Int J Adv Manuf Technol

DOI 10.1007/s00170-016-9686-x

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Methodology to improve machine changeover

performance on food industry based on SMED
J. Lozano 1 & J.C. Saenz-Dez 2 & E. Martnez 1 & E. Jimnez 2 & J. Blanco 1

Received: 11 July 2016 / Accepted: 31 October 2016

# Springer-Verlag London 2016

Abstract This article discusses how to apply Single Minute
Exchange of Die (SMED) methodology in the food industry,
bearing in mind the peculiarities of this sector, as it is com-
prised within the mass market industry (cleaning and cos-
metics products, textile, etc.). Regarding innovation, this re-
search delves into the application of SMED to the field of
machine changeovers (changes in format, products, tools,
etc.), while also analysing the possible in order to be
minimised. These losses are focused on irregular machine
changeovers, that is, lack of standard work methodology,
maintenance defects, lack of spare parts, lack of operator spe-
cialisation, etc. The implemented methodology contains a pro-
posal to measure the results of the SMED technique using the
mean time between failures (MTBF) and mean time to repair
such failure (MTTR) along with indicators such as global
efficiency (GE) and overall equipment effectiveness (OEE).
* J. Blanco
julio.blanco@unirioja.es
J. Lozano
jorge.lozano@alum.unirioja.es
J.C. Saenz-Dez
juan-carlos.saenz-diez@unirioja.es
E. Martnez
e.camara@eolicas.net
E. Jimnez
emilio.jimenez@unirioja.es
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Edificio Departamental,
University of La Rioja, C/Luis de Ulloa, 4, 26004 Logroo,
La Rioja, Spain
2
Department of Electrical Engineering, Edificio Departamental,
University of La Rioja, C/Luis de Ulloa, 4, 26004 Logroo,
La Rioja, Spain
MTBF and MTTR help evaluate and improve the implemen-
tation of SMED-based methodology. But we can also assess
how long it takes us to act in the event of contingency, such as
a line failure or repair, and reduce it accordingly.
Keywords SMED . Machine changeovers . MTBF . MTTR .
GE
1 Introduction
The Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) technique is
comprised within the lean manufacturing production philoso-
phy, and its aims are to reduce waste in the production system
and to standardise machine changeover times. Machine
changeovers refer to any planned modification made to it,
for example: die or tool change, packaging material change,
product change and reference change in production [1, 2].
The concept states that any machine changeover should
always take a specific amount of time, and the tasks should
be standardised for that changeover. Thus, when there is a
planned changeover in the machine, the time that it will take
and the resources that it will require are quantified. This al-
lows for the time to be taken into account and included in the
scheduling for the production lines. This enables inclusion of
certain improvements to reduce the time required for the ma-
chine changeover, reduce the resources assigned or both.
The importance of SMED in improving production pro-
cesses has been exposed in this research by the increased
efficiency [3], the flexibility of changing times in facilities
for power production [4], the flexibility in terms of number
of players involved and length of playing time [5], the im-
provement of the productivity on the CNC machine process
and eliminating waste [6], the time on which production man-
agers need to focus on [7] and the incorporation of multiple

