Improving Operations Performance
Improving Operations Performance
Improving Operations Performance
4,300
Open access books available
117,000
International authors and editors
130M Downloads
154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54450
1. Introduction
© 2015 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
2 Operations Management
empowerment. This work takes you to the journey of World Class Manufacturing System
(WCMS) adopted by the most important automotive Company located in Italy, the Fiat
Group Automobiles. World class can be defined as a tool used to search and allow a compa‐
ny to perform at a best-on-class level.
The aim of this work is to present establishments of the basic model of World Class Manu‐
facturing (WCM) quality management for the production system in the automotive industry
in order to make products of the highest quality eliminating losses in all the factory fields an
improvement of work standards.
The chapter is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces World Class Manufacturing and
illustrates literature review, mission and principles of WCM, Section 3 describes Tools for
WCM with particular attention on their features and on Key Performance and Key Activities
Indicators and Section 4 describes the research methodology through a real case study in the
largest Italian automotive company. To conclude, results and conclusions are provided.
2. Literature review
When Schonberger first introduced the concept of “World Class Manufacturing”, the term
was seen to embrace the techniques and factors as listed in Figure 1. The substantial increase
in techniques can be related in part to the growing influence of the manufacturing philoso‐
phies and economic success of Japanese manufacturers from the 1960s onwards. What is
particularly interesting from a review of the literature is that while there is a degree of over‐
lap in some of the techniques, it is clear that relative to the elements that were seen as consti‐
tuting WCM in 1986, the term has evolved considerably.
Improving Operations Performance with World Class Manufacturing Technique: A Case in Automotive Industry 3
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54450
These techniques have been known for a long time, but with Schonberger, a perfectly inte‐
grated and flexible system was obtained, capable of achieving company competitiveness
with products of high quality. The WCM model by Schonberger is illustrated here above in
Figure 2.
According to Fiat Group Automobiles, “World Class Manufacturing (WCM)” is: a struc‐
tured and integrated production system that encompasses all the processes of the plant, the
security environment, from maintenance to logistics and quality. The goal is to continuously
improve production performance, seeking a progressive elimination of waste, in order to en‐
sure product quality and maximum flexibility in responding to customer requests, through
the involvement and motivation of the people working in the establishment.
The WCM program has been made by Prof. Hajime Yamashina from 2005 at the Fiat Group
Automobiles. The program is shown here below in Figure 3.
Fiat Group Automobiles has customized the WCM approach to their needs with Prof. Ha‐
jime Yamashina from Kyoto University (he is also member of the Royal Swedish Academy
and in particular he is RSA Member of Engineering Sciences), by redesigning and imple‐
menting the model through two lines of action: 10 technical pillars; 10 managerial pillars.
The definition proposed by Yamashina includes a manufacturing company that excels in ap‐
plied research, production engineering, improvement capability and detailed shop floor
knowledge, and integrates those components into a combined system. In fact, according to
Hajime Yamashina the most important thing continues to be the ability to change and quick‐
Improving Operations Performance with World Class Manufacturing Technique: A Case in Automotive Industry 5
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54450
ly [9]. WCM is developed in 7 steps for each pillar and the steps are identified in three phas‐
es: reactive, preventive and proactive. In figure 4 an example of a typical correlation between
steps and phases is shown, but this correlation could change for each different technical pil‐
lar; in fact each pillar could have a different relation to these phases. The approach of WCM
needs to start from a “model area” and then extend to the entire company. WCM “attacks”
the manufacturing area. WCM is based on a system of audits that give a score that allows to
get to the highest level. The highest level is represented by “the world class level”.
