Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

International Journal of Production Research Vol. 50, No.

8, 15 April 2012, 22342251

A decision framework for maximising lean manufacturing performance


Varun Ramesh and Rambabu Kodali*
Mechanical Engineering Group, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani-333031, Rajasthan, India (Received 26 May 2010; final version received 14 February 2011) Since the development of the original value stream mapping (VSM) by Taichi Ohno at Toyota, a number of authors have suggested several additional VSM tools to understand and improve the value stream through waste reduction. A single best VSM tool, though effective in dealing with a certain waste type, becomes redundant as other wastes take centre stage and/or organisational priorities change. To overcome this, a decision framework based on a novel formulation of the integrated analytical hierarchy process (AHP) preemptive goal programming (PGP) has been proposed. This framework not only guarantees accurate selection of an ideal VSM tool, based on the current organisations priorities, but also aids the decision maker to arrive at the optimum implementation sequence of a chosen set of VSM tools to identify and reduce all wastes present in the system, thereby maximising organisational performance in the shortest timeframe. Keywords: lean manufacturing; waste; VSM; decision framework; lean competitive priorities; lean performance metrics; AHP; PGP

1. Introduction The term lean manufacturing was first used in The machine that changed the world by James Womack and Daniel Jones (1991) to describe the manufacturing philosophy pioneered by Toyota. The philosophy has been practised at Toyota under the name of Toyota Production System (TPS), which has its origins in Kichiro Toyodas (the founder of Toyota) work way back in 1934 but has only recently (since 1990) received global attention. In a nutshell, lean manufacturing is the endless pursuit of eliminating waste (Shingo 1989). Waste is anything that adds cost, but not value, to a product (Ohno 1988). Toyota categorises the different types of waste observed around its plant into seven categories, also known as the seven deadly wastes (Shingo 1988). Several authors have presented various alternative typologies for different types of waste present in a system; Dennis (2007) has included the waste of knowledge disconnection in addition to the seven wastes. Liker and Meier (2006) have introduced the waste of unused creativity. The Kaizen Institute (2010) proposed reprioritisation waste as an additional category. Hines et al. (1998) have introduced power and and energy, human potential, environmental pollution, unnecessary overheads and inappropriate design. In the present research, only the seven wastes as originally proposed by Shingo (1988) have been considered. These are the wastes created by: overproduction; inventory; waiting; overprocessing; transportation; excessive human motion; and defects.

1.1 Value stream mapping as a tool against waste The concept of using a visual tool to represent the flow of material and information as a means to identify and eliminate waste was originally introduced by Taichi Ohno. Originally, this methodology was passed on in Toyota through the learning by doing process mentors trained mentees by assigning them to projects and remained unknown to the outside world at large. Mike Rother and John Shook changed that, in their Learning to see (1999). According to Rother and Shook, a value stream is defined as all the actions (both value added and non-value added) currently required to bring a product through the main flows essential to every product: the production flow from raw material into the arms of the customer and the design flow from concept to launch. An alternative view to VSM has also been found in the literature. As proposed by Hines et al. (1998), value stream management is a more strategic and holistic approach to waste identification and removal. By borrowing techniques from diverse fields such as engineering, logistics and operations research, Hines and Rich (1997) have
*Corresponding author. Email: proframbabukodali@gmail.com
ISSN 00207543 print/ISSN 1366588X online 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.564665 http://www.tandfonline.com

International Journal of Production Research

2235

compiled a set of seven detailed value stream mapping tools (Table 1) to identify micro-level waste and subsequently reduce it. However, application of inappropriate mapping tools may result in the additional wastage of resources such as time and money, and the reduction of employees confidence in the lean philosophy. Hence, Hines and Rich have also proposed a decision heuristic for selection of value stream mapping techniques using the Value Stream Analysis Tool (VALSAT) approach. As part of the heuristic, Hines and Rich have developed a correlation matrix between various waste types and the seven value stream mapping tools. The current paper further develops the matrix to encompass lean value stream mapping (current state map/future state map), as shown in Table 2. This presents the organisation with the opportunity to compare the performance of value stream management tools with

Table 1. The seven value stream mapping tools. Mapping tool 1. Process activity mapping 2. Supply chain response matrix Description An industrial engineering tool for the study of flow process, identification of waste, consideration of process rearrangement, consideration of flow rearrangement, analysis of the occurrence of activity. Portrays in a simple diagram the critical lead-time constraints for a particular process. It may plot a simple diagram indicating cumulative inventory lead time versus process lead time at various stages. It helps in targeting each of the individual inventory amounts and lead time at different stages for improvement. Plots the number of product variants at each stage of the manufacturing process. Helps in deciding where to target inventory reduction and making changes to the processing of products. Provides overview of the company. This tool is designed to identify quality problems in the order fulfilment process or the wider supply chain. The map shows the occurrence of the three types of defects (product defects, scrap defects and service defects) in the value stream. This graph shows the batch size of the product at various stages of the production process (within a company or supply chain).It can also show the inventory holding at various stages in time. Decision point analysis is of particular use for T plants or for supply chains that exhibit similar features, although it may be used in other industries. It indicates the point at which products stop being made according to actual demand and instead are made against forecast alone. Useful in understanding what a particular supply chain looks like at an overview or industry level and how it operates; in particular, in directing attention to areas that may not be receiving sufficient development attention.

3. Production variety funnel 4. Quality filter mapping 5. Demand amplification mapping 6. Decision point analysis

7. Physical structure mapping

Source: Hines et al. (1997), adapted from Singh et al. (2006).

Table 2. 7 1 value stream mapping tools. Mapping tools Process activity mapping L H H H M H L Supply chain response matrix M H H L Production variety funnel L M M L H H Quality filter mapping L Demand amplification mapping M M Decision point analysis M M L L M L Physical structure mapping Lean value stream mapping H M L M H

Wastes Overproduction Waiting Transport Over-processing Inventory Motion Defects

Notes: H High correlation and usefulness; M Medium correlation and usefulness; L Low correlation and usefulness. Tools 17 adapted from Hines and Rich (1997).

2236

V. Ramesh and R. Kodali

lean material and information flow mapping and, based on their priorities, to choose the best tool for waste identification and removal. The VALSAT process, though simple in nature, is prone to judgemental inconsistency created by the biased view of the decision makers while allocating emphasis to different alternatives (Singh et al. 2006). To overcome these shortfalls, Singh et al. have proposed a fuzzy-based, multi-preference, multi-person and multi-criteria decisionsupport heuristic for the selection of value stream mapping tools. Though the framework provides a logical and rational methodology for selection of detailed value stream mapping tools, it fails to address long-term waste reduction. According to lean principles, if a manufacturing plant wants to deliver the highest quality, at the lowest cost, in the shortest time to its customers and also continuously improve on them, then it must continuously identify and remove all the waste present in the system. Although a single VSM tool may be effective in dealing with a certain type waste that currently is of the highest priority to the organization, it becomes increasingly redundant as other wastes take centre stage and/or organisational priorities change. There is no one-time solution for highest quality at the lowest cost in the shortest time. This is the fundamental problem faced by the previously described decision process. Hence, there exists a need to develop a framework that not only guarantees selection of the most suitable VSM tool based on the current organisations priorities but also proposes the best sequence of application of VSM tools to remove other wastes present in the system and maximise the performance measures of the organisation. This is the objective of the current paper: to develop a decision framework for the selection of the best sequence of VSM tool application to maximise the performance of a lean manufacturer by removal of all waste types in the shortest time and with the minimum expenditure of resources. To do so, the paper describes a novel approach to integrated AHP-PGP modelling using an iterative algorithm to solve the prioritised goal optimisation.