criteria decision-making techniques to the SMED implemen-
tation phase (analytical hierarchal process, preference selec-
tion index and technique for order preference by similarity to
ideal solution) [810].
In order to implement the SMED, the tasks or setups re-
quired during production, or when there are stops to make
changes, must be differentiated. These are either internal or
external setups:
Internal setups are setups or operations performed when
the machine is stopped, i.e. outside of the time allotted for
production.
External setups are setups or operations performed when
the machine is in full production.
As stated previously, both adjustment modes can be im-
proved. When implementing this type of changes, it is important
to transform the internal setups into external setups and thus
reduce the time required for changeovers.
It is generally a matter of differentiating between both types of
adjustments or operations performed on the machines, studying
them and finding bottlenecks. This allows for afocus on improve-
ments, leading to better results in the time required for changing
dies.
Before and during the production stage, it is important to
bear in mind the client factor; that is, any changes to be per-
formed on the machine are aimed at client satisfaction and at
meeting client needs [11].
SMED implementation is used in a wide range of industrial
applications, and it is adapted to the production requirements
or to the requirements of the business itself. The issue is to
approach implementation depending on the following: im-
proved setup of the machines [6, 12, 13]; as an integrated part
of other lean manufacturing techniques, such as 6 Sigma [14];
and other more generic aspects such as die changes, produc-
tion reference changes and machine format changes [1518].
In all cases, classic SMED applications are used in industries
as unrelated as manufacture of semiconductors, manufacture
of furniture or the automotive industry [1922]. It is also pos-
sible to apply SMED in more specific environments, such as
production with CNC machines [6], numerical simulations of
desalination systems [23] or management of a product launch
in the production stage [24].
While it is true that all of these applications are in the same
industries: automotive or automotive-related, aeronautics, elec-
trics, new technologies, etc., there are very few scientific refer-
ences that discuss the use of SMED applied to the food industry.
Another interesting aspect of this implementation are the
benefits: reduced waste in production lines, increased machine
efficiency, global machine efficiency, improved maintenance
quality, etc. [6].
Although there are numerous studies on the benefits of apply-
ing SMED, studies on the losses caused by its incorrect
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
application are practically non-existent. This issue opens another
aspect for study, classifying all of the losses caused by incorrect
technique application. Timely detection of the symptoms in the
event of incorrect application and improvements to go from a
good application to an excellent application are possible. This
is why it is convenient to know all losses generated from applying
a machine changeover project. Kordoghli and Moussa [25] men-
tion this issue, but they do not elaborate on it, leaving room for
another study on the matter [26].
The mail goal of SMED application is to reduce machine
changeover times. This reduced changeover time refers to a
change in setup, format, product that is being manufactured,
stock-keeping unit (SKU), etc. It does not include improve-
ments; i.e. when Kaizen is performed on a machine, it is man-
aged differently. These are usually planned and regular
changeovers [15, 27].
In spite of the good results and the potential for application
in industries such as automotive [28], electrical [21], injection
moulding [29], air conditioning system production [27] and
the technological sector in general [30], it is still an unknown
technique to most of the industry within the food sector. Few
authors [3133] mention lean techniques in this industry and
even fewer discuss SMED specifically.
This article discusses how to apply SMED methodology in
the food industry, bearing in mind the peculiarities of this
sector, as it is comprised within the mass market industry
(cleaning and cosmetics products, textile, etc.). Regarding in-
novation, this research delves into the application of SMED to
the field of machine changeovers (changes in format, prod-
ucts, tools, etc.), while also analysing the possible in order to
be minimised. These losses are focused on irregular machine
changeovers, that is, lack of standard work methodology,
maintenance defects, lack of spare parts, lack of operator spe-
cialisation, etc.
The paper also discusses a work methodology that takes
into account the peculiarities of this type of food industry:
amount of products obtained by modifying or even adapting
machines that are ideal for other products; use of materials that
are very sensitive to environmental changes and in some cases
require a controlled atmosphere: cardboard, paper, adhesives,
etc.; packaging; important changes in humidity, temperature,
etc.; and products that are too fragile to use in high-speed
packaging machines, etc. This methodology contains a pro-
posal to measure the results of the SMED technique using the
mean time between failure (MTBF) and mean time to repair
such failure (MTTR) along with indicators such as global
efficiency (GE) and overall equipment effectiveness (OEE).
2 Materials and methods
The proposed work methodology (see Fig. 1) is based on three
main pillars:
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Fig. 1 Work methodology
& Study of external factors that affect SMED implementa-
tion in the food industry
& Analysis of the internal factors to be taken into account
when drafting the said implementation project
& Validation of the method for measuring results once
SMED is implemented
2.1 External factors in the drafting of the SMED
implementation project
In order to implement improvements in changeover times with
SMED, the following factors should be taken into account:
material used, machinery, personnel, layout, etc. [8, 15, 34].
We must also factor in the setup of the machinery [12] and
control the external elements that affect machine changeover.
Table 1 shows the variables taken into account in each of
the aspects pertaining to external factors.
As for the items to be taken into account when preparing
SMED-based methodology, some authors support it without
taking into account the peculiarities of the type of industry
[29].
Other authors list the benefits that can be obtained by ap-
plying SMED, mainly time savings, time that can translate
into money or use of that time for other tasks that will also
provide profits [6].
Other benefits can be obtained, such as the specialisation of
changeover operators or staff (this item has much in common
with one of the philosophies of any lean manufacturing tool,
such as IL6S or TPM); versatility, therefore a wider option of
products to offer clients; better knowledge of machines and
their purpose; and use of time; for example, time allotted to
maintenance can also be used to perform machine change-
overs, defect repairs, etc.
On the other hand, SMED technology application has
negative aspects, which translates into losses. There are
few scientific references that contemplate this aspect [25],
and it is both necessary and convenient to be familiar with
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 1 External factors

