See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292931622

Manufacturing system analysis methods review

Conference Paper · December 2009

CITATIONS READS

2 63

3 authors, including:

Peter Almström
Chalmers University of Technology
30 PUBLICATIONS 99 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Chalmers Area of Advance on Sustainable Production View project

SuREBPMS - Sustainable Resource Efficient Business Performance Measurement Systems View

project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Almström on 03 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Manufacturing system analysis methods review
1, 1 1
Sundkvist, Robin Almström, Peter , Kinnander, Anders
1
Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Materials and Manufacturing, Gothenburg,
Sweden
robin.sundkvist@chalmers.se

ABSTRACT
The Productivity Potential Assessment (PPA) method has been used in over 70 studies in
Swedish manufacturing industry. The approach is unique, but there are several other
manufacturing analysis methods with similar purpose or similar content. Some methods
are developed in publicly financed research projects, other methods are developed and
used by a single consultancy firm and used as their standard tool when analysing
manufacturing issues, and yet another category of methods is developed by large OEM
companies with the purpose of evaluating suppliers. This article compares a selection of
other methods to PPA. A summary of each method’s strengths and possible applications
is presented. The comparison may function as a practical decision tool for managers in
manufacturing industry.
Keywords: Productivity, Performance, Efficiency, Analysis method.

developed and used by a single consultancy firm and

1. INTRODUCTION
In order to control manufacturing operations and
analyze improvement actions, performance
measurement is needed. If measurements are not used
in the improvement work, it will be impossible to
understand if the improvement work has gained
success or not. Operational improvements may be
required due to drivers such as; change in market
requirements, launching of new products etc. In order to
satisfy the stakeholders to the manufacturing operation,
measurements should be identified and addressed to
correct improvement objectives. This article discusses
tools and methodologies to create understanding and
perform diagnostics and audits aiming to improve and
sustain the manufacturing system performance,
productivity and profitability at shop floor level.
The PPA methodology is a Swedish-developed method
[1] where specialist production engineers assess the
productivity potential in a manufacturing plant. The PPA
method was introduced at the first Swedish Production
Symposium in Gothenburg 2007 [2] and results from
the first 45 studies were reported at the second SPS in
Stockholm 2008 [3].
Today, most of the available production engineering
assessments tools are often related to lean production
or lean manufacturing improvement programs, see [4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Each of those methods uses different
performance measurements to fulfil their objectives.
Cleary, there are many methods to choose among and
a huge range of performance measures that can be
used [10].
In this article a comparison is made between the PPA
methodology and similar manufacturing system analysis
methodologies. Some methods are developed in
publically financed research projects, other methods are
used as their standard tool when analysing production,
and yet another category of methods is developed by
large OEM companies with the purpose of evaluating
suppliers. The other methods selected for this article
are:
Rapid plant assessment (RPA)
Lean Maturity Tool (AstraZeneca)
PACE (AberdeenGroup)
LeanNavigator
Diagnostic Workshop (Volvo Cars Corporation)
Productivity improvement (Herron & Braiden)
Just-In-Time assessment (Brox & Fader)
Plastal Group AB
Solving EFESO AB
The selected methods were chosen based on a
comprehensive literature study combined with the
authors’ network within the manufacturing industry. The
article is commenced with a straight forward summary
of the PPA methodology. The subsequent part reviews
the other manufacturing analysis methods in order to
compare these with the PPA methodology. The review
is accomplished by evaluating these methods with a
structured list of open questions, with the objective to
create a holistic view over the methods’ purpose,
design and outcome. The questions were answered
either by public written documentation, internal
documentation or personal interviews with
representatives from participating firms.
Since the evaluated methods were selected based on
their ability to analyse a manufacturing system, the
questions were structured according to a set of system
factors. A manufacturing system contains several
system factors [4, 5, 11]. Doolen and Hacker [4] defined
six impacts areas when studying level-of-lean
implementation at several companies. Bellgran [11] has respectively. Level 2 parameters affect productivity at
defined nine system parameters. Cleary, different corporate level, like inventory turnover and scrap rate.
authors use different terms (system parameters) to
define the manufacturing system. Depending on the
intention of use, the examined methods cover these
parameters with different depth and width. Six
manufacturing system factors were chosen based on
the literature study (market and strategy, physical
structure, performance measurements, manufacturing
development process, work organization, and work
environment).