2. An overview of the case organisation The organisation considered in this case study is a medium-sized, original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for many automobile manufacturers located in the northern part of India. It manufactures different types of automobile component (base plates, separator assemblies, notch backs, etc.). These parts are predominantly used by major automobile manufacturers (for both two-wheel and four-wheel drive vehicles) across the country. Table 3 presents a summary of the case organisation. The organisation is currently facing a lot of problems in terms of not being able to meet its competitive priorities. A few of the critical problems are high variety and low volume, quality, delivery and cost of production. Hence, the organisation chose to streamline its processes to achieve its objectives of improving productivity, quality, delivery and minimum cost. The organisation has a strong focus on the safety and morale of its workforce and would like to achieve its business objectives without comprising its safety standards. Top management was open to implementing management philosophies such as lean manufacturing. This is because, as an OEM to some of the biggest automobile manufacturers in the country, they had obtained the ISO 9000 certification of quality, which had produced good results in the past in terms of standardising various processes as well as reducing defects. Hence, they were contemplating implementing such manufacturing management practices and philosophies. The first step to streamlining its process was to identify appropriate mapping tools to map the current organisational processes and identify waste. The issue here was how to choose the best VSM tools to map and reduce all the various forms of waste in the organisation with the least expenditure of time and energy.

Table 3. Summary of case organisation. Industry characteristics Industry type Industry sector Product Product type Production volume and variety Company vision Mission Details about the case organisation Discrete type manufacturing Manufacturing Different types of automobile parts for two-wheel and four-wheel drive vehicles Critical components High variety and low volume To be a star performer and market leader Continuous improvement of products, processes and people

International Journal of Production Research

2237

This dilemma was resolved by the application of the developed decision frame for lean tool selection so as to maximise the performance of lean manufacturing.

3. Development of the decision framework The decision framework selects the best sequence of VSM tool application to maximise the performance of a lean manufacturer by removal of all waste types in the shortest time and with the minimum expenditure of money and energy. The steps involved in the decision framework process are as follows: (1) Identification of performance measures (PM) for lean manufacturing that need to be maximised. (2) Identification of VSM tools for the lean manufacturer that will aid in the improvement process. (3) Selection of VSM tool for current priority: using AHP to select the best VSM tool to maximise the current priority with minimum expenditure of time and effort. (4) Identification of performance metrics for each PM and prioritisation of them with respect to the corresponding PM. (5) Selection of VSM tools for future priorities: using PGP to identify the best sequence of VSM tool application to maximise all PMs by identification and subsequent reduction of all waste types with minimum expenditure of time and money. PGP also outputs the optimum value of performance metrics that maximise the corresponding PM under the given constraint. (6) Comparison of the optimum value of the metrics with real time performance metrics to help decide when a certain VSM tool has attained the limit of its ability to effect improvement and that it is time to apply the next VSM tool in the sequence as defined by PGP. Figure 1 shows the flowchart for the decision framework.

Figure 1. Flowchart for decision framework.

2238

V. Ramesh and R. Kodali

3.1 Performance measurement The objective of lean manufacturing is to maximise performance by eliminating waste. Hence, performance measures and waste serve as the attributes and sub-attributes of the AHP model, described in a later section, which aid the decision maker in converting information (knowledge, judgements, values, opinions, needs, wants, etc.) to numerical values by establishing priorities. These will also serve as elements (objective function and constraints) for the PGP model and hence defining a comprehensive set of performance measures that provide an all-round view of the organisations priorities and preferences is the most critical section of the decision framework. In lean philosophy, measures give a sense of direction as we move from the current state to the future state by keeping our actions aligned with the businesss long-term goals (Rother 2010). Dennis (2007) has suggested six primary customer focus or performance measures (PM) for a lean manufacturer: productivity, quality, cost, delivery, safety and and environment and morale. There also exists a need to define a new set of lean performance metrics so as to measure the intensity of the PM along different dimensions. Traditional metrics (related to mass production) cannot be used in a lean environment because these will cause people to resist changing the habits for which they were previously rewarded and hence performance will depreciate accordingly (Total Systems Development Inc. 2001). The most common metric in mass manufacturing is the desire to produce as much as possible to improve the efficiency or utilisation of personnel and equipment. This leads to the waste created by overproduction, if what is produced is not synchronised with what is required (customer demand). Ideal efficiency (lean) is to make exactly what is needed, when it is needed, in the quantities required and at the lowest cost.

3.2 Lean performance metrics A performance metric is a verifiable variable that is expressed in either quantitative or qualitative terms. Neely et al. (2005) defined performance metrics as a variable used to quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of an action. Daum and Bretscher (2004) extended the definition of performance metric to include a qualitative aspect because different stakeholders put different values on the same outcome, which cannot be quantified. Also, intangible measures to a large extent cannot be quantified, and thus require a qualitative metric (Lev 2001). A performance metric should be based on an agreed-upon set of data and a well-understood and well-documented process for converting that data into the metric. Given the data and process, independent sources should be able to arrive at the same metric value (Melnyk et al. 2004). To interpret meaning from a metric, however, it must be compared to a target (Mahindhar 2005). Based on these parameters, 29 key performance metrics for lean manufacturing were identified (Total Systems Development Inc. 2001; Anand and Kodali 2008) through a thorough literature survey (Table 4). The performance metrics for the six PM of lean manufacturing are described below: Lean metrics for productivity: (1) Wait Kanban Time (WKT): In a lean manufacturing company (using Kanban or pull methods), production must be stopped to avoid the waste of overproduction. The line is in Wait Kanban Time mode when it awaits the order to resume making the products required by the customer. Consistently high amount of Wait Kanban Time indicates an imbalance between processes, caused by greater capacity than required to meet the customer demand. (2) Parts per labour hour (PLH): This considers the variability of the workforce, as well as the overall efficiency of the production line. This calculation is the total number of good (non-defective) parts produced, divided by the total labour hours worked, minus any scheduled non-production time (including Wait Kanban Time) (3) Total parts produced (TPP): This is necessary to understand the production process because all measurements, such as yield or scrap rate, are compared to the total parts produced and expressed as a percentage of this total. (4) Line stop time (LST): This is the amount of time the line is stopped for any reason other than equipment down time or Wait Kanban Time. Causes include part shortage, quality issues, etc. It is normally reported as a percentage of standard operating time minus Wait Kanban Time. (5) Equipment downtime (EDT): It is the percentage of time the machine is unable to produce product during scheduled operation time. (6) Shorting customer process (SCP) and: This measure indicates a processs ability to produce what is needed, when it is needed and according to the process Takt time. It should be used only if there is an ongoing problem, or if it is the best measure of process capability. It can be calculated by dividing the amount of stop time by standard operation time, minus the Wait Kanban Time.