External factors

Environmental
Humidity Controllable with dehumidifiers or humidifiers, depending on the requirements
of the materials and the product to be used in the machine changeovers.
Temperature In the food industry, the temperature is controlled in the packaging, packing and
processing areas. The temperature is controlled thanks to food handling.
Materials
Specifications These must be clear and in accordance with the quality regulations and with the
machines to be used. Lack of monitoring causes alterations when changing from
one model to another and, therefore, lead to higher changeover times and
breakages in the standardisation chain.
Optimal conditions: machinery The conditions of both the machine and the changeover components must be ideal,
and components suitable material to resist machine operation must be on hand, and there should
be no play generated by their vibration. They must also be in optimal
maintenance conditions.
Organisation
Layout This requires making use of time and organising simultaneous tasks
Staff Changeover staff must be perfectly trained and must be fully aware of their task
at all times and how to react in case of contingency.
Instructions and documentation There must be a series of instructions or documentation in order to record all
tasks to be performed during changeovers.
Machine preparation Sometimes, machines require time to start up or for preparation before they
can be operated. This is down time, which can very rarely be minimised;
the changeover should be allowed, and as soon as it is completed, the production
should begin. Another option is to perform the changeover while the machine
is preparing for production, thus saving time and energy.
SKU reduction Another very important point when minimising changeover times is to perform
less changeovers. This is achieved by standardising formats and SKU so that
the same SKU or format can be used for various clients.

these aspects in order to reduce losses and successfully to point out the exact standing point, in addition to allowing
implement the machine changeover project. These losses comparison with a previously established objective.
may be