In order to support management in deciding among

analysis methods, a discussion will be held to high-light
these differences, showing what method that is
appropriate to use in different situations, e.g., how cost
effective they are, and how each methodology support
and sustain improvement work.
2. PRODUCTIVITY POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 1: The levels of the PPA-method.
(PPA)
The parameters at level three are measures of the
The PPA method was developed during 2005-2006 by
company’s and its management’s ability to run and
the Institute for Management of Innovation and
develop the production while maintaining a sound work
Technology at Chalmers, funded by the Swedish
environment. The first parameter is the level of
Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (Nutek).
production engineering, which is defined as the number
The purpose was at the outset to show that there is a
of “yes” answers from a list of 40 questions. The
potential to radically improve productivity in Swedish
questions are sorted into 11 topics:
manufacturing plants. The focus is on the shop-floor
operation and the utilization of men and machines, 1. Strategy - goals
combined with an overall analysis of the manufacturing
system. The method is carried out during one day by 2. Work methods
two qualified analysts and results in an analysis based 3. Maintenance
on a set of parameters. The PPA method has proven to
be useful from a company perspective, where different 4. Competence
manufacturing companies have a new opportunity to 5. Cleanliness and order
benchmark operational parameters, as well as from a
consultant perspective for doing initial studies and sell 6. Material handling
their services based on the PPA analysis.
7. Change over
A basic assumption is that productivity can be improved
8. Continuous improvements
through improvement of the method (M), improving the
performance (P), and improving the utilization (U) [12]. 9. Calculations
The relation can be expressed as equation 1:
10. Planning