International Journal of Production Research Table 4. List of key PM metrics for lean manufacturing. Performance metric 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Wait Kanban Time Parts per labour hour Total parts produced Line stop time Equipment downtime Shorting customer process Stopping supplier process Changeover time Customer satisfaction Defects repaired in process Yield Scrap % Scrap cost Total inventory Labour content Raw material variance Missed delivery cycles Quick response to customer Delivery reliability Number of work-related injuries Lost work days Number of medical visits Work-related restrictions Employment security Employee training andand development Number of awards andand rewards disbursed Employee involvement Culture Governance p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p Quantitative p p p p p p p p p Qualitative Reference

2239

Total Systems Development Inc. (2001) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Anand et al. (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Anand et al. (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Dennis (2007); Anand and Kodali (2008); Shingo (1989) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Anand et al. (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Anand and Kodali (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Anand and Kodali (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Anand and Kodali (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Anand and Kodali (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Anand and Kodali (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Anand and Kodali (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Anand and Kodali (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Dennis (2007) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Dennis (2007); Anand and Kodali (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Dennis (2007); Anand and Kodali (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Dennis (2007); Anand and Kodali (2008) Total Systems Development Inc. (2001); Dennis (2007) Dennis (2007) Dennis (2007); Thompson and Wallace (1996)

(7) Stopping supplier process (SSP): This is the same as the shorting customer process (SCP). (8) Changeover time (C/T): A lengthy changeover time contributes to a lack of efficiency. Time lost is generally compensated for by running larger batch sizes. It is the time recorded in minutes from the last good of one part type to the first good of another part type. Lean metrics for quality: (9) Customer satisfaction (CUS): This is defined as the number of defective parts returned from the following process or customer. It is calculated as a percentage of the total parts produced by a process.

2240

V. Ramesh and R. Kodali

(10) Defects repaired in process (DEF): Products are categorised as either acceptable parts as produced (first run or first time through), parts requiring rework or scrap parts. The second category of parts is recorded in this metric and represented as a percentage of total parts produced. (11) Yield (YLD): This refers to the percentage of total parts produced that are accepted as is, i.e. without any rework. (12) Scrap % (SCR): These parts require excessive rework and hence are scrapped and recycled into raw materials (if possible) than rectified back into the flow. This metric is related to defects repaired in process (DEF) and Yield (YLD) by the following equation: SCR 1 YLD DEF Lean metrics for cost: (13) Scrap cost (SCC): Total cost associated with scrapped parts/discarded materials. (14) Total inventory (TIN): The total cost associated with any standing inventory (finished goods, WIP, raw materials). Traditionally, inventory has been viewed as an asset but lean philosophy focuses on complete reduction of all types of inventory. (15) Labour content (LCN): For a lean manufacturer, labour is a fixed cost. This is derived from the practice within Toyota of lifetime employment. Labour content is the number of workers required to successfully operate a line after Takt time and standardised work considerations. (16) Raw material variance (RMV): Standards are developed for the amount of raw material per part. Total raw material consumption should be compared to the standard quantity-per-part multiplied by the total parts produced, which will provide a variance to the standard. This multiplied by the average cost of raw materials gives the variance in cost terms. High variance may be caused by over-processing waste, high scrap rate or material wastage (spillage, excess trim scrap). Lean metrics for delivery: (17) Missed delivery cycles (MDC): This metric measures the efficiency of material handlers working in a pullbased production operation. Failure to complete a delivery cycle results in fluctuations in the material process, and the customer process does not have sufficient parts at the operation to continue production. Excess missed delivery cycles also increases the number of production kanbans deposited in the supply operation, which may overwhelm it. (18) Quick response to customer (QRC): This metric measures the ability of the process to meet fluctuations in customer demand. The number of orders over and above the average order size is recorded and the number of such orders met is measured as a percentage of the latter. (19) Delivery reliability (DRL): Delivery reliability is a more comprehensive metric as compared to past due orders used in traditional manufacturing setups. It includes the percentage of orders delivered on time that are correct and complete (not partial shipment). This number provides the most accurate reflection of customer satisfaction. Lean metrics for safety: (20) Number of work-related injuries (INJ): These typically fall into two broad categories accidents or sudden injuries, including cuts, contusions, etc., and cumulative trauma disorders or repetitive motion injuries, including carpel tunnel syndrome and thoracic outlet syndrome. (21) Lost work days (LWD): Operational downtime resulting from work-related injuries of personnel and/or health and and safety hazards. (22) Number of medical visits (MDV): Number of visits to a medical facility due to injuries and/or possible or real health hazards. (23) Work-related restrictions (WRR): Number of work-related restrictions resulting from the general operational environment in the plant. Lean metrics for morale: (24) Employment security (EMS): Job security is one of the core values of a lean manufacturer. Lean manufacturing does not mean eliminating jobs. It means reducing the labour content of operations so that 1

International Journal of Production Research

2241

(25) (26) (27)

(28)

(29)

workers are free to be involved in improvement activities around the plant. The number of employment contracts terminated in a fixed period is a good measure of the sense of job security in the organisation. Employee training andand development (ETD): Number of employee training and developmental programmes undertaken in an organisation in a fixed period of time. Number of awards and and rewards disbursed (A/R): The number of awards (best employee of the month, year, etc.), bonuses for performance and so on. Employee involvement (EMI): This is a combined measure of all the group activities an average employee may be involved in, e.g. number. of Kaizen circles, average number of suggestions per employee, etc. Culture (CUL): The culture of lean production comprises PDCA, standardisation, visual management, teamwork, intensity, paradox and lean production as a do path. The level of awareness and intensity of involvement of the employees in these activities defines the quality of the culture. Since this is a qualitative measure, a Likert scale-based questionnaire (Trochim 2006) will be the most appropriate tool to quantify the quality of culture in an organisation. Governance (GOV): Corporate governance is defined as the set of processes, customs, policies, laws and institutions affecting the way a corporation (or company) is directed, administered or controlled (Wikipedia 2010). In a lean manufacturer, governance has a critical impact on how a team is organised, functions and behaves (Thompson and Wallace 1996), and since a team forms the heart of lean improvement operations (Total Systems Development Inc. 2001; Dennis 2007), the quality of governance is a critical measure of team morale. The previously mentioned Likert scale-based questionnaire may be applied here as well to adjudge the quality of governance in a lean manufacturer.

For the decision framework, each of the 29 performance metrics is calculated in real time and, after comparing it with an achievable target performance (Melnyk et al. 2004), is scaled to a value between 0 and 1. This is done so as to standardise the dimensions for each performance metric.