The need for further maintenance of the parts or compo-
nents involved in the changeover. This is because by
moving them and not leaving them stationary, the play,
blows, etc. of these parts increase, and therefore, the
maintainability of these components is higher.
Increased waste if changeovers are not performed. When
there are machine changeovers, there are usually areas not
cleared from previous formats on the production line, or
when the changeover is not properly performed, it leads
to defective products, etc.
Operators in charge of performing changeovers lose ver-
satility. On the other hand, they gain in specialisation. It is
essential to properly direct this specialisation, achieving
an optimal level of versatility adjusted to the needs.
There are several parameters that are relatively easy to
measure with constant work and the proper tools; these pa-
rameters show the evolution of the production lines and help
2.2 Internal factors in the drafting of the SMED
implementation project
The second block of Fig. 1 lists the tasks required to perform
the methodology implementation project. It begins with prep-
aration of all the tasks to be performed before the implemen-
tation process kickoff, which are the following:
Definition of operators. It is important to specify which
employees are going to perform machine changeovers.
These employees must also be the same to operate these
machines; they must spend at least 80% of their time at
their machines.
Technical support service definition. This refers to the
maintenance technicians who will provide support on
the line or lines where the SMED is going to be imple-
mented. As in the previous item, it is very important for
them to be the regular maintenance technicians for these
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
machines, so that they are familiar with them and partic-
ipate in the implementation project.
The leader or leaders also have to be appointed, as well as
the engineer or engineers who are going to support the
SMED implementation.
Definition of the objectives.
Data collection. The data to be collected must be defined,
depending on where importance is to be stressed in the
implementation (this item must be clear because exces-
sive data collection may make it unmanageable and, on
the other hand, not enough data may prevent attainment
of the established objectives).
The method to be followed. In this case, daily measure-
ments will be taken although, in order to not have too
much data, they will be reported weekly. Weekly
SMED application tasks will also be defined.
The machines where the implementation methodology
will be applied.
The changeovers to be performed on each of the ma-
chines. It is important for these changes to be regular in
time; in other words, to evaluate whether a changeover is
effective or not and the degree of effectiveness, they
should not all be done at once; rather, they should be
applied over time, let the machine run and evaluate it.
Therefore, it is recommended to introduce a slow rhythm
of improvements to evaluate each of them and see wheth-
er they do not lead to the desired improvement.
The materials to be used. A changeover manual will be
put together, as well as a machine book (one for each
machine) where all interventions, improvements, param-
eter changes organisational changes, etc. on the machine
will be recorded, so that all the operations performed on
the machines are documented. One of the most common
mistakes when putting together documentation or instruc-
tion is lack of standardisation, which means that all the
documents must follow the same standard in order to
fulfil their mission, which is for them to be useful, simple,
user-friendly and, especially, easy to use for anyone who
has little knowledge on the matter. To this end, it is best to
apply the lean manufacturing standard work tool.
2.3 Relation between the SMED methodology
and the control indicators
There are several indicators that can be used to measure and
assess the success or failure of the SMED implementation
methodology. However, the main concern is to know which
parameters to use depending on what is to be measured.
On the one hand, the machine changeover technique can be
measured on the line globally, to which purpose indicators
such as global efficiency (GE) and overall equipment efficien-
cy (OEE) can be used [35, 36], thus allowing for assessment
of the evolution of implementation and comparison with a
global objective. In other words, given that when the method-
ology is aimed at improving machine changeover times, the
time allotted to be used is planned time; in waterfall, it is
attributed to the planned stop time. Thus, the implementation
development can be measured globally, although we must
take into consideration that it can be affected by other vari-
ables, contained within both planned and non-planned tasks.
However, if what is required is to see the evolution of
the machines as a unit and thus better focus the tasks of
any machine changeover project, the parameters to be
used are as follows: mean time between failure (MTBF)
and the mean time to repair such failure (MTTR). In order
for the measurement of these parameters to be effective, it
has to be performed individually on each machine, and on
large machines, it could even be done by sectors; that is,
one machine could have several MTBF and MTTR.
Therefore, as the measurement becomes more focused,
the delayed parts of the technique, bottlenecks, releasing
resources or no further modifications to machine change-
over can be properly analysed. Some authors use one of
these two parameters to assess the lean manufacturing
techniques [37], but not specifically applied to the
SMED technique.
Compared to the article by Triki et al. [36], the proposal to
use measurement of the SMED technique results with the
MTBF and MTTR is more feasible from the technical stand-
point. Measurement of the OEE is more generic, as it does not
include organisational aspects, such as
Minor losses. The micro-failures of the entire line are
approached as a whole and not individually by machine.
These micro-failures may be caused by several reasons:
packaging, micro-cut in the power supply, blockages,
failure of ancillary equipment, etc., which have nothing
to do with the application of a SMED program.
Losses from management. This comprises failures stem-
ming from management deficiencies in the production
lines.
Losses due to quality. These types of failures do pertain to
SMED application, but there is also a possibility that they
are not related. A good measurement and application,
taking into account the lag between the output of the last
valid product of the previous format and the input of the
first valid product of the next format, will never lead to
confusion.
Losses due to materials. These are losses in efficiency
derived from using materials that are not in optimal con-
dition for production. This type of loss can be associated
with losses due to quality. They can be differentiated con-
sidering that losses due to materials are losses caused by
the materials used for production, and losses due to qual-
ity refer to non-compliant products that are produced due