Productivity = M×P×U (1) 11. Quality

Method improvement is the most important factor where,
for example, using an automatic lathe over a manual
lathe increases productivity tenfold. The performance
factor is equivalent to speed, i.e. working faster, and the
utilization factor determines how well the intended
method is carried out. For the PPA method the focus is
on the utilization factor, the utilization of the labour force
compared to the intended method of for example an
assembly operation, and the utilization of machines
compared to an ideal state with no stops and 100%
flawless products.
The parameters forming the PPA method are divided
into different levels (see figure 1). Level 1 is the core of
the method, constituting two parameters for measuring
efficiency in manual work and machine work
Altogether the 40 questions evaluate how close the
manufacturing unit is to what the authors consider being
an ideal state of production engineering.
The second part of level three concerns work
environment. Values for short term absence, long term
sick absence and personnel turnover rate are collected.
Three parameters are assessed using three different
sets of questions: physical work environment, work load
ergonomics, and psychosocial work environment.
The potential of improving productivity by improving the
“M” factor of equation 1 is illustrated by level 4.
However, PPA does not include a formal measure for
method improvement since the measure needed is very
different depending on the particular situation.
Company facts are collected to facilitate comparison of
result from different PPA studies and to be able to sort
the database.
3. METHODOLOGY REVIEW
The following sub-sections provide a summary for each
of the manufacturing system analysis methods selected
for evaluation in the project.
3.1. Rapid plant assessment (RPA)
RPA is an assessment methodology used to, “discern a
plant’s strengths and weakness” [13]. The members of
the RPA tour (usually four or five members with
different capabilities) are using two rating sheets to
assess the plant
The RPA includes 20 yes-or-no questions to be
answered by the tour members. The number of yeses
indicates the factory’s level-of-lean and facilitates
assessment in 11 categories.
The rating sheet with 11 categories is used to
determine if the assessed plant is using best practices
in these following categories; customer satisfaction;
safety, environment, cleanliness and order; visual
management system; scheduling system; use of space,
movement of materials, and product line flow; levels of
inventory and work in process; teamwork and
motivation; condition and maintenance of equipment
and tools; management of complexity and variability;
supply chain integration; commitment to quality. A scale
from poor (1) to best in class (11) is used, which means
that the total score falls between 11 (poor in all
categories) and 121 (all best in class).
With a more advance application of RPA it is possible to
estimate cost of sales (COS). Typical measures used
are; number of workers, number of salaried staff,
average labor rate, average indirect labor rate, average
hourly overtime, fringe, facility square footage etc.
Together with the rating sheets and the COS estimation
the RPA team have the ability to estimate how the
manufacturing facility is performing, and where the
improvement areas are.
1 industry average and best in class companies. The
3.2. Lean maturity tool (LMT) - AstraZeneca
The LMT is a part of the AstraZeneca’s lean program.
The LMT is used to assure that the evaluated facility
follows the improvements plans according to the lean
program. Another purpose is to find good practices
which can be shared across AstraZeneca.
The LMT is performed as a peer-review, which means
that different facilities within the organization assess
each other in order to get an outside perspective. 3-5
analysts perform the assessment in approximately 2-3
days.
1
Information attained through interview with Peter
Alvarsson - Lean Lead Sweden Operations,
AstraZeneca Sweden Operations.
The LMT divides AstraZeneca’s operations into five
capabilities; process, information, organization, people,
and leadership. Each capability will be measured with a
scale from one to five. Five is equal to the lean ideal
state (LIS). Each capability is divided into subgroups,
which in turn consists of several topics that will be
reviewed by the tool.
The lean review will provide the basis for local and
overall program target settings and progress monitoring
by focusing on improvements and measure progress
towards the LIS. When targeting the current sate, a
diagram compares the current state with the lean ideal
state to identify gaps which provides new objectives
and targets.
3.3. PACE – AberdeenGroup
The AberdeenGroup provides a methodology that
evaluates business pressure, actions, capabilities and
enablers (PACE) within a certain business area [14, 15,
16].
The framework will be different depending of business
area investigated. Typically an on-line survey is
designed to the specific business area. It will include
questions to answer following:
What is driving companies to focus on the specific area
(pressures), e.g., cost pressures, market position,
technology development, political decisions etc.
What actions these companies are taking to address
these pressures (Actions), e.g., strategic approaches
such as product or production development in response
to related pressures.
What capabilities and technology enablers they have in
place to support the specific area of the study
(capabilities and enablers). E.g., key functionalities with
specific competencies within the organization or
different types of technology solutions.
Based on the on-line survey, the AberdeenGroup
provides a competitive framework divided into laggards,
results are given in a written report, providing
information about how well these three groups perform
among several performance measures. Each group will
be given different recommendations based on those
companies’ current situation and their effort to be more
competitive or to stay ahead of competitors.
3.4. LeanNavigator
A Swedish project carried out by among others, Swerea
IVF, Volvo technology AB and Chalmers University of
Technology, has resulted in the Swedish Production
System (SwePS) [8, 9]. SwePS is a generalized model,
based on the Volvo methodology - Volvo Production
System (VPS) assessment, which is used as a platform
for companies to successfully communicate and
exchange best practices. The objective of the
methodology is to support Swedish companies to build
a long-term strategy for developing their manufacturing
systems based on the lean production philosophy.
All necessary information will be collected by the
company; therefore, there are no definitions for time,
how it’s performed and who is doing it. One proposal is
that a new XPS (X production system) may be designed
in 1-3 months.
The model is divided into 5 building blocks with totally
22 areas. The blocks are; quality, processes, core
values, teamwork and continues improvements, and
finally demand controlled manufacturing.
Each of these 22 areas is described with a development
chart in 6 levels, from initiative (0) to perfection-world
class (5). The current state will be addressed according
this development chart and targets will be set to the
level that is reflecting the desired future state. Each of