3.3 Development of AHP The AHP has been well received in the literature (Roger 1987). Applications of this methodology have been reported in numerous fields (Chandra 1998). The general approach of the AHP model is to decompose the problem and to make pair-wise comparisons of all the elements on a given level with reference to related elements in the level just above. A highly user-friendly computer model has been developed, which assists the user in evaluating their choices. The schematic of the model is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Schematic of the AHP model.

2242

V. Ramesh and R. Kodali

Description of the model A thorough analysis of the problem is required, along with the identification of the important attributes/criteria involved. The attributes/criteria (level 2) used in AHP to achieve the goal are the six performance measures of a lean manufacturer. These are: . . . . . . Productivity (PRD) Quality (QUA) Cost (COS) Delivery (DLV) Safety (SFT) Morale (MRL)

The seven wastes (refer to section 1) are the sub-attributes/criteria for each of the PM of lean manufacturing, i.e. the attributes at level 2 used in the AHP model. These are: . . . . . . . Overproduction (OPD) Waiting (WTG) Transport (TRN) Over-processing (OPR) Inventory (INV) Motion (MOT) Defects (DEF)

The VSM tools are the alternatives amongst which the AHP aids the decision maker to choose the best tool for their industry based on the current priority. The VSM tools considered in the present model (see Table 1 for a detailed description) are: . . . . . . . . Process activity mapping (PAM) Supply chain response matrix (SCR) Production variety filter (PVF) Quality filter mapping (QFM) Demand amplification mapping (DAM) Decision point analysis (DPP) Physical structure mapping: (a) Volume versus (b) Value (PSM) Lean value stream mapping (LVS)

Analytical hierarchy process methodology The analytical hierarchy process (Satty 1982) is a practical approach to solving relatively difficult problems. The AHP enables the decision maker to represent the simultaneous interaction of many factors in complex, unstructured situations. Judgements were collected through a complete plant-level survey and multiple rounds of personal interviews with the top management of the case organisation. These were primarily focused on eliciting the preferences that they believe were important for sustaining the companys position as a market leader in the automotive parts industry. These were included in AHP for each criterion and subcriterion for all levels of hierarchy. Pair-wise comparisons of criterion at each level was done on a 19 point scale: 1 reflecting equal weight and 9 reflecting absolute importance of one over another. Below are the steps to follow in using the AHP (Roger 1987): (1) Define the problem and determine the objective. (2) Structure the hierarchy from the top through the intermediate levels to the lowest level (Figure 2). (3) Construct a set of pair-wise comparison matrices for each of the lower levels, taking into consideration the previous level as a goal to which these sub-criteria belong. Level II factors are decomposed into sub-criteria. If element a dominates over element b, then the whole number integer is entered in row A, column B, and the reciprocal is entered in row B, column A. If the elements being compared are equal, 1 is assigned to both positions. 1 judgements to develop the set of matrices in Step 3. (4) Utilise the nn2 (5) Determine the consistency of the pair-wise comparisons using eigenvalues. To do so, normalise the column of numbers by dividing each entry by the sum of all entries. Then sum each row of the normalised values and

International Journal of Production Research Table 5. Normalised comparison matrix. hPRDi hPRDi hQUAi hCOSi hDLVi hSFTi hMRLi 0.427 0.142 0.085 0.061 0.142 0.142 hQUAi 0.645 0.215 0.024 0.031 0.043 0.043 hCOSi 0.208 0.375 0.042 0.125 0.125 0.125 hDLVi 0.300 0.300 0.014 0.043 0.129 0.214 hSFTi 0.281 0.469 0.031 0.031 0.094 0.094 hMRLi 0.285 0.475 0.032 0.019 0.095 0.095 hSUMi 2.146 1.976 0.228 0.310 0.628 0.713

2243

Principal vector 0.358 0.329 0.038 0.052 0.105 0.119

Notes: Consistency index (CI) 0.1206; Consistency ratio (CR) 0.0972.

take the average. This provides the principal vector. Table 5 tabulates the normalised comparison matrix. To check the consistency of the judgements, let the pair-wise comparison matrix be denoted by M1 and the principal vector by M2. Then define M3 M1 M2; and M3 ; M2  max average of the elements of M4;  max N Consistency IndexCI ; N1 CI Consistency RatioCR ; RCI corresponding to N where RCI : Random Consistency Index; and M4 N : Number of elements The Random Index Table is as follows:
N RCI 1 0 2 0 3 0.6 4 1 5 1.1 6 1.24 7 1.41 8 1.45 9 1.51

If CR is less than 10%, the decision makers judgement may be consistent enough to give useful weighting estimates for various decision-making criteria. If CR is greater than 10%, there are inconsistencies in the judgements, i.e. in the pair-wise comparison matrix, and these should be improved such that the CR is always less than 10%. (6) Perform Steps 35 for all levels and clusters in the hierarchy. (7) Next examine the effect of sub-criterion of level III on the respective criteria of level II. The procedure is identical to the pair-wise comparison analysis above. See Table 6 for attribute weights. (8) Analyse the matrix for the pair-wise comparisons of the alternatives for the bottom-most sub-criteria using the approach above. For the pair-wise comparison of each of the alternatives under each Level III subcriterion, use the correlation matrix developed by Hines et al. (1998) between the wastes and mapping tool (see Table 2). See Table 7 for data summary. (9) Calculate the desirability index for each alternative by multiplying each value in weight of sub-criteria column by the respective value in criteria weight column, and then multiplying by the value for each respective alternative and summing the results (see Table 8).

3.4 Development of PGP The decision framework developed in this study is based on a novel integrated AHP-PGP model. Integrated AHPPGP approaches have been extensively used by Schniederjans and Gravin (1997), Badri (2001), Radcliffe and

2244 Table 6. Weight of attributes. Weight of sub-criteria Level III 0.090 0.047 0.026 0.179 0.125 0.139 0.394 0.141 0.069 0.090 0.027 0.215 0.058 0.400 0.103 0.042 0.065 0.129 0.228 0.029 0.403 0.059 0.123 0.065 0.145 0.221 0.026 0.362 0.061 0.031 0.363 0.031 0.081 0.290 0.142 0.044 0.182 0.067 0.029 0.095 0.340 0.243

V. Ramesh and R. Kodali

Sub-criteria OPD (PRD) WTG (PRD) TRN (PRD) OPR (PRD) INV (PRD) MOT (PRD) DEF (PRD) OPD (QUA) WTG (QUA) TRN (QUA) OPR (QUA) INV (QUA) MOT (QUA) DEF (QUA) OPD (COS) WTG (COS) TRN (COS) OPR (COS) INV (COS) MOT (COS) DEF (COS) OPD (DLV) WTG (DLV) TRN (DLV) OPR (DLV) INV (DLV) MOT (DLV) DEF (DLV) OPD (SFT) WTG (SFT) TRN (SFT) OPR (SFT) INV (SFT) MOT (SFT) DEF (SFT) OPD (MRL) WTG (MRL) TRN(MRL) OPR (MRL) INV (MRL) MOT (MRL) DEF (MRL)

