. feasible Takt time (Fig. 1).
The main objective of CF is to construct machine cells and This paper presents a case study of a small-scale industry
part families, and then dispatch part families to machine facing the problems as discussed above. It is not so difficult
cells to optimize the chosen performance measures such as to identify an optimum cell layout from any industrial data;
inter-cell and intra-cell transportation cost, grouping effi- only identification of cells is not the complete solution
ciency, exceptional elements, etc. Numerous methodologies because the cells should have a proper rhythm of manufac-
have been reported to identify machine cells and their turing line, minimizing wastages like bottleneck time,
associated part families. Some of the widely used methods waiting time, material handling time, etc.
are the similarity coefficient methods (SCM) [1, 3, 5, 6], Therefore, to make cellular manufacturing efficient, it is
heuristics and metaheuristics algorithm [4, 8, 9] and so on. necessary to implement various concepts of lean manufac-
The cell formation technique implemented here to turing within this cellular layout. In this paper, a case study is
identify the initial solution for cell design as reported in presented to design a cellular layout for the implementation
this paper is related to the hierarchical SCM-based of the lean manufacturing or, in other words, a cellular layout
approach. The reason for selecting a SCM-based approach which follows lean principles.
for cell formation is the simplistic nature of application on
the available industrial data. Section 2 of the paper
describes the importance of developing a proper cell 3 Case study
design methodology for implementing lean concepts
successfully. In Section 3, the case study is given with An ISO-certified manufacturing unit, ALCAST Pte. Ltd.,
details of various production parameters prevailing there. established in 1978, is a supplier of missile components and
The formation of machine cells and optimum cell layout sub-assemblies to government ordnance factories. Some of the
on the basis of Takt time is presented in Section 4. Finally, important supplies are fuse DA5A, fuse 161, components for
the conclusions of this study and future scopes of this 51-mm and 81-mm illuminating bombs, striker mechanism
research are presented. assembly, tail unit for 51-mm smoke missile, parts of 36-mm
hand grenades, etc.
In the present study, fuse DA5A assembly is selected to
2 Cellular layout for LM illustrate the proposed methodology for implementing lean
concepts on shop floor. A fuse DA5A operates only under
Cellular layout helps to achieve many of the objectives of high rotational speed to compress the spring, which locates
LM due to its ability to help eliminate many non-value the detent. It can be used to initiate ignition of a small to
added activities from the production process such as large quantity of explosives. It is a sub-assembly of the
waiting times, bottlenecks, transport and works-in-progress. following ten components as given in Table 1 along with
Many companies implement cellular layout for certain the various required machines or operations.
parts of the production process but not the entire A binary machine-part incidence matrix (MPIM) pre-
production process. A case study on implementing a pared from the production flow information for this set of
cellular production layout for a series of intermediate parts is given in Table 2. Although several methods for
production processes at Franklin Corp., a US manufacturer identifying the machine cells using the present form of
of upholstered furniture, reported a 36% increase in labor MPIM are available, a simple and widely used hierarchical
productivity as a result of implementing a lean manufac- similarity (Jaccard coefficient)-based approach is used here.
turing system. McAuley [3] first used the generic Jaccard coefficient to
In the present day of manufacturing, cells can be form machine cells. The Jaccard similarity coefficients
formed easily for any industry whether it is a small-scale among the machine pairs are obtained using the following
or a large-scale industry. When the Takt times are simple expression:
calculated for every part manufactured in the industry
Number of parts which require processing on both machines m and n
through intercellular and intracellular part movements, S mn ¼
Number of parts which require processing on at least one of the machines
then the problem of locating machines on the shop floor
774 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:772–779