these levels will be divided into characteristics,
application and effects (results) to give a more precise
description and what outcome the objectives (targets)
actually generate.
3.5. Diagnostic Workshop – Volvo Cars (Ford motor
company)
2 Lower level parameters are monitored locally on a daily
Volvo cars purchasing department together with the site
technical assistance (STA) group are using this method
(diagnostic workshop) to assess Volvo’s suppliers’ with
the intention to find improvement potentials at the shop
floor in order to minimize waste and lower the cost of
supplied products.
The workshop starts with an introduction to lean
manufacturing. The next step is the “manufacturing
process walk”, where operations, stocks, buffers,
transports etc are widely evaluated for the chosen
product or product family (including layout, manning
etc). Data collection and shop floor analysis are
performed using current state maps, process flow
analysis, work sampling, and cycle time studies. In
general, the team consists of two analysts assessing
the plant in approximately 3 days.
The main tool to develop improvement objectives is the
cycle time compared to the takt time analysis tool. This
tool is the combined result from the cycle time studies
and the work sampling studies. Each work station within
the manufacturing process is analyzed by a work
sampling study by doing 100 observations per station.
The work performed is classified in one of these
categories; value adding, non-value adding (non-
avoidable), and non-value adding (avoidable). Cycle
times are measured 40 times/station. The work
sampling studies together with the cycle time studies
creates a holistic knowledge about the whole process
as well as specific work stations. Important measures of
2
Information attained through interview with Lars
Ohlsson - Project Manager, Lean Deployment, Volvo
Car Corporation (Purchasing, STA).
this method are total loss (work sampling study) and
balanced losses (cycle time study).
Improvements are suggested through a “concerns and
corrective action plan” where concerns, causes, and
countermeasures are being documented and identified.
3
3.6. Scania Production System (SPS)
Scania does not have a standardized method for
manufacturing system analysis of the manufacturing
units. Instead, on macro level, the different
manufacturing units are monitored by KPI’s that can be
used as comparative measurements.
Typical KPI’s for production and procurement are
safety/environment; health attendance, energy
used/vehicle produced, CO2 process and transport.
Quality; product quality (critical, medium, small), direct
run. Delivery; precision/reliability, inventory turnover
rates (parts & components & finished goods). Cost;
vehicles/employee (productivity), production
cost/vehicle. Leadership; flexibility manning,
development plans.
basis and macro level parameters are monitored
monthly by the manufacturing unit. They both serve the
purpose to support continuous productivity
improvements.
Goals and objectives have been set by the company
management which are reflected in downstream KPI’s.
On an operative level Scania is seeking continuous
productivity improvements, involving every employee to
seek and see productivity potential. To exemplify from
the workshop, the operators write their own work
standards for a work station. The gap between current
output and theoretical capacity according to standard
will visualize the potential for improvements. The goal is
to gain awareness of the productivity potential by every
employee at their local workplace. A tool that is
frequently used to facilitate this is Value Stream
Mapping (VSM).
3.7. Productivity improvement methodology (Herron &
Braiden)
Herron & Braiden [17] has developed a model to
generate productivity improvement in manufacturing
companies by addressing identified manufacturing
problems through the application of selected lean tools.
The tool has been applied within different business
areas (food and drink, engineering, automotive,
purification systems). The methodology is divided into 3
steps.
Step 1: Productivity needs analysis (PNA) – The
analysis gives an overview of the current manufacturing
condition of the company (key productivity measures).
3
Information attained through interview with Allan
Stenson Blixt - SPS Manager, SPS Office, Scania
Relationships are established between the following
points:
Process – Measures of performance, establish key
performance measures.
Measures of performance – Process problems,
very difficult if there is no correlation between
measures employed and the items to be measured.
Process problems – Improvement tools, a critical
relationship, a strong correlation is required.
Improvement tools – Process, establish whether
the tools are applicable and, if, where they can be
applied.
Step 2: Plant process and problems are defined and
associated with the appropriate tools and metrics in a
manufacturing needs analysis (MNA).
Step 3: PNA & MNA is combined with a training needs
analysis (TNA) which assesses the level of
understanding and application of some tools by the
workforce.
The MNA indicates if the relevant tools are currently in
use within the facility. The TNA indicates the level of
knowledge of the required tools.
The output from the overall procedure is a numerical
score to quantify any correlation – An intervention
matrix.
The research team together with senior production
managers from the company, supplies the current
actual performance measure for the facility (to ensure
data accuracy, each measure is questioned by the
research team). Data is collected during plant tours and
interviews/workshops.
Problems are checked by the interviews with the senior
managers, the analysis of the PNA, followed by a joint
workshop employing a variety of decision making tools
such as a priority matrix.
By establishing relationship between process,
measurements and problems, specific problems of
interest can be further examined by using lean tools.
They include a core group developed in Japan called
“Genba kanri (GK)” kaizen, skill control, standard
operations and 5S. They are evaluated with the matrix,
to be best suited for a certain type of problem. There is
a numerical approach to establish the relationship, built
on minor influence =1, significant influence = 3 and
major influence = 9.
The outputs from the matrix (external) together with the
company objectives (internal), is discussed during a
workshop. The intended purpose of the matrix is to
identify where productivity interventions would be best
directed to derive the greatest benefits for the company.
3.8. Just-In-Time assessment (Brox & Fader)
The method use plant-level cross-sectional data from
different manufacturing companies (automobile,
electronics etc.) to estimate variable cost functions for
just-in time (JIT, a supply chain methodology strongly
related to lean manufacturing) companies as well as for
non-JIT companies [18].
The purpose of doing this is to show differences in
productivity between non just-in-time companies and
JIT companies by providing a statistical analysis called
the constant elasticity of substitution translog (CES-TL)
total cost system. The method shows what impact the
JIT implementations have had on cost functions of
manufacturing firms.
The data collection is performed using a survey
instrument. Interviews can take place with either plant
managers or production managers, occasionally with