Criteria level II 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.329 0.329 0.329 0.329 0.329 0.329 0.329 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.038 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119 0.119

PAM 0.082 0.271 0.405 0.392 0.074 0.412 0.162 0.082 0.271 0.405 0.392 0.074 0.412 0.162 0.082 0.271 0.405 0.392 0.074 0.412 0.162 0.082 0.271 0.405 0.392 0.074 0.412 0.162 0.082 0.271 0.405 0.392 0.074 0.412 0.162 0.082 0.271 0.405 0.392 0.074 0.412 0.162

SCR 0.129 0.271 0.058 0.042 0.183 0.142 0.049 0.129 0.271 0.058 0.042 0.183 0.142 0.049 0.129 0.271 0.058 0.042 0.183 0.142 0.049 0.129 0.271 0.058 0.042 0.183 0.142 0.049 0.129 0.271 0.058 0.042 0.183 0.142 0.049 0.129 0.271 0.058 0.042 0.183 0.142 0.049

PVF 0.021 0.067 0.037 0.221 0.080 0.051 0.049 0.021 0.067 0.037 0.221 0.080 0.051 0.049 0.021 0.067 0.037 0.221 0.080 0.051 0.049 0.021 0.067 0.037 0.221 0.080 0.051 0.049 0.021 0.067 0.037 0.221 0.080 0.051 0.049 0.021 0.067 0.037 0.221 0.080 0.051 0.049

QFM 0.064 0.028 0.033 0.109 0.022 0.049 0.427 0.064 0.028 0.033 0.109 0.022 0.049 0.427 0.064 0.028 0.033 0.109 0.022 0.049 0.427 0.064 0.028 0.033 0.109 0.022 0.049 0.427 0.064 0.028 0.033 0.109 0.022 0.049 0.427 0.064 0.028 0.033 0.109 0.022 0.049 0.427

DAM 0.127 0.106 0.033 0.042 0.183 0.049 0.050 0.127 0.106 0.033 0.042 0.183 0.049 0.050 0.127 0.106 0.033 0.042 0.183 0.049 0.050 0.127 0.106 0.033 0.042 0.183 0.049 0.050 0.127 0.106 0.033 0.042 0.183 0.049 0.050 0.127 0.106 0.033 0.042 0.183 0.049 0.050

DPA 0.127 0.106 0.071 0.109 0.086 0.049 0.050 0.127 0.106 0.071 0.109 0.086 0.049 0.050 0.127 0.106 0.071 0.109 0.086 0.049 0.050 0.127 0.106 0.071 0.109 0.086 0.049 0.050 0.127 0.106 0.071 0.109 0.086 0.049 0.050 0.127 0.106 0.071 0.109 0.086 0.049 0.050

PSM 0.022 0.026 0.199 0.042 0.040 0.049 0.049 0.022 0.026 0.199 0.042 0.040 0.049 0.049 0.022 0.026 0.199 0.042 0.040 0.049 0.049 0.022 0.026 0.199 0.042 0.040 0.049 0.049 0.022 0.026 0.199 0.042 0.040 0.049 0.049 0.022 0.026 0.199 0.042 0.040 0.049 0.049

LVS 0.427 0.124 0.163 0.042 0.333 0.199 0.165 0.427 0.124 0.163 0.042 0.333 0.199 0.165 0.427 0.124 0.163 0.042 0.333 0.199 0.165 0.427 0.124 0.163 0.042 0.333 0.199 0.165 0.427 0.124 0.163 0.042 0.333 0.199 0.165 0.427 0.124 0.163 0.042 0.333 0.199 0.165

Schniederjans (2003), Cebi and Bayraktar (2003), Percin (2006) and Bhagwat and Sharma (2009) to explore the various preferences of firms. In these studies, integrating AHP with the PGP model made it possible for decision makers to incorporate adjusted weightings on selected decision criteria. Then, the PGP model permitted an added priority structure reflecting the added mathematical weighting. The PGP methodology for performance measure improvement is developed in the following section. Performance metric weights analysis The first step in the PGP model building process is to calculate the prioritised weights of performance metrics. For this, the priority of a given performance metric with respect to a given measure needs to be identified. A pair-wise comparison using the collective judgements obtained from the case organisation, similar to the AHP process,

International Journal of Production Research Table 7. Data summary. Sub-criteria OPD (PRD) WTG (PRD) TRN (PRD) OPR (PRD) INV (PRD) MOT (PRD) DEF (PRD) OPD (QUA) WTG (QUA) TRN (QUA) OPR (QUA) INV (QUA) MOT (QUA) DEF (QUA) OPD (DEF) WTG (DEF) TRN (DEF) OPR (DEF) INV (DEF) MOT (DEF) DEF (DEF) OPD (DLV) WTG (DLV) TRN (DLV) OPR (DLV) INV (DLV) MOT (DLV) DEF (DLV) OPD (SFT) WTG (SFT) TRN (SFT) OPR (SFT) INV (SFT) MOT (SFT) DEF (SFT) OPD (MRL) WTG (MRL) TRN (MRL) OPR (MRL) INV (MRL) MOT (MRL) DEF (MRL) hPAMi 0.003 0.005 0.004 0.025 0.003 0.021 0.023 0.004 0.006 0.012 0.004 0.005 0.008 0.021 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.001 0 0.002 0 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.015 0.001 0.001 0.013 0.002 0 0.006 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.017 0.005 hSCRi 0.004 0.005 0.001 0.003 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.002 0 0.013 0.003 0.006 0.001 0 0 0 0.002 0 0.001 0 0.002 0 0 0.002 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.006 0 0 0.002 0.006 0.001 hPVFi 0.001 0.001 0 0.014 0.004 0.003 0.007 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.006 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.002 0.001 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 hQFMi 0.002 0 0 0.007 0.001 0.002 0.06 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.056 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.007 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.008 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.006 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.002 0.012 hDAMi 0.004 0.002 0 0.003 0.008 0.002 0.007 0.006 0.002 0.001 0 0.013 0.001 0.007 0 0 0 0 0.002 0 0.001 0 0.001 0 0 0.002 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0 0 0.002 0.002 0.001 hDPAi 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.007 0.004 0.002 0.007 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.007 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.003 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.001 hPSMi 0.001 0 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.006 0 0.003 0.001 0.006 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.008 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0 0 0.002 0.001

2245

hLVSi 0.014 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.015 0.01 0.023 0.02 0.003 0.005 0 0.024 0.004 0.022 0.002 0 0 0 0.003 0 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0.004 0 0.003 0.003 0 0.006 0 0.003 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.001 0 0.004 0.008 0.005

Table 8. Decision index for the desirability of each alternative. VSM Tool Decision index PAM 0.2272 SCR 0.107 PVF 0.0674 QFM 0.1811 DAM 0.0799 DPA 0.0744 PSM 0.0562 LVS 0.2068

is adopted here. (1) In this step, each 29 performance metrics undergoes a pair-wise comparison depending on its relative effect on the corresponding performance measure. A pair-wise comparison matrix similar to the approach described in the AHP process and the principal vector for each of the performance metrics was recorded as the weight. This analysis was performed on the performance metrics for each PM of lean manufacturing.