Fig. 1 Machine cells are feed-

ing to main lean flow line at
Takt rate

Cell 1
Sub-assembly_1

TAKT Final Assembly

Lean Flow Line

TAKT TAKT

Cell 2 Cell 3
Sub-assembly_2 Sub-assembly_3

Using Table 2, the Jaccard similarity coefficients are machines (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10) and (8, 6). In the present study,
found and tabulated in Table 3. For example, S12 =4/5=0.8, a threshold value of 0.5 is assumed which gives a realistic three
S13 =2/5=0.4, and so on. machine cells identified as cell 1 (1, 2, 3, 4, 7), cell 2 (5, 9, 10),
Maximum similarity coefficient is for S12 =4/5=0.8, thus and cell 3 (8, 6). To design the optimum layout for the machine
it will be taken as the first pair of machines i.e. pair (1, 2) cells to implement lean manufacturing, each of the parts is
and similarly for the next iteration and so on. considered individually. Here, the lower body component of
The dendogram from the above table is as given in Fig. 2. the product is taken for detailed analysis. Production flow
Using this dendogram, different grouping results can be information for the lower body is given in Table 4.
obtained at different threshold values. For example, at a The following data are either collected or calculated for
threshold value of 0.25, two cells are resulting comprising of analyzing the optimality of the proposed cellular layout:
Total processing time including loading and unloading=
1,652 s
Table 1 Parts and machines required to assemble fuse DA5A
Total material handling time=218 s
Parts Machines/operations Total slack time=*total bottleneck time*+total waiting time
Waiting time=positive slack time; bottleneck time=
P1 Disc M1 Band saw
P2 Septum M2 CNC machine
negative slack time
P3 Tag M3 Drilling Hence, total bottleneck time=−98 s and total waiting
P4 Shutter M4 Lathe time=341 s
P5 Safety cap M5 Milling Therefore total slack time=341+98=439 s
P6 Striker pin M6 Punching Total excess time=material handling time+total slack
P7 Stop detent M7 Grinder time=218+439=657 s per part
P8 Upper body M8 Pressure die casting ∴ Total time required to manufacture one part of lower
P9 Lower body M9 De-burring
body=processing time+excess time=1,652+657=2,309 s=
P10 Magazine M10 Anodizing
38 min 29 s
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:772–779 775

Table 2 Machine-part incidence matrix for fuse DA5A

Part

Machine P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10

M1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
M2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
M3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
M4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
M5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
M6 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
M7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
M8 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
M9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
M10 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

Available production time per part for existing layout= Therefore total production time for one part of lower
2,309−439=1,870 s body=1,697+377=2,074 s
Average production of lower body per day=400 Excess time reduced per part=657−377=280 s, there-
Total available time for production per day (excluding fore at least 23 extra parts can be produced daily.
lunch time other idle times)=8 h=8×3,600=28,800 s The new distribution of production time can be depicted
Therefore Takt time for lower body=28,800/400=72 s as in Fig. 4. Based on this analysis for the lower body, the
Before implementing the optimum cellular layout, the present and future state maps are given in Appendix A.
value adding, non-value adding, and necessary non-value After analyzing the above operations as implemented in the
adding activities are to be identified as given in Table 5. existing layout, some bottlenecking operations are identified.
Therefore, total non-value added time=315+439=754 s To minimize these wastages, a new feasible manufacturing
and necessary non-value added time=320+218=538 s. flow has been developed by changing operation sequence and
With the help of these data, Fig. 3 can be drawn to show combining operation wherever possible (Table 6).
the distribution of total production time. Similar to the analysis of the lower body, the rest of the
Now, total processing time including loading and nine parts is completed and the relevant data are given in
unloading=1,697 s Table 7. As it can be seen from the table, several non-value
Total material handling time=137 s adding and necessary non-value adding activities are
Total bottleneck time=−49 s and total waiting time=191 s reduced by means of the measures discussed earlier. The
Therefore total slack time=49+191=240 s
Total excess time=material handling time+total slack
0.8 0.7 0.67 0.5 0.25 0.125
time=137+240=377 s per part
Therefore total non-value adding (NVA) time=290+240=
530 s
And total necessary non-value adding (NNVA) time=
290+137=427 s
1
2
Table 3 Machine similarity coefficients [3]
3
Machine M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10
4
M1 0 0.8 0.4 0.33 0.2 0.125 0.2 0 0.5 0.5 7
M2 0 0.5 0.4 0.25 0 0.25 0 0.4 0.375
5
M3 0 0.67 0 0 0.5 0 0.2 0.2857
M4 0 0 0 0.33 0.25 0.3 0.25
9
M5 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1429
M6 0 0 0 0.4 0.375 10
M7 0 0 0.1 0.1429 8
M8 0 0.2 0.125
M9 0 0.7 6
M10 0
Fig. 2 Dendogram for the machine cell grouping problem
776 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:772–779