The process to achieve “World Class Manufacturing” (WCM) has a number of philosophies
and elements that are common for all companies. Therefore, when applied to the manufac‐
turing field, TQM and WCM are synonymous. We would like to observe that customer
needs and expectations is a very important element in WCM. The manufacturing strategy
should be geared to support these needs. These could be dealing with certification, market
share, company growth, profitability or other global targets. The outcomes should be de‐
fined so that they are measurable and have a definite timetable. These are also a means of
defining employee responsibilities and making them feel involved. Employee education and
training is an essential element in a World Class Manufacturing Company. They must un‐
derstand the company's vision and mission and consequential priorities. As introduced in
World Class Manufacturing, well known disciplines such as: Total Quality Control; Total
6 Operations Management
Productive Maintenance; Total Industrial Engineering; Just In Time and Lean Manufactur‐
ing are taken into account. Thus, World Class Manufacturing is based on a few fundamental
principles:
• the involvement of people is the key to change;
WCM foresees 10 technical pillars and 10 managerial pillars. The levels of accomplishment
in technical fields are indirectly affected by the level of accomplishment in administrative
fields. The pillar structure represents the “Temple of WCM” (Figure 5) and points out that,
to achieve the standard of excellence, a parallel development of all the pillars is necessary.
Each pillar focuses on a specific area of the production system using appropriate tools to
achieve excellence global.
Here below in Table 1 features for each technical pillars are illustrated.
Improving Operations Performance with World Class Manufacturing Technique: A Case in Automotive Industry 7
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54450
EEM
Early Equipment Optimization of To put in place new plants as scheduled.
Management installation time and costs To ensure a rapid start-up and stable.
EPM and optimization of To reduce the Life Cycle Cost (LCC).
Early Product features of new products To design systems easily maintained and inspected.
Management
8 Operations Management
ENV Continuous improvement To comply with the requirements and standards of environmental
Environment environmental management.
ENE management and reduce To develop an energy culture and to reduce the energy costs and
Energy energy waste losses.
As regards the ten Managerial Pillars there are: 1) Management Commitment; 2) Clarity of
Objectives; 3) Route map to WCM; 4) Allocation of Highly Qualified People to Model Areas;
5) Organization Commitment; 6) Competence of Organization towards Improvement; 7)
Time and Budget; 8)Detail Level; 9) Expansion Level and 10) Motivation of Operators
3. The main tools for World Class Manufacturing: Features and description
WCM requires all decisions to be made based on objective measured data and its analysis.
Therefore, all the traditional data analysis tools such as scatter diagrams, histograms and
checklists are used. Thus, from literature survey it is inferred that it is not possible to use the
specific single tool to achieve world-class performance and address all the manufacturing
components. It is inferred that to address all the components of the manufacturing system
the following tools are necessary (see Table 2):
It is used for classifying the events that have an impact on safety such
Heinrich Pyramid as fatalities, serious, minor, medications, near-accidents, accidents,
dangerous conditions and unsafe practices over time.
FMEA-Failure Mode and Effect Analysis It is used to prevent the potential failure modes.
QA Network quality assurance network It is used to ensure the quality of the process by eliminating rework.
QuOA quality operation analysis Preventive analysis of the work steps to ensure the quality.
Rhythmic operation analysis Analysis of the dispersion during the work cycle.
Here below in Table 3 is shown a brief report on different indices and indicators defined by
several authors in order to “measure” WCM.
However, some authors [15; 16] proposed only productivity as a measure of manufacturing
performance. Kennerley and Neely [17] identified the need for a method that could be used
for the development of measures able to span diverse industry groups. From this point of
view we would like to note that it is necessary to develop a more systematic approach in
order to improve a project and process. In particular, in WCM we can use two types of indi‐
cators: Key Performance Indicator (KPI) and Key Activity Indicator (KAI). KPI represents a
result of project improvement, e.g. sales, profit, labor productivity, equipment performance
12 Operations Management
Authors
Competitive advantage +
Cost/Price + + +
Customer relations/Service + +
Cycle time +
Facility control +
Flexibility + + +
Global competitiveness +
Inventory + +
Morale +
Plant/Equipment/Tooling reliability +
Problem support +
Productivity + +
Quality + + +
Safety + +
Speed/Lead Time + +
Supplier management +
Training +
rate, product quality rate, Mean Time to Failure (MTBF) and Mean Time to Repair (MTTR)
[18, 19]. KAI represents a process to achieve a purpose of project improvement, e.g. a total
number of training cycles for employees who tackle performance improvement projects, a
total number of employees who pass a public certification examination and an accumulative
number of Kaizen cases [20]. A KAI & KPI overview applied step by step is seen in Figure 6.