2246

V. Ramesh and R. Kodali

Table 9. Results of performance metric and alternative analysis. Mapping tool weightage for the metrics Performance Metric WKT PLH TPP LST EDT SSP SCP C/T MDC QRC DRL SCC TIN LCN RMV CUS DEF YLD SCR INJ LWD MDV WRR EMS ETD A/R EMI CUL GOV Weightage 0.030 0.151 0.091 0.178 0.138 0.054 0.054 0.305 0.143 0.429 0.429 0.625 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.501 0.077 0.159 0.263 0.273 0.533 0.128 0.067 0.221 0.069 0.049 0.221 0.221 0.221 hPAMi 0.032 0.275 0.275 0.177 0.083 0.142 0.142 0.330 0.257 0.039 0.061 0.064 0.044 0.099 0.048 0.169 0.071 0.097 0.140 0.467 0.467 0.467 0.421 0.028 0.125 0.125 0.285 0.125 0.125 hSCRi 0.237 0.062 0.062 0.096 0.083 0.054 0.054 0.050 0.048 0.165 0.355 0.064 0.195 0.031 0.048 0.070 0.071 0.039 0.101 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.055 0.115 0.125 0.125 0.054 0.125 0.125 hPVFi 0.072 0.062 0.062 0.043 0.083 0.054 0.054 0.050 0.048 0.045 0.061 0.106 0.062 0.067 0.403 0.080 0.071 0.157 0.140 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.055 0.047 0.125 0.125 0.054 0.125 0.125 hQFMi 0.032 0.062 0.062 0.240 0.417 0.334 0.334 0.050 0.048 0.045 0.061 0.479 0.027 0.083 0.233 0.399 0.500 0.402 0.435 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.055 0.345 0.125 0.125 0.136 0.125 0.125 hDAMi 0.157 0.062 0.062 0.043 0.083 0.054 0.054 0.050 0.048 0.380 0.170 0.072 0.119 0.203 0.048 0.070 0.071 0.041 0.046 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.055 0.096 0.125 0.125 0.054 0.125 0.125 hDPAi 0.125 0.062 0.062 0.043 0.083 0.054 0.054 0.203 0.212 0.074 0.170 0.072 0.080 0.109 0.048 0.070 0.071 0.041 0.046 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.055 0.096 0.125 0.125 0.054 0.125 0.125 hPSMi 0.069 0.062 0.062 0.043 0.083 0.054 0.054 0.052 0.051 0.039 0.061 0.072 0.119 0.037 0.124 0.070 0.071 0.041 0.046 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.055 0.096 0.125 0.125 0.054 0.125 0.125 hLVSi 0.275 0.356 0.356 0.318 0.083 0.256 0.256 0.217 0.288 0.212 0.061 0.072 0.354 0.370 0.048 0.070 0.071 0.181 0.046 0.168 0.168 0.168 0.251 0.175 0.125 0.125 0.309 0.125 0.125

(2) In the next step, a pair-wise alternative analysis for each of the 29 performance metrics was carried out to evaluate the impact of each mapping tool in improving individual performance metrics. The results for each complete performance metric and alternative analysis are given in Table 9. The weights calculated after the pair-wise comparison are on a scale of 0 to 1 (and the sum of all the weights is equal to 1). This can also be considered as indicating a metrics relative importance or its relative percentage contribution in the overall PM. This relative percentage contribution is integrated with the optimisation method, so that the optimal level of each considered performance indicator can be identified. Description of the model The purpose of the approach is to aid the decision maker in choosing when and in what sequence a new mapping tool should be introduced to produce the maximum improvement with the least expenditure of time and energy. Each subsequent mapping tool incrementally builds on the benefits of the previously applied mapping tool. The PGP guarantees to maximise each performance measure under given constraints. Elements of PGP For mathematical modelling of the PGP, first the decision variable must be defined, followed by the objective function (goal) and constraints in terms of the decision variable. Decision variable Here, the objective is to find the best sequence for the application of the VSM tools, such that the performance metrics are optimised while simultaneously maximising each of the performance measures in the long term. Therefore, the performance metrics identified for the performance measures and prioritised through performance

International Journal of Production Research

2247

metrics and alternative analysese will be considered as the decision variables. The objective functions and constraints need to be further defined in terms of the performance metrics, i.e. the decision variables. In the goal programming model, the decision variables are different performance metrics, which are represented by Xk (where k varies from 1 to 29, from 1 to 8 for productivity performance metrics, 9 to 12 for quality metrics, 13 to 16 for cost metrics, 17 to 19 for delivery metrics, 20 to 23 for safety metrics and 24 to 29 for metrics of morale). Objective functions The idea of the PGP is to set objectives in order of priority (Ghodsypour and OBrien 2001; Bhagwat and Sharma 2009). In this case, the objective is to maximise the six performance measures, i.e. productivity, quality, cost, delivery, safety and morale, in the order as prioritised. The six objective functions in order of their priority are: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Maximise Maximise Maximise Maximise Maximise Maximise productivity (consisting of performance metrics 1 to 8) quality (consisting of performance metrics 9 to 12) morale (consisting of performance metrics 24 to 29) safety (consisting of performance metrics 20 to 23) delivery (consisting of performance metrics 17 to 19) cost (consisting of performance metrics 13 to 16) X

The goals of the problem can be restated as: maximize Pi Wik Xk such that k 2 i,

where, Pi Objective functions and i 1 to 6 (i 1 for productivity, i 2 for quality, i 3 for morale, i 4 for safety, i 5 for delivery and i 6 for cost) k 1, 2, 3, . . . , n (n number of performance metrics). (In the present study n 29, and k 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 2 (i 1), k 9, 10, 11, 12 2 (i 2), k 13, 14, 15, 16 2 (i 6), k 17, 18, 19 2 (i 5), k 20, 21, 22, 23 2 (i 4) and k 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 2 (i 3).) Wik Performance metric analysis weight for the kth performance metric of the ith level (see Table 9, Column 2). Mathematically, the objectives are given as: X maximise P1 W1k Xk such that k 2 i 1, Productivity 2 maximise P2 maximise P3 maximise P4 maximise P5 X X W2k Xk such that k 2 i 2, W3k Xk such that k 2 i 3, W4k Xk such that k 2 i 4, Quality Morale Safety Delivery Cost 3 4 5 6 7