CEO/owners. The survey is either completed on the
manufacturing facility “on the spot”, or left in the hands
of the manger who will fill in the information and then
return it by mail. Time estimations for filling the
questionnaires depend on available information at the
examined company.
The method compares differences between input cost
per value of output produced (energy, capital, labor,
material). The statistical analysis points out what JIT
techniques are being used and to what extent. Together
with self assessed figures of how much these
techniques have for example reduced set-up times,
reduced defects, increased worker skills etc.
Calculations are then made which correlates each
technique with usage and achieved improvements to
company costs.
3.9. Benchmarking with scorecard (Plastal Group AB)
At Plastal, benchmarking has been used to assess the
manufacturing processes in four areas; injection
moulding, painting, assembly and logistics.
The benchmarking is carried out by the Process
Development group at the head quarter four times per
year. For each process in the plants, there has been
appointed one “champion” to be the speaking partner
towards the Process Development Group.
The main tool for the assessment is the “Scorecard”,
where the actual manufacturing process is evaluated.
Scores are given between one (very bad) to five (world
class). Objectives that are scored in for example
“assembly” are quality, knowledge, organization,
housekeeping, problem solving, internal material
supply, area utilization, maintenance, production report
system, start up new products, and response.
Each of these groups is subdivided into a number of
statements, e.g., total PPM-level rated by customer
(quality). Each statement can either be a yes-or-no
statement or measured according a 1-5 rating scale
(e.g., 1 = >1500 PPM, 2 = 1000-1500 PPM etc.). Every
statement has a weight factor which means that some
statements are influencing the total score more than
others do.
The scorecards together with other hard facts collected
in the plants (go and see for yourself) are the basic
instruments for setting up action plans which are
contributing to the continuous improvement program
implemented at each facility.
4
3.10 Solving EFESO
Solving EFESO is an international consultancy firm.
When assessing manufacturing facilities, step one is to
considering what the assessed company’s customer
wants by doing a customer value analysis (CVA).
Depending on what their client’s demands, efforts can
be made of either increasing incomes or decreasing the
expenditures (costs) or both, Costs are analyzed by
doing Value stream cost analysis.
Data collection and the consultancy services are usually
performed by two consultants during 3 weeks by
focusing on one product or product family.
Different lean tools are being used such as the value
stream mapping (material and information) tool and
Pareto diagrams. A computer software aids the
consultants in their data collection (the factory model).
The consultants put great efforts in understanding the
process flow. From the process overview, problems are
identified and cause and effect relationship are being
created to understand the main manufacturing issues.
4. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
There are several manufacturing analysis
methodologies such as shop floor assessments,
statistical approaches, different kind of self
assessments, and consultancy firms that having their
own concepts for how manufacturing should be
analyzed and improved. Finally there are complete
production system concepts (e.g., SPS) providing
several ways for improvement.
The differences in the evaluated methodologies, except
that they are representing different focus and intention
of use, are time and cost, who is performing the
analysis and how the data collection is done.
The methodologies have been characterized within
three categories (table 1); internal audit, external audit,
and self assessment. Internal audit is defined as audits
made on-site, assessed by personnel at the facility or
within the same organization. External audit is defined
as audits made by independent consultants or
researchers on-site. Self assessment is defined as
assessment methodologies that can be used off-site
using pre-defined performance levels (e.g.,
4
Information attained through interview with Johan
Majlöv, Vice President, Operational Director
Scandinavia, EFESO Consulting AB
LeanNavigator) or self assessment through
questionnaires or interviews (e.g., PACE).
Table 2 summarize the methodology identification part
of the study. Each method is summarized and
described in four areas.
Description; characteristics, purpose of study,
methodology description, and whether the method is
publically available (public) or for non-public use
(internal).
Application; how is data collection performed, by who,
how, time utilization, and how the analysis is reported?
Problem identification; how does the method address
(identify) problems? What kind of data is collected?
Problem solving; how does the method give problem
solving suggestions & priorities? The analysis methods
are classified into three classes; systematic,
comparison, and database. Systematic refers to
methods that have a pre-made solution or an algorithm
depending on the outcome of the analysis. Comparison
indicates that pre-defined scales are used to set target
and objectives. Database indicates that collected data
is compared to a database of other analyses in order to
identify gaps and improvement areas. The PPA method
is an external audit method that uses a database of
previous analyses to make comparisons.
5. MANAGEMENT DECISION SUPPORT
To support management decisions regarding what kind
of method to use, a comparison table have been
proposed (table 3). The PPA method is used as
reference value. The other analysis methods are
compared towards PPA in “depth”, “width”, and
“time/cost”. “Depth” is defined as to what extent the
method performs analysis in one or several
manufacturing system parameters.
Table 1: Method characterization
Internal audit LMT (AstraZeneca)
SPS (Scania)
Plastal Group AB
External audit PPA
RPA
Diagnostic workshop
(Volvo cars)
Productivity improvement
(Herron & Braiden)
Solving EFESO
Self assessment LeanNavigator
PACE (AberdeenGroup)
Just-In-Time assessment
(Brox & Fader)
 Table 2: Methodology comparison
PPA RPA LMT PACE LeanNavigator Diagnostic SPS Herron & Brox & Plastal Solving
Workshop Braiden Fader Group AB EFESO
(internal)
Description External External audit Internal audit Self Self assessment External audit Internal audit External audit Self Internal audit External audit
audit (public): (non-public): assessment (public): Support (non-public): (non-public): (public): assessment (non-public): (non-public:,
(public): Discern a Internal (public): companies to Assess Evaluate Generate , (public): Assess the Increasing
Productivity plants benchmarking Benchmark build a long-term automotive corporate productivity Estimate manufacturing incomes or
analysis strengths and looking for business strategy with suppliers performance improvements variable process by decreasing
weakness best practices pressures, lean manufacturing costs internal expenditures
actions, philosophies improvement functions benchmarking (costs) or
capabilities potential both
and enablers