to the materials used in the production, to faulty machine
operation, bad management, etc.
Backing this argument, the definition of OEE entails the
factors of feasibility, effectiveness and losses due to quality
(OEE = Feasibility Factor Efficiency Losses due to
Quality). This concept is also supported by the document
drafted by Zhao et al. [38], where they define OEE and itemise
the concept itself. Only they also include losses due to speed
and losses due to configuration, setup and stabilisation in the
OEE parameter. All of these entail other types of losses than
those caused by machine operation.
Another alternative provided by the article by Zhao et al.
[38] is to measure the effectiveness of the machines instead of
the OEE, which allows for appreciation of the development of
the SMED technique but, at the same time, including
organisational aspects such as the factor of the products that
are manufactured and comply with the quality standard, the
difference between actual speed and the maximum machine
operation speed and the probability that the team works in
optimal conditions.
All this includes organisational aspects or factors that can
be foreseen and organised before the changeover time, which
can distort measurement of the actual technical problems that
may arise in the machines where changes are applied.
Therefore, a solution would be to combine both measure-
ment techniques. To begin with, the classical measurement
proposed by Triki et al. [36] can be very useful to measure
and monitor all organisational aspects entailed by application
of the SMED technique (losses in quality, losses due to speed,
etc.), provided that these measurements are judiciously taken
and leaving out those aspects that do not pertain to SMED
techniques but to other aspects of production.
In order to encompass all aspects pertaining to SMED ap-
plication, it would be convenient to consider the definition
given by Zhao et al. [38], because it is a more complete def-
inition and it encompasses more types of losses. It is also
useful to bear in mind the proposal made by Mannonen and
Hltt [37], to apply OEE measurement in the generic appli-
cation of lean manufacturing tools.
On the other hand, in order to improve the application of
the SMED technique and obtain good results, it is important to
use the MTBF and MTTR times, because this allows assess-
ment of the technical aspect of the machines and of any pos-
sible deterioration that may occur once the machine modifica-
tions and component replacements begin.
As shown in this timeline in Fig. 2, in the beginning, it is
best to use the classic and most common measurement method
such as collecting GE and OEE data. This makes sense until
the changeover times are stable and no longer improve, in
other words, when the organisational aspects of the implemen-
tation methodology are under control and have been improved
to the desired point.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Once this milestone is achieved, measurement of MTBF
and MTTR parameters begins in order to focus more on the
machines and on technical aspects and thus achieve the re-
quired improvements and results. This technique is recom-
mended when it is no longer easy to achieve the desired im-
provement. As in all projects, up to a certain point, it is rela-
tively easy to obtain improvements because they are achieved
by performing actions that are easily observed and measured,
even easy to carry out. But there comes a time when ongoing
improvement is more complicated, because the improvements
are no longer so obvious, which calls for more precise and
focused tools. In this case, it is recommended to use MTBF
and MTTR indicators to help measure the machine operations
when they are in optimal condition.
It can be proven that a good SMED application not only re-
duces the machine changeover time but also improves MTBF
and MTTR time. This helps towards a twofold improvement of
results since it entails an improvement in the reduction of break-
downs and micro-failures and stops for major adjustments.
This is shown in the following:
Time of change Time of MTBF
Time of MTTR 1
In this case, the objectives are to achieve reduced changeover
time, as well as increased MTBF and reduced MTTR. These
objectives are shown in the graphs in the following:
Regarding the implementation of SMED in the analysed
type of industry, the following advantages are considered:
& It is a solid industry with stable yields, what makes it possible
to provide the project implementation with continuity.
& Allows to standardise a type of specific tasks such as chang-
ing machine.
& Achieves to optimise time and resources in changing ma-
chine and increases the specialisation of operators.
& Reduces MTBF and MTTR of the machines.
But, at the same time, the application of SMED in an in-
dustry that is constantly innovating to create new products and
necessities in the consumer market causes the following:
& Frequent change in process, machinery, etc
& Dependence on external factors that are difficult to con-
trol, such as temperature, humidity or suppliers of equip-
ment and raw materials (with widely varying materials,
making it difficult to standardise the SMED tool)
& Initial effort for data collection and its analysis and signif-
icant planning effort
& The SMED project has to fit with other projects of im-
provement, of organisational or of machinery, which
eventually could be active simultaneously
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Fig. 2 Schedule for the
implementation methodology
& Complex identification of internal and external adjust-
ments, since they can change according to production
settings
3 Results and discussion
The work methodology discussed has been applied to several
production lines in the food industry, whose main activity is
Fig. 3 Results and the evolution of packaging line 1
the manufacture of cereal-based food products. It is important
to point out that the companies subject to the study are used to
working in lean manufacturing environments, and therefore,
they perform various studies related to this methodology.
Due to the average size of the companies, the production of
cereal-based food is divided into five stages that are connect-
ed: transportation of the raw materials, their reception, storage,
processing or reconversion of the food and packaging.
The designed methodology was implemented in four
production lines dedicated to the last production