The aim of this work is to present establishments of the basic model of World Class Manu‐
facturing (WCM) quality management for the production system at Fiat Group Automobiles
in order to make products of the highest quality eliminating losses in all the factory fields an
improvement of work standards. In fact, World Class Manufacturing is a manufacturing
system defined by 6 International companies including Fiat Group Automobiles with the in‐
tent to raise their performances and standards to World Class level with the cooperation of
leading European and Japanese experts and this includes all the plant processes including
quality, maintenance, cost management and logistics etc. from a universal point of view.
Thus, automotive manufacturing requires the ability to manage the product and its associat‐
ed information across the entire fabricator. Systems must extend beyond their traditional
14 Operations Management
role of product tracking to actively manage the product and its processing. This requires co‐
ordinating the information flow between process equipment and higher level systems, sup‐
porting both manual and automatic interfaces. A case study methodology was used to
collect detailed information on division and plant strategic objectives, performance meas‐
urement systems, and performance measurement system linkages. The result of this re‐
search was to develop principles on strategic objectives, performance measurement systems
and performance measurement system linkages for improved organizational coordination.
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between division and plant per‐
formance measurement systems designed to support the firm’s strategic objectives and to
improve organizational coordination. We will focus our attention on the Cost Deployment
Pillar, Autonomous Activities/Workplace Organization Pillar and Logistics/Customers Serv‐
ice Pillar.
The aim of the project is to increase the flexibility and productivity in an ETU (Elementary
Technology Unit) of Mechanical Subgroups in a part of the FGA’s assembling process in the
Cassino Plant through the conventional Plan-Do-Check-Act approach using the WCM meth‐
odology:
- PLAN - Costs Analysis and Losses Analysis starting from Cost Deployment (CD) for the
manufacturing process using the items and tools of Workplace Organization (WO) and for
the handling process the Logistic and Customer Services (LOG) applications.
4.2.1. PLAN: Costs analysis and losses analysis (CD) for the manufacturing process (WO) and for the
handling process (LOG)
In this first part (PLAN) were analyzed the losses in the assembly process area so as to or‐
ganize the activities to reduce the losses identified in the second part of the analysis (DO).
Object of the study was the Mechanical Subgroups ETU - Elementary Technology Unit (in a
part of the Cassino Plant Assembly Shop). The aim of this analysis was to identify a pro‐
gram allowing to generate savings policies based on Cost Deployment:
• Identify relationships between cost factors, processes generating costs and various types of
waste and losses;
• Handling losses;
• Defects;
• Troubleshooting Machines;
• Setup;
• Breakdown.
It is important to give a measure of all the losses identified in process examination. The data
collection is therefore the “key element” for the development of activities of Cost Deploy‐
ment. Here below in Figure 7 an example of losses identified from CD from the Assembly
Shop is shown and in Figure 8 is shown an example of CD data collection regarding NVAA
(Non-Value-Added Activities) for WO (for this case study we excluded check and rework
losses) in the Mechanical Subgroups area. Finally Figure 9 shows Analysis of losses Cost De‐
ployment.
16 Operations Management
Figure 7. Analysis of losses Cost Deployment – Stratification of NVAA losses for Mechanical Subgroups ETU - Ele‐
mentary Technology Unit (figure highlights the most critical workstation)
Figure 8. Analysis of losses Cost Deployment – Pareto Analysis NVAA Mechanical Subgroups ETU - Elementary Tech‐
nology Unit
Improving Operations Performance with World Class Manufacturing Technique: A Case in Automotive Industry 17
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54450
Figure 9. Analysis of losses Cost Deployment – Pareto Analysis Line Balancing Losses or Insaturation on Mechanical
Subgroups ETU - Elementary Technology Unit
4.2.2. DO - Analysis of non-value-added activities, of the re-balancing line and analysis of re-balancing
of work activities
According to figure 9 and figure 10 were analyzed the losses regarding NVAA and Insatura‐
tion. In fact were analyzed all 4 critical workstations (because they have the worst losses)
and were identified 41 types of non-value-added activities (walking, waiting, turning, pick‐
ing....) in the various sub-phases of the production process. In Table 4 is shown some exam‐
ples of non-value-added activities analyzed (MUDA Analysis).