Table 4 Operation sequence and various production related times for lower body

S.N. Machine Operation (no. of operators) Processing time per part, s Material handling time (Slack time)

1 Band saw Sectioning of rods (1) 45 0 (0)

2 CNC-1 First setup (1) 107 65 (3)
3 CNC-2 Second setup (1) 100 5 (12)
4 Drill-1 Trimming (1) 40 30 (90)
5 Drill-2 Detent flat hole (1) 90 1 (−49)
6 Drill-3 Smaller flash hole (1) 90 1 (1)
7 Drill-4 Detent hole (1) 90 1 (1)
8 Lathe-1 Contour and file (1) 110 20 (0)
9 Drill-5 Contour cutting (1) 80 10 (40)
10 Drill-6 Safety pin hole (1) 80 1 (1)
11 Drill-7 Ball hole (1) 80 1 (1)
12 Drill-8 Reaming (1) 30 1 (51)
13 Drill-9 Enlarge flash hole (1) 80 1 (−49)
14 Drill-10 and 11 Locking and hinge pin hole (2) 80 1 (1)
15 Drill-12 Slot cutting (1) 80 1 (1)
16 Drill-13 Screw hole (1) 65 5 (20)
17 Drill-14 Tapping (1) 65 1 (1)
18 Drill-15 Tommy hole (1) 65 1 (1)
19 Grinder-1 Contour flattening(1) 65 1 (1)
20 Manual Burr removal (3) 40 10 (35)
21 Grinder-2 Tap on internal threads (1) 45 20 (15)
22 Drill-16 Final reamer to remove dusts (1) 35 25 (35)
23 Manual Burr removal (3) 40 10 (5)
24 Lathe-2 Stamping lot no. etc. (1) 30 5 (15)
25 Lathe-3 Stamping burr removal (1) 20 1 (11)

Table 5 Identification of value Operation number Value adding Non-value adding Necessary non-value adding
added activities for lower
body 1 Yes (45) – –
2 Yes (107) – –
3 Yes (100) – –
4 – Yes (40) –
5 Yes (90) – –
6 Yes (90) – –
7 Yes (90) – –
8 Yes (110) – –
9 – – Yes (80)
10 Yes (80) – –
11 Yes (80) – –
12 – Yes (30) –
13 Yes (80) – –
14 – – Yes (80)
15 Yes (80) – –
16 – – Yes (65)
17 – – Yes (65)
18 Yes (65) – –
19 – Yes (65) –
20 – Yes (40) –
21 – Yes (45) –
22 – Yes (35) –
23 – Yes (40) –
24 – – Yes (30)
25 – Yes (20) –
Total 1,017 315 320
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:772–779 777