Fig. 4 Results and the evolution of packaging line 2
process, which is packaging. With this case, we aim to
show the possibilities and influence of fast and effi-
cient logistic chains on the optimisation of the
organisation.
The study of the production lines shows four groups
of figures, containing the data collected and the evolu-
tion of the method implementation. These figures are as
follows:
& Changeover time: machine changeover time and its evo-
lution throughout the implementation period.
& Mean time between failure (MTBF), that is, the av-
erage time elapsed between machine failure, com-
prising all types of failure (breakdowns, adjustments,
blockages, etc.).
& Mean time to repair (MTTR). These graphs measure
the average time that it takes to set up a machine in
the event of an unexpected failure (breakdowns, ad-
justments, blockages, etc.)
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
All figures show the objective and the trend. Weeks that
meet the objective are shown in green, and weeks that do not
are shown in red.
3.1 Packaging line 1
Line 1 is allocated to packaging, and it comprises three stages:
in the beginning, the food is placed into packs, and then, these
packs undergo two further stages to be inserted into boxes.
Cardboard boxes are ideal for storage and transportation of
food products (Fig. 3).
The objective is a changeover time of 180 min; although
this is a lengthy changeover, it started out at 245 min. To show
the magnitude of the improvement, in an 8-h production shift,
it previously took over 4 h for machine changeover, and now,
it takes less than 3 h.
Likewise, we see that the time between failures has in-
creased, which is quite positive, because now, there is a failure
every 251 min, compared to the previous 112 min. The same
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Fig. 5 Results and the evolution of packaging line 3
happens with the repair time, which has been reduced to
26 min.
3.2 Packaging line 2
Line 2 can be considered a simpler line than the previ-
ously mentioned, which can be seen in the times, be-
cause a goal of 75-min changeover time is much lower
than the 180-min goal of line 1 (Fig. 4).
Compared to line 1, the technology is more robust, as
the product is packaged in small boxes and these are
packed into different size groups.
Likewise, failures on this line are quite spaced out, and the
average repair time is 19 min.
3.3 Packaging line 3
On line 3, an improvement of 50 min on the line change-
over was achieved, as well as 80 min in MTBF and
approximately 50 min in MTTR (Fig. 5).
On line 3, the packaging process comprises three
stages: first, the food product is packaged in tube form,
and then, the groups of tubes are transferred into a small
box, which in turn is packaged into larger boxes suited
for transportation.
In order to correctly interpret these data and make it
more accessible, if we consider that a work shift covers
8 h of operation of the lines and if there is one line
changeover, it would take two and a half hours; the
MTBF would be higher than the work shift itself, so it
can be considered that there are not going to be any
failures of this line in one shift, but there would be in
the next. Thus, failures can be easily predicted, without
using many resources, and they can be repaired without
surprises.
Repair time has also improved to 26 min. This
means that in 595 min (569 MTBF + 26 MTTR), it
only takes 26 min to repair the line. This means that
the line is only stopped for 26 min, which is 4.3% of
the time.