Application 2 analysts, 4-5 analysts, 1 3-4 analysts, On-line Total 2 analysts, 3 Operators Assessment Self Process 2 consultants,
1 day, shop- day, shop- 2-3 days, survey, <1 management days, shop (continuously), team, plant assessment Development 3 weeks,
floor floor analysis, written report day, extensive support, >1 floor analysis, continuous tours, , interviews Group, software aids
analysis, rating sheets report. month, written reports improvement, interviews & with plant 4 times/year, (factory
written continuous continuous workshops, > managers rating sheets model),
report documentation documentation 1 month or continuous
production reports
manager,
CEO,
owners
Problem Work Production Analysis is Benchmarking 5 categories Current state Micro scale Productivity Statistical By the Customer
identification Sampling, engineering performed database (quality, map, process KPI's (shop floor needs analysis of “Scorecard”, Value
OEE and Lean within each created within processes, core flow map, level), Macro analysis the cost of Scores are analysis
analysis, production capability and the business values, work sampling scale KPI's (PNA), inputs and given between (CVA),
KPIs, related yes-or- benchmarked area teamwork and and cycle time (Facility and Manufacturing the value of one (very bad) process
production no questions, with a scale continuous studies management Needs the output to five (world analysis and
engineering COS between 1 improvements), level) Analysis produced class) KPI
related yes- estimation and 5 totally 22 (MNA), (six-point
or-no manufacturing Training scale)
questions, system areas Needs
work- are analyzed Analysis
environment with a (TNA)
study development
chart in 6 levels
Problem Database: Database: Comparison: Comparison: Comparison: Database: Systematical: Systematical: Database: Comparison: Systematical:
solving Company Rating sheets, Polar diagram, With the Polar diagram, Concern and Through lean Selected lean Company Action plans The
suggestions result will be low scores = current state suggested level corrective forums and tools by result will be developed consultants
compared area for is targeted competitive identification, action plan standardization numerical compared from the work more or
to others improvements and compared framework current state vs. ranking to others benchmarking less with
results to LIS, gaps future state, generates results results coaching
are thereby gaps are thereby improvement depending on
identified. identified plan case to case.
“Width” is defined as how many system parameters are When focusing on productivity analysis or general
being analyzed. Time and cost is strongly related, and production improvement, or audit the cost cutting
is defined as required amount of resources multiplied by potential of suppliers, external auditing methods are
the length of study (days). A plus (+) means deeper, suggested. The reason is because of these methods
wider, or lower cost than PPA. A minus (-) means less are providing special production analysts (e.g., PPA,
depth or width than PPA. A zero (0) means equal as Diagnostic Workshop, and Solving EFESO). They
PPA. The recommendations are based on the authors’ should all be performed by well trained analysts’ with
analysis of the feasibility of different analysis methods the ability to distinguish between what seems to be
in different contexts with different requirements for the good and what really is good performance. Most of
specific method. these methods are at the same cost level, (cost per
consultant/day), but differs in length of study.
Self assessment methods based upon questionnaires
(e.g., PACE) gives a brief hint on how the evaluated To make a fast analysis of manufacturing cost of
companies perform from a favourable economical point competitors, RPA cost estimation is suggested.
of view. 6. CONCLUSIONS
If striving for more frequent performance updates, This article analyzes and discusses different
internal auditing is suggested by developing a company manufacturing system analysis methods as means to
specific method (e.g. LMT), alternatively use of external support and create cost effective improvement projects.
auditing like PPA or RPA. It emphasizes the PPA methodology by comparing it
Next step is to continuously monitor the operation towards similar analysis methods. The decision support
performance as for example SPS. This is for many table shows that different methods are suitable for
companies considered as the ideal state of their different applications and purposes. PPA should be
operations. A good start for reaching there is through used when the intention is to cost efficiently get an
extensive work with for example LeanNavigatorn. external perspective of an organization’s manufacturing
LeanNavigatorn may be used as a level-of-Lean self performance and to compare the performance at shop-
evaluation as well as an in-depth analysis of all aspects floor level with similar companies. The strength with
of the manufacturing system. LeanNavigatorn is both internal and external audits is the actual shop floor
considered as being expensive both in time and observation, the fact that the analyst may observe
resources. things, as working methods, layout deficiencies, and
inappropriate material flow etc. “Go and see for
Analysis before a major improvement program may be yourself” give the analyst the chance to collect
tackled by use of either external or internal audits. If invaluable information by discussing with the operators
lacking in the internal capacity, use consultants and let about the manufacturing process (their experiences,
them use their analysis method (e.g. Solving-EFFESO). common problems, improvement suggestions etc.),
which apparently not would been considered with
Table 3 – Decisions support interviews by phone or when management answering
questionnaires. Most of the methodologies provides
Method Depth Width Time/Cost different KPI’s (such as PPA - level 2 parameters), thus
helping companies to choose among available
PPA reference reference reference performance measurements. There are a huge number
RPA - - + of internally developed methods used by consultancy
firms and manufacturing companies. The number of
LMT - + - publically available methods that may provide objective
comparison of manufacturing shop-floor operations and
PACE - - +
KPIs is very limited. The PPA method is one of few
Lean- + + - methods with a proven usefulness that are available for
Navigatorn all manufacturing companies to use. With its unique
collection of manufacturing data (over 70 studies has
Diagnostic + 0 - been accomplished), it can be used as objective
Workshop benchmark and comparison against (anonymous)
SPS N/A N/A N/A competitors’ production.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Herron & - + N/A
Braiden The authors would like to acknowledge the involved
companies and the individuals that participated in
Brox & + - N/A
interviews. The research project was financed by the
Fader
Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research and the
Plastal + - - ProViking 2 research program.
group AB
Solving + 0 -
EFESO
 [14] Jutras, C., (2006), The Manufacturing Performance
8. REFERENCES
Management Benchmark Report, AberdeenGroup, Inc.
[1] Almström, P., Kinnander, A. (2006), PPA - en metod
för att bedöma produktivitetspotentialen i [15] Littlefield, M., (2007), Lean Scheduling and
verkstadsindustrin, NUTEK R 2006:17. Execution, AberdeenGroup, Inc.