NNVA 23.3% Table 6 Modified production information for lower body

Operation Processing time MH time Value Non- Necessary

sequence with loading and (slack added value non-value
unloading time time) added added
VA 44% 1 45 0 (0) Yes – –
(45)
2 107 65 (3) Yes – –
(107)
3 100 5 (12) Yes – –
(100)
4+21 40+1+45+14=100 25 (25) – Yes –
NVA 32.7% (100)
5 90 1 (11) Yes – –
Fig. 3 Distribution of production time for lower body in percentage (90)
6 90 1 (1) Yes – –
(90)
total distance to be traveled by the parts (as calculated using 7 90 1 (1) Yes – –
the inter-machine and inter-cell distances) also reduces after (90)
the implementation of the proposed cellular layout. The 8 110 10 (−10) Yes – –
reduction in total distance traveled by the parts decreases (110)
the labor requirement for material handling. The production 9 80 5 (35) – – Yes (80)
10 80 1 (1) Yes – –
quantity per shift also increased owing to the decrease in
(80)
total Takt time of all the ten parts. The economic benefits
11 80 1 (1) Yes – –
are evident and on-time delivery boosts the relationship (80)
with clients. The workers now being aware of several 24+25+ 30+1+5+20+30+ 5 (−15) Yes – –
wastages laid the foundation for lean manufacturing. 12 14=100 (100)
13 80 5 (25) Yes – –
(80)
4 Conclusion 14 80 1 (1) – – Yes (80)
15 80 1 (1) Yes – –
(80)
In the present work, a methodology to adopt cellular layout for 16 65 1 (16) – – Yes (65)
lean manufacturing is discussed for a manufacturing-based 17 65 1 (1) – – Yes (65)
case study. First, an existing and familiar cell formation 18 65 1 (1) Yes – –
technique based on binary machine-part incidence matrix was (65)
applied to identify machine cells for the given set of part 22 35 1 (31) – Yes –
types. Depending on individual part’s operation sequence and (35)
19 65 5 (25) – Yes –
processing, material handling time, etc., the original cell
(65)
layout is analyzed to minimize the several wastages in the 20+23 40+1+40+9=90 1 (−24) – Yes –
form of non-value adding activities like waiting time, slack (90)
Total 1,697 137 1,117 290 290

NVA, 25.50% time, etc. To achieve this, some operations are combined and
machine relocation within the cell is implemented.
The future scopes of this work include load balancing
and maximization of utilization of the cells identified for
lean implementation; although the problem then becomes a
VA, 54% multi-objective optimization, one which can be solved by
several existing methods. Further, a generalized group
technology (problem with alternative process plans) ap-
NNVA, 20.50% proach can identify more efficient lean cells. The benefits
from lean layout design are evident from the production
Fig. 4 New distribution of production time for lower body in output and may open more research issues regarding cell
percentage design for lean implementation.
778 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:772–779

Table 7 Comparison between pre-analysis and post-analysis data pertaining to several performance measures

Parts Pre-analysis Post-analysis

Takt time Total travel Excess time VA NVA NNVA Takt time Total travel Excess time VA NVA NNVA
(s) (m) (s) % % % (s) (m) (s) % % %

P1—Disc 19.2 102 240 22.1 45.6 32.3 19.2 102 240 22.1 45.6 32.3
P2—Septum 14.4 5 10 33.3 50 16.7 14.4 5 10 33.3 50 16.7
P3—Tag 10.67 10 20 44.4 44.4 11.2 10.67 10 20 44.4 44.4 11.2
P4—Shutter 17.94 30 80 40 50 10 17.94 30 80 40 50 10
P5—Safety cap 19.2 37 125 30 41.7 28.3 19.2 37 125 30 41.7 28.3
P6—Striker pin 16.94 35 140 41.4 41.4 17.2 16.94 35 140 41.4 41.4 17.2
P7—Stop detent 10.67 10 20 44.4 44.4 11.2 10.67 10 20 44.4 44.4 11.2
P8—Upper body 41.14 102 267 39.11 34.66 26.23 40.41 98 237 41 34.7 24.3
P9—Lower body 72 158 657 44 32.7 23.3 68.11 123 377 54 25.5 20.5
P10—Magazine 28.8 27 99 32.4 28.4 39.2 28.8 27 99 32.4 28.4 39.2
Total 250.96 516 1,658 37.11 41.33 21.56 246.34 477 1348 38.3 40.6 21.1

Appendix A

3 Month Production
Manufacturer Forecast Control Customer
Forecast
Lower body 12000 pieces / month
Monthly
One Month Order
Tray of 10