Fig. 6 Results and the evolution of packaging line 4
3.4 Packaging line 4
Lastly, line 4 is analysed: the food product is packaged
in bags ranging from 400 g to 15 kg, with one semi-
automated and one manual component (Fig. 6).
The line is very reliable, because the time between
failures is 762 min at the end of the method implemen-
tation, and the repair time is 31 min.
We also have a result of 73-min changeover time,
compared to the goal of 100 min.
Of the four lines, we could argue that line 1 is the most
complex because it is the line with the highest times. This
means that depending on the context, we could consider it
to be the bottleneck line, because it is the hardest to
change over and the one with the highest MTBF and
MTTR numbers. Therefore, if this study is to continue
or a similar one is to be undertaken, more resources
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
should be allotted to this line than to the others, at least
until the times are the same as for the rest of lines.
On the four lines, we can see the link between im-
provement in changeover times and improvement of
mean times between failure and mean time for repairs,
and this is because when the SMED methodology is
correctly implemented and controlled and planned inter-
vention on the lines increases, leading to results.
On the four groups of lines, we see that whereas the
changeover time and mean time for repair decrease, the
MTBF increases. Thus, we can infer that changeover
time is directly proportional to the time for repair and
inversely proportional to the MTBF.
Lastly, we must point out that the differences be-
tween the four lines analysed are due to the fact that
the production and packaging methodology have many
differences, in spite of belonging to the same industry.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
This proves the complexity of the study and the need to
apply this type of projects to the food industry.
4 Conclusions
In conclusion, before implementation of the methodology, the
current production process should be documented, in order to
take into consideration all the elements pertaining to the pro-
cess. Therefore, we must consider that the employees to be
involved and their roles within the implementation project, the
means or the resources to be assigned clearly define the ob-
jectives and the focus of the implementation project and the
data collection means to be used and thus determine whether
the goals are successfully achieved, decide on the project
stages or parts, analyse weaknesses to find possible failures
during implementation of the methodology, etc.
Once the results are presented, many aspects can be
interpreted, which will lead to benefits, for example, finding
the bottleneck during the changes in format, the line that takes
the longest to repair, the line that fails the most, the line that
needs further work, etc.
All of the stated therefore prove that in order to achieve
successful application of a SMED project, other lean
manufacturing tools are required. In the beginning of the ap-
plication of the proposed methodology, when differentiating
between external and internal setups, the generic data collec-
tion such as OEE and GE can be used, but when the external
and internal setups are fully separated and everything has been
done for the external setups to be performed while the lines are
operating and with the least possible amount of resources, it
becomes necessary to use tools for an in-depth analysis of the
internal setups. These tools are the mean time between failure
(MTBF) and mean time to repair (MTTR).
Of course, MTBF and MTTR help to evaluate and improve
the implementation of SMED-based methodology. But we can
also assess how long it takes us to act in the event of contin-
gency, such as a line failure or repair, and reduce it
accordingly.
Also, in case of extended MTBF, i.e. 480 min and over, we
can predict approximately the occurrence of failures and an-
ticipate to them with the necessary resources, or even better, if
all types of failures and the time that it takes to repair them
(MTTR) are evaluated, we can continue to improve on these
times.
All this may lead to other lines of research, such as losses
due to SMED application in this type of specific industry;
given that the direct relationship of SMED with the MTBF
and MTTR indicators has been proven, we can obtain a func-
tion of the said relationship, as for the changes in SKU on the
lines, SMED time consistency can be proven even in the event
of a large amount of SKUs.
References
1. Mustafa K,Cheng K (2016) Managing complexity in manufactur-
ing changeovers: a sustainable manufacturing-oriented approach
and the application case study. in ASME 11th International
Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference. 2016.
Blacksburg, Virginia, USA: ASME.
2. Naboureh K, Safari E (2016) Integrating the sequence de-
pendent setup time open shop problem and preventive main-
tenance policies. Decision Science Letters 5(4):535550.
doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2016.4.002
3. Deisenroth R (2014) Optimisation set-up times: increasing in
efficiency by lean methods and MES. Productivity
Management 19(3):5355
4. Fritsche R. (2011) Reducing set-up times for improved flexibility in
high-mix low-volume electric drives production. in 1st
International Electric Drives Production Conference, EDPC-2011-
Proceedings. 2011.
5. Brdy M, Kudrna J, rmkov BB, Edl M 2014, Interactive
game supporting SMED method, in Applied mechanics and
materials. p. 141146.
6. Bin Che Ani MN, Bin Shafei MSS, (2014) The effectiveness
of the single minute exchange of die (SMED) technique for
the productivity improvement, in Applied mechanics and
materials. p. 11441148.
7. Witzig P (2006) Make the best of makeready time. Paperboard
Packag 91(7):8
8. Almomani MA, Aladeemy M, Abdelhadi A, Mumani A (2013) A
proposed approach for setup time reduction through integrating
conventional SMED method with multiple criteria decision-
making techniques. Comput Ind Eng 66(2):461469
9. Ik AT, Adal EA (2016) A comparative study for the agri-
cultural tractor selection problem. Decis Sc Lett 5(4):569
580. doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2016.3.002
10. Panda A, Sahoo AK, Rout AK (2016) Multi-attribute decision mak-
ing parametric optimization and modeling in hard turning using
ceramic insert through grey relational analysis: a case study. Decis
Sci Lett 5(4):581592. doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2016.3.001
11. Baishya N, Sathish RU, Diwakar S (2013) Applying lean
manufacturing tool (SMED/QCO) to overcome additional invest-
ment for meeting customer needsa study at Robert Bosch (i)
Limited, in Advanced materials research. p. 18461851.
12. Cakmakci M, Karasu MK (2007) Set-up time reduction process and
integrated predetermined time system MTM-UAS: a study of ap-
plication in a large size company of automobile industry. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 33(34):334344
13. Cakmakci M (2009) Process improvement: performance analysis of
the setup time reduction-SMED in the automobile industry. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 41(12):168179
14. Da Graa Jnior JC (2005) Lean manufacturing and 6 Sigma: the
role of top management. SAE Technical Papers.
15. Tharisheneprem S. (2008) Achieving full fungibility and quick
changeover by turning knobs in Tape and Reel machine by apply-
ing SMED theory. in Proceedings of the IEEE/CPMT International
Electronics Manufacturing Technology (IEMT) Symposium
16. Sayem A, Islam MA, Khan MMA (2014) Productivity en-
hancement through reduction of changeover time by
implementing SMED techniquein furniture industry. Int J
Ind Syst Eng 17(1):1533
17. Peter O. (2010) Extending the technology envelope of equip-
ment fungibility with single minute exchange die (SMED)
novel solution. in Proceedings of the IEEE/CPMT
International Electronics Manufacturing Technology (IEMT)
Symposium