Some examples of standard tools used to analyze NVAA reduction (MUDA Analysis) for
the 4 workstations are shown here below in Figures 10, 11 and 12) job stratification (VAA -
Value Added Activities; NVAA – Non-Value-Added Activities; LBL - Low Balancing Level;
EAWS - European Assembly Work Sheet – Ergonomy); 2) Spaghetti Chart and 3) Kaizen
Standard.
18 Operations Management
Combination of manual
10 Automatic combination To check
pallet
Figure 13 shows the initial scenario analyzed to identify problems and weaknesses.
At this point was assumed the new flow of the complete damper (corner) = damper + com‐
plete hub sequencing according to the material matrix considering losses relating to han‐
dling (material matrix classification – see figure 14). The material matrix classifies the
commodities (number of drawings) in three main groups: A (bulky, multi-variations, expen‐
sive), B (normal) and C (small parts) and subgroups (a mixture of group A: bulky and multi-
variations or bulky and expensive etc.). For each of these groups was filled out the flow
matrix that defines the correct flow associated: JIS (and different levels), JIT (and different
levels) and indirect (and different levels). After identifying the correct flow, in the JIS case,
was built a prototype of the box (bin) to feed the line that would ensure the right number of
parts to optimize logistic handling. However, the new box (bin) for this new mechanical
subgroup must feed the line in a comfortable and ergonomic manner for the worker in the
workstation, for this reason was simulated the solution before the realization of the box (bin)
(see figure 15).
At the end of the Muda analysis (NVAA analysis) were applied all the solutions found to
have a lean process (the internal target is to achieve 25% of average NVAA losses) and was
reorganized the line through a new line balancing level (rebalancing) to achieve 5% of the
average line balancing losses (internal target). Another important aspect was the logistics
flows analysis (see figure 16) considering advanced warehouses (Figure 17). The simulation
scenario was defined using trucks from the Cassino plant warehouses that also feed other
commodities to achieve high levels of saturation to minimize handling losses.
At the end of the handling analysis (flow, stock level…) thanks to this new “lean” organiza‐
tion of material matrix was used the correct line feed from the Just In Sequence warehouse.
It was reduced the internal warehouse (stock level), the space used for sequencing (square
metres), the indirect manpower used to feed the sequencing area and we obtained zero fork‐
24 Operations Management
lifts on the shopfloor because we used the ro-ro (roll in - roll out) system. Figure 18 shows
the final scenario in which we have 1 operator instead of 4 operators.
4.2.3. Check – Analysis of results to verify productivity and ergonomic improvement and optimization
of logistics flows
Balance line +
LBL Reduction
Check Saturation (Flexim Software/Plant simulation) +
Jack Software +
Ergonomics Improvement
Excel Human Model +
5. Conclusions
A key industrial policy conclusion is that intelligently designed selective policies can be ef‐
fective in developing production systems. Intelligent industrial policies need to be shaped to
28 Operations Management
respond to contingent factors which are specific to a sector, period and country. Fundamen‐
tally, it is not a question of whether these selective policies work, but under what circum‐
stances they work.
From this point of view, World Class Manufacturing is a “key” concept. This is the reason
why the concept constituting “World Class Manufacturing” has received considerable atten‐
tion in academic literature, even though it has been developed principally in relation to the
needs of larger scale manufacturing organisations. Regards our case study we can conclude
that WCM allows to reduce losses and optimize logistics flows. Thus, the main results can
be summarized as follows:
1. greater efficiency because the inner product is cheaper because it is possible to use external
warehouses or suppliers - outsourcing - specialized and more cost-effective for the
company;
2. greater flexibility because it is possible to work more models (in Cassino with these logical
sequencing and kitting there are 4 different model brands on the same assembly line: Alfa
Romeo Giulietta, Chrysler, Lancia Delta and Fiat Bravo;
3. no space constraint (in this example we get only 1 container already sequenced line side)
Definitely the new process and the internal flows are very lean and efficient. In this case
study it was implemented a servo system using Low Cost Automation. This system ensures
only one picking point in order to have only one container at the side of the production line.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to Fiat Group Automobiles S.p.A. - Cassino Plant, to
the Plant Manager and his staff and other partner and organizations who gave us the possibility
to carry out the necessary research and use their data for the research project “Infrastructures
of advanced logistics for the lines with high flexibility” showed in tiny part, and briefly in this
case study.