Weekly Schedule Shipping Schedule

Monthly Weekly /
Monthly /
Fortnightly

Manual
STORE Band saw CNC Drilling Grinding Lathe DISPATCH
operations

CT= 30 sec. CT= 11 CT= 3 min. CT= 2 min. CT= 2 min. CT= 2 min.
min.
C/O = 3 C/O = 3 C/O = 4 C/O = 6 C/O = 6 C/O = 6
min min min min min min
U/T= 90% U/T=85 % U/T= 85 % U/T= 85 U/T=90% U/T=90 %
NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF
SHIFTS = 1 SHIFTS =1 SHIFTS =1 SHIFTS =1 SHIFTS =3 SHIFTS =1
DEFECT = DEFECT = DEFECT= DEFECT= DEFECT= DEFECT=
2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 1% 0%

0.5 day 0.25 day 0.25 day 0.25 day 0.5 day 0.4 day 7 days

0.5 11 3 2 2 2
min. min. min. min. min. min.

Fig. 5a Current state map

Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2009) 42:772–779 779

3 Month Production
Manufacturer Forecast Customer
Control Forecast
Lower body 12000 pieces /
Monthly month
One Month Order
X Tray of 10

Daily schedule Shipping Schedule

Monthly Weekly /
Monthly/
Fortnightly

Reduce defect Reduce machine Reduce setup time

down time

Lathe Manual Dispatch

Band saw CNC Drilling Grinding operations

CT = 30 sec. CT = 3 min. CT = 2 min. CT = 2 min. CT = 2 min.

OXOX 1 Day
CT = 11 min.
C/O = 3 min C/O = 3 min C/O = 4 min C/O = 6 min C/O = 6 min C/O = 6 min Inventory
U/T = 90% U/T = 85 % U/T = 85 % U/T = 85 U/T = 90% U/T = 90 %
NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF
SHIFTS = 1 SHIFTS = 1 SHIFTS = 1 SHIFTS = 1 SHIFTS = 3 SHIFTS = 1
DEFECT = DEFECT = DEFECT = DEFECT = DEFECT = DEFECT =
2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 1% 0%

0.5 day 0.25 day 0.25 day 0.25 day 0.5 day
0.5 min. 11 min. 3 min. 2 min. 2 min. 2 min.

Fig. 5b Future state map

References 5. Seifoddini H, Wolfe PM (1986) Application of the similarity

coefficient method in group technology. IIE Trans 18(3):271–277
6. Seifoddini H (1989) A note on the similarity coefficient method and the
1. Gupta T, Seifoddini H (1990) Production data based similarity problem of improper machine assignment in group technology applica-
coefficient for machine-component grouping decisions in the tions. Int J Prod Res 27:1161–1165 doi:10.1080/00207548908942614
design of a cellular manufacturing system. Int J Prod Res 7. Wemmerlov U, Johnson DJ (1997) Cellular manufacturing at 46
28:1247–1269 doi:10.1080/00207549008942791 user plants: implementation experiences and performance improve-
2. Hobbs DP (2004) Lean manufacturing implementation: a complete ments. Int J Prod Res 35:29–49 doi:10.1080/002075497195966
execution manual for any size manufacturer. J. Ross Publishing, 8. Zhao C, Wu Z (2000) A genetic algorithm for manufacturing cell
Boca Raton formation with multiple routes and multiple objectives. Int J Prod
3. McAuley J (1972) Machine grouping for efficient production. Prod Res 38(2):385–395 doi:10.1080/002075400189473
Eng 51:53 9. Zolfaghari S, Liang M (1998) Machine cell/part family forma-
4. Pattanaik LN, Jain PK, Mehta NK (2007) Solving multi-objective tion considering processing times and machine capacities: a
cell design problem: an evolutionary genetic algorithm approach. simulated annealing approach. Comput Ind Eng 34:813–823
Int J Manuf Tech Manag 11(2):251–273 doi:10.1016/S0360-8352(98)00112-0