18. Suresh Kumar B, Syath Abuthakeer S (2012) Implementation of
lean tools and techniques in an automotive industry. J Appl Sci
12(10):10321037
19. Sugai M, McIntosh RI, Novaski O (2007) Shingos methodology
(SMED): critical evaluation and case study. Gestao e Producao
14(2):323335
20. Grzybowska K, Gajdzik B (2012) Optymisation of equipment setup
processes in enterprises. Metalurgija 51(4):555558
21. Ribeiro D, Braga F, Sousa R, Carmo-Silva S (2011) An application
of the SMED methodology in an electric power controls company.
Rom Rev Precis Mech, Opt Mechatronics 40:115122
22. Singh BJ, Khanduja D (2010) SMED: for quick changeovers in
foundry SMEs. Int J Product Perform Manag 59(1):98116
23. Kim YD, Thu K, Myat A, Ng KC (2013) Numerical simulation of
solar-assisted multi-effect distillation (SMED) desalination sys-
tems. Desalin Water Treat 51(46):12421253
24. Scholz-Reiter B, Knig F (2010) Developing launch management
as a core competency. Product Manag 15(4):4245
25. Kordoghli B, Moussa A (2013) Effect of wastes on change-
over time in garment industry. in 5th International Conference
on Modeling, Simulation and Applied Optimization, ICMSAO
2013. 2013
26. Gathen G (2004) What can SMED do for you? Ind Maint Plant
Oper 65(7):1012
27. Das B, Venkatadri U, Pandey P (2014) Applying lean manufactur-
ing system to improving productivity of airconditioning coil
manufacturing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71(14):307323
28. Chiarini A (2014) Sustainable manufacturing-greening processes
using specific Lean Production tools: an empirical observation from
European motorcycle component manufacturers. Journal of
Cleaner Production.
29. Kemal Karasu M, Cakmakci M, Cakiroglu MB, Ayva E, Demirel-
Ortabas N (2014) Improvement of changeover times via Taguchi
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
empowered SMED/case study on injection molding production.
Meas: J Int Meas Confederation 47(1):741748
30. Faccio M (2013) Setup time reduction: SMED-balancing integrated
model for manufacturing systems with automated transfer. Int J Eng
Technol 5(5):40754084
31. Dixey M (2007) Putting reliability back into equipment perfor-
mance. Food Sci Technol 21(3):3839
32. Gu R, Li P, Zhang W, Meier H, Kroll M (2009) Supply chain
management for the global distribution of machine life cycle based
service. in Proceedings of the 2009 6th International Conference on
Service Systems and Service Management, ICSSSM 09
33. Fabry C, Schmitz-Urban A (2010) Maintenance supply chain opti-
misation within an IT-platform: network service science and man-
agement. in International Conference on Management and Service
Science, MASS 2010. 2010.
34. Ferrads PG, Salonitis K (2013) Improving changeover time: a
tailored SMED approach for welding cells. in Procedia CIRP
35. Hansen JR, Bnker T (2014) The next generation of flexible crane
systems in wind turbine nacelles. in European Wind Energy
Association Conference and Exhibition 2014, EWEA 2014
36. Triki C, Alalawin A, Ghiani G (2013) Optimizing the performance
of complex maintenance systems. in 5th International Conference
on Modeling, Simulation and Applied Optimization, ICMSAO
2013. 2013.
37. Mannonen P, Hltt V (2013) The role of collaboration tools in
problem solving experience of global technical support center. in
Proceedings-IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, SMC 2013. 2013.
38. Zhao YQ, Liang GQ, Zhou XH (2012) Equipment spare parts fail-
ure preventive control based on control charts. in International
Conference on Management Science and Engineering-Annual
Conference Proceedings