[2] Almström, P. and A. Kinnander, Productivity
Potential Assessment of the Swedish Manufacturing
Industry, in Proceedings from the 1st Swedish
Production Symposium. 2007.
[3] Almström, P. and A. Kinnander, Results and
Conclusions from the Productivity Potential Assessment
Studies, in Proceedings of the 2nd Swedish Production
Symposium. 2008.
[16] Littlefield, M., Shah, M., (2009), Closed Loop
Quality Management – Improving Customer Focus from
design to delivery, AberdeenGroup, Inc.
[17] Herron, C., Braiden, P.M. (2006), A methodology
for developing sustainable quantifiable productivity
improvement in manufacturing companies, International
Journal of Production Economics, No. 104, pp. 143-
153.

[4] Doolen, T. L., Hacker, M. E., A review of Lean [18] Brox J.A., Fader, C. (2002), The set of just-in-time
Assessment in organizations: An Exploratory Study of management strategies: an assessment of their impact
Lean Practices by Electronics Manufacturers (2005), on plant-level productivity and input-factor
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. substitutability using variable cost function estimates,
55-67. International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40,
No. 12, pp. 2705-2720.
[5] Taj, S. (2005), Applying lean assessment tools in
Chinese hi-tech industries, Management Decision, Vol.
43, No. 4, pp. 628-643.