Author details
2 Fiat Group Automobiles EMEA WCM Cassino Plant Coordinator, Cassino, Italy
Improving Operations Performance with World Class Manufacturing Technique: A Case in Automotive Industry 29
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54450
References
[1] De Felice F., Petrillo A, Silvestri, A. Multi-criteria risk analysis to improve safety in
manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research. 2012; Vol. 50,
No. 17, pp. 4806-4822.
[2] De Felice F., Petrillo A. Methodological Approach for Performing Human Reliability
and Error Analysis in Railway Transportation System. International Journal of Engi‐
neering and Technology 2011; Vol.3 (5), 341-353.
[3] De Felice F., Petrillo A. Hierarchical model to optimize performance in logistics poli‐
cies: multi attribute analysis. The 8th International Strategic Management Confer‐
ence. June 21-23, 2012 Barcelona –Spain. Elsevier Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences.
[4] De Felice F., Petrillo A. Productivity analysis through simulation technique to opti‐
mize an automated assembly line. Proceedings of the IASTED International Confer‐
ence, June 25 - 27, 2012 Napoli, Italy. Applied Simulation and Modelling (ASM 2012)
DOI: 10.2316/P.2012.776-048 – pp 35-42.
[5] Haynes A. Effect of world class manufacturing on shop floor workers, Journal Euro‐
pean Industrial Training 1999; 23(6) 300–309.
[6] Womack J. P., Jones D. T., Roos D. The Machine that Changed the World (Rawson
Associates, New York, 1990).
[7] Oliver N., Delbridge R., Jones D., and Lowe J. World class manufacturing: Further
evidence in the lean production debate, British Journal of Management 5(Special is‐
sue) (1994) S53–S63.
[8] Schoenberger R.J. World class manufacturing: the lessons of simplicity applied, New
York: Free Press, p. 205, 1986.
[9] Yamashina H. Japanese manufacturing strategy and the role of total productive
maintenance. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering Volume 1, Issue 1, 1995,
Pages 27-38.
[10] Ghalayini A.M., and Noble J.S. The changing basis of performance measurement, Int.
J. Operations & Production Management 16(8) (1996) 63–80.
[11] Kodali R.B., Sangwan K.S., Sunnapwar V.K. Performance value analysis for the justi‐
fication of world-class manufacturing systems, J. Advanced Manufacturing Systems
3(1) (2004) 85–102.
[12] Wee Y.S., and Quazi H.A. Development and validation of critical factors of environ‐
mental management, Industrial Management & Data Systems 105(1) (2005) 96–114.
30 Operations Management
[13] Digalwar A.K., Metri, B.A. Performance measurement framework for world class
manufacturing, International Journal Applied Management & Technology 3(2) (2005)
83–102.
[14] Utzig L. J. CMS performance measurement, in Cost Management for Today’s Ad‐
vanced Manufacturing: The CAM-I Conceptual Design, eds. C. Berliner and J. A.
Brimson (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1988).
[15] Hayes R.H., Abernathy W. J. Managing our way to economic decline, Harvard Busi‐
ness Review 58(1) (1980) 67–77.
[17] Kennerley M., Neely A., Adams C. Survival of the fittest measuring performance in a
changing business environment, Measuring Business Excellence 7(4) (2003) 37–43.
[18] Japan Institute of Plant Maintenance (JIPM) (ed.): A Report on Systemizing Indica‐
tors of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) (in Japanese) (JIPM, Tokyo, 2007).
[19] Shirose K. (ed.): TPM New Implementation Program in Fabrication and Assembly In‐
dustries Productivity Press, Portland, Oregon 1996.
[20] Murata K., Katayam H. 2009. An evaluation of factory performance utilized KPI/KAI
with data envelopment analysis Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan
2009, Vol. 52, No. 2, 204-220.
[21] Datamonitor. Fiat S.p.A. Company Profile. 12 July 2011.
[22] Di Minin A., Frattini F., Piccaluga A. Fiat: Open Innovation in a downturn
(1993-2003). University of California, Berkeley vol., 52 (3). Spring 2010.