W5k Xk such that k 2 i 5, W6k Xk such that k 2 i 6,

maximise P6

Constraints. In practice, the constraints are on the availability of manpower, time, energy and the ability of the decision maker to keep the employees motivated in the improvement process. Mathematically, these constraints have been modelled as a function of the various VSM tools. There are eight VSM tools: PAM, SCR, PVF, QFM, DAM, DPA, PSM and LVS. As the tools have been evaluated under different performance metrics (Table 9), these have been considered as constraints in this model. Thus the constraints on the goal programming are the different VSM tools (Equation (8)) and the different performance metrics (Equation (9)). nX o X X Wikk2i , Wlk 8 Wik Xk  Min: k 1, 2, 3, 4 . . . n n 29 l 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 for eight VSM tools 0  Xk  1 9

2248

V. Ramesh and R. Kodali

In Equation (8), l represents the eight VSM tools hence, there will be eight constraints for the optimisation of priority 1, i.e. productivity. PGP methodology Using TORA (optimisation software), sequential programming was initiated with the optimisation of the first priority, i.e. productivity and nine constraints (eight for VSM tools and one on Xk).The iteration counter was set to q 0 and initialise " 0.01. The algorithm for sequential optimisation is as follows: Step 1: Optimise ith Priority (Pi) under the given constraints. Obtain the best performance levels for Xk (k 2 i). Set iteration counter q q 1 Step 2: Substitute the optimum values of Xk (k 2 i) into the qth iteration constraints to calculate the constraints for the next priority (i i 1). Let the R.H.S. for the lth constraint of the qth iteration be R:H:S:q l
q1 (a) If the R.H.S. for any of the constraints for the (q 1)th iteration falls below " i.e. R:H:S:  " (l 1, 2, 3, l 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) eliminate the constraint from further iterations. q1 (b) If the R.H.S. for all the constraints is  " i.e. R:H:S:  " proceed to Step 3. l

Step 3: Record the difference between the R.H.S. for the lth constraint (l 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) of the qth iteration and the lth constraint (l 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) of the (q 1)th iteration. Let the difference be Dl for the lth constraint. q q1 g fDl R:H:S:l R:H:S:l 10

Step 4: Calculate Dmax MaxfDl g (l 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; ignore the eliminated constraints. Record l corresponding to Dmax . (a) If the Dmax maps to more than one l, l has the same maximum value for any iteration. Any one of the tools may be chosen depending on the results of the subsequent iteration. Step 5: For the qth iteration, the VSM tool corresponding to l obtained in Step 4 is the best suited VSM tool to maximise the ith priority (Pi). Step 6: If q 6 TERMINATE. Or, if i i 1 go to Step 1. The algorithm was implemented for the case manufacturing organisation to identify the optimum levels of operation of the performance metrics and also to find the best sequence of VSM tool that will maximise the PMs. Table 10 tabulates the results at the end of the first iteration of the model. In addition to the best sequence of VSM selection, the results of PGP will provide the values of the performance metrics to maximise overall performance (Table 11). These optimised values of the performance indicator will help the decision maker to identify and focus on performance metrics that are crucial for overall PM of the system. The PGP will identify the required optimised values of the performance indicators as a benchmark. The decision maker has to ensure that the actual values of the metrics never fall below the values obtained by PGP optimisation. This should be achieved through adequate mapping efforts. Once the performance metrics for a particular performance measure stabilise around the value identified by the PGP optimisation, the decision maker must now focus their attention on the next priority and channel the organisations energy to implement the mapping tool corresponding to that priority as proposed by the model. Results of PGP From Table 10 it can be seen that Dl is at a maximum for l 1 and for l 8, i.e. performance activity mapping (PAM) and lean value stream mapping (LVS). This observation also supports the result obtained from the previous AHP model. Hence, the case organisation must focus on improving its productivity by first mapping the processes using PAM and subsequently adopting LVS. Continuing with the PGP methodology, the complete sequence of VSM tool application was found. This is illustrated as a flowchart in Figure 3. The optimum values for Xk (k 2 I 1) are X1 0:09, X2 1, X3 0:45, X4 1, X5 1; X6 0; X7 0; X8 0. According to the result, the metrics stopping supplier process X6 and shorting customer process (X7 ) have no impact on the optimisation of productivity. It shows that only six out of the eight metrics contribute to the maximisation of priority 1 (P1). Further, three metrics parts per labour hour (X2 ), line stop time (X4 ) and changeover time (X8 ) are the most critical as far as productivity is concerned and the target must be to maintain them at as high a level as possible. Refer to Table 11 for optimum performance values of all 29 metrics.

Table 10. Objective function (row 3) and constraints (Rows 4 to row 11) for P2-quality.

X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20 X21 X22 X23 X24 X25 X26 X27 X28 X29 CUS DEF YLD SCR SCC TIN LCN RMV MDC QRC DRL INJ LWD MDV WRR EMS ETD A/R EMI CUL GOV R.H.S 0.263 0.14 0.1 0.14 0.44 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.48 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0 0.04 0.2 0.06 0.03 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.35 0 0.1 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.2 0.11 0.04 0.37 0 0.05 0.05 0.4 0.23 0.05 0.05 0.12 0.05 0 0.26 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.29 0 0.04 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.38 0.07 0.04 0.21 0 0.06 0.36 0.06 0.06 0.17 0.17 0.06 0.06 0 0.47 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.17 0 0.47 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.17 0 0.47 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.17 0 0.42 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.25 0 0.03 0.12 0.05 0.35 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.18 0 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0 0.29 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.31 0 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.66 0.73 0.2 0.72 0.57 0.73 0.2

Dl 0.99 0.34 0.27 0.799 0.28 0.43 0.27 1.15

Obj. PAM SCR PVF QFM DAM DPA PSM LVS

0.501 0.17 0.07 0.08 0.4 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07

0.077 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.5 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07

0.159 0.1 0.04 0.16 0.4 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.18

Table 11. Optimum performance levels using PGP.

Perf. metric 1 1 0 0 1 0.5 0 0 0 0.86 0 0 0

WKT PLH TPP LST EDT SSP SCP C/T CUS DEF YLD SCR SCC TIN LCN RMV MDC QRC DRL INJ LWD MDV WRR EMS ETD A/R EMI CUL GOV 1 0.12 0 0 0.33 0 0 1 0.9 0 1 1 1

International Journal of Production Research

Optimum performance

0.1

0.45

2249

2250

V. Ramesh and R. Kodali

Figure 3. Flowchart for VSM tool application.

The final inference from iteration one of the PGP model is that PAM followed by LVS mapping must be implemented in the organisation, with the objective of improving productivity. Efforts must be sustained until the required optimum performance of the metrics as given by PGP is achieved.