[6] Fullerton, R. R., McWatters C. S., (2001), The

production performance benefirs from JIT
implementation, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 19, pp- 81-96.

[7] Bicheno (2006), J., Ny verktygslåda för Lean – För

snabbt och flexibelt flöde, Revere AB.

[8] Swerea IVF-skrift 09802 (2009), LeanNavigatorn

– Ett dialogverktyg för utveckling av
konkurrenskraftiga produktionssystem
inspirerat av Lean (Handledning).

[9] Swerea IVF-skrift 09804 (2009), LeanNavigatorn

– Ett dialogverktyg för utveckling av
konkurrenskraftiga produktionssystem
inspirerat av Lean (Arbetsbok)

[10] Medori, D., Steeple, D. (2000), A framework for

auditing and enhancing performance measurement
systems, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 20, No. 5, pp. 520-533.

[11] Bellgran, M. (1998), Systematic Design of

Assembly Systems – Preconditions and Design
Process Planning, Linköping Studies in Science and
Technology, No. 515.

[12] Saito, S., Reducing labour cost using industrial

engineering techniques, in Maynard's Industrial
Engineering Handbook, K.B. Zandin, Editor. 2001,
McGraw-Hill: New York. p. 2151-2164.

[13] Goodson, R., Eugene (2002), Read a plant – Fast,

Harvard Business Review, reprint R0205H.

View publication stats