4. Results and conclusion On a practical front, the novelty of the proposed decision framework lies in its ability to simultaneously consider both the current state and the future state of a system through an innovative formulation of the integrated AHPPGP approach. This allows the framework to guide the user in the selection of the best sequence of the VSM tool to eliminate all possible forms of waste within the shortest timeframe. Additionally, the theoretical contribution of the approach lies in the iterative PGP strategy which allows the user to accurately determine the optimum values of each performance metric that maximises overall performance. Together, the decision framework successfully bridges the gap identified in the methods known at present for selecting VSM tools. For the present model, AHP is used to select the best VSM tool that will give the highest rate of improvement for the case study. For the considered case, productivity (PRD) was found to be of the highest importance and, hence, using AHP, process activity mapping (PAM) has been identified as the most suitable tool to achieve rapid improvements in productivity on the shopfloor and to maximise the return on the mapping effort. The best VSM tool selected via the AHP model only guarantees the quickest method for removal of waste in an organisation depending on the current organisational preferences and goals. According to the lean philosophy, once the tool has been applied and the relevant waste(s) reduced, the priorities of the organisation should then rapidly shift to focus on another PM and, hence, in the long term, focus on removing all forms of waste and becoming truly lean. This is the mantra for continuous improvement as proposed by the model. Hence, the overall approach suggested by the decision framework is to use AHP to kick-start value stream mapping techniques in the case organisation and also build momentum for the waste-removal process. Once that has been achieved, the best sequence of mapping tools, based on the results of PGP, must be used to sustain interest in waste identification and removal and also to meet the objective of kaizen or continuous improvement in the long term. For the present case, PAM should be sequentially followed by LVS. Once the performance metrics following the shopfloor restructuring suggested by PAM stabilise, efforts must be diverted to improving the plant using the current statefuture state VSM technique, as originally suggested by Toyota (LVS). The target of this effort should be to achieve 100% of the targeted parts per labour hour (PLH), line stop time (LST), equipment down time (EDT) and changeover time (C/T), since these metrics have the highest impact on productivity, which is our primary goal. Quality is the next on our checklist; for this, PGP suggests using quality filter mapping (QFM) to achieve at least 50% of targeted customer satisfaction (CUS). The other priorities follow in sequence and the appropriate tool as given by PGP may be used to achieve them. Target performance must be to achieve 100% of the missed delivery cycles (MDC), employment security (EMS), employee involvement (EMI), culture (CUL) and governance (GOV) metrics because these have the highest impact on maximising their respective PMs. In the present research paper, the solution to the problem has been modelled as a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach. Since data in MCDM problems are imprecise and changeable (Triantaphyllou and Sanchez 1997), a natural extension of the present research is to include sensitivity analysis. As Dantzig (1963, p. 32) stated: Sensitivity analysis is a fundamental concept in the effective use and implementation of quantitative decision models, whose purpose is to assess the stability of an optimal solution under changes in the parameters. For the given problem, as proposed by Triantaphyllou et al. (2007), this can be carried out to study the impact of changes in the weights assigned to the criteria and sub-criteria on the selection of the VSM tool. By knowing which data is more critical, the decision maker can more effectively focus their attention on the most critical parts of the problem. Alternatively, sensitivity analysis can also be applied in the data-gathering phase to calculate, with higher accuracy, the weights that are more critical in the interest of a constrained budget.

International Journal of Production Research

2251

References
Anand, G. and Kodali, R., 2008. Performance measurement system for lean manufacturing: a perspective from SMEs. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 2 (4), 371410. Badri, M.A., 2001. A combined AHP-GP model for quality control systems. International Journal of Production Economics, 72 (1), 2740. Bhagwat, R. and Sharma, M.K., 2009. An application of the integrated AHP-PGP model for performance measurement of supply chain management. Production Planning and Control, 20 (8), 678690. Cebi, F. and Bayraktar, D., 2003. An integrated approach for supplier selection. Logistics Information Management, 16 (6), 395400. Chandra, S. and Kodali, R., 1998. Justification of just-in-time manufacturing systems for Indian industries. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 9 (5), 314323. Daum, J.H. and Bretscher, P., 2004. Measuring performance in a knowledge economy: linking subjective and objective measurement into a vector-based concept for performance measurement. Fourth International Conference on Theory and Practice in Performance Measurement and Management, 2830 July, Edinburgh. Dantzig, G.B., 1963. Linear programming and extensions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Dennis, P., 2007. Lean production simplified. New York: Productivity Press. Ghodsypour, S.H. and OBrien, C., 2001. The total cost of logistics in supplier selection, under conditions of multiple sourcing, multiple criteria and capacity constraint. International Journal of Production Economics, 73 (1), 1527. Hines, P. and Rich, N., 1997. The seven value stream mapping tools. International Journal of Operations and and Production Management, 17 (1), 4664. Hines, P., et al., 1998. Value stream management. International Journal of Logistics Management, 9 (1), 2542. Kaizen Institute, 2010. KAIZEN lean and green. Available from: http://www.leanadvisors.com/index.php/what/green/ lean_and_green Lev, B., 2001. Intangibles: management, measurement, and reporting. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Liker, J.K. and Meier, D., 2006. The Toyota way fieldbook. New York: McGraw-Hill. Mahindhar, V., 2005. Designing the lean enterprise performance measurement system. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 6267. Melnyk, S.A., et al., 2004. Metrics and performance measurement in operations management: dealing with the metrics maze. Journal of Operations Management, 22 (3), 209218. Neely, A., et al., 2005. Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25 (12), 12281263. Ohno, T., 1988. Toyota production system: beyond large-scale production. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press. Percin, S., 2006. An application of the integrated AHP-PGP model in supplier selection. Measuring Business Excellence, 10 (4), 3449. Radcliffe, L.L. and Schniederjans, M.J., 2003. Trust evaluation: an AHP and multi-objective programming approach. Management Decision, 41 (6), 587595. Roger, N., 1987. Justification of FMS with the analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Manufacturing, 7 (3), 175182. Rother, M., 2010. Toyota kata. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rother, M. and Shook, J., 1999. Learning to see. Boston, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute. Satty, T.L., 1982. Priority setting in complex problems: lecture notes in economics and mathematical system. Fifth International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 913 August, Mons, Belgium. Schniederjans, M.J. and Gravin, T., 1997. Using the analytical hierarchy process and multi-objective programming for the selection of cost drivers in activity-based costing. European Journal of Operational Research, 100 (1), 7280. Shingo, S., 1988. Non-stock production: the Shingo system for continuous improvement. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press. Shingo, S., 1989. A study of the Toyota production system from an industrial engineering viewpoint. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press. Singh, R.K., et al., 2006. Lean tool selection in a die casting unit: a fuzzy-based decision support heuristic. International Journal of Production Research, 44 (7), 13991429. Thompson, P. and Wallace, T., 1996. Redesigning production through teamworking: case studies from the Volvo Truck Corporation. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 16 (2), 103118. Total Systems Development Inc, 2001. Lean manufacturing: a plant floor guide. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Triantaphyllou, E. and Sanchez, A., 1997. A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision making Methods. Decision Sciences, 28 (1), 151194. Trochim, W.M.K., 2006. Likert scaling. Available from: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/scallik.php Wikipedia, 2010. Corporate governance, 22 May. Womack, J., et al., 1991. The machine that changed the world: the story of lean production. New York: Harper Perennial.

Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd 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.