Assignment 1

Review of “The Impact of the Application of Lean Tools for

Improvement of Process in a Plastic Company: A Case Study”

Lean Manufacturing and Process Improvement

IND8900-34-R-2024W

Name Student ID
Deepika Garg 110101161

Instructor: - Dr. (Sardar) Asif Khan

Submission Date: February 17, 2024

1. Clearly state the purpose of the selected paper or case study.

The selected article, "The Impact of the Application of Lean Tools for Improvement of
Process in a Plastic Company: a Case Study by P. Ribeiro," seeks to evaluate the efficacy of
using Lean tools in a plastic goods manufacturing plant. This case study is focussed on a
plastic company which manufactures wheel covers and bumpers for automotive industry.
Both the components together contributed to 20% of the annual revenue of the company and
represented 70% of the daily production [1]. The major issues associated with both
components were higher delays and quality problems. The purpose of this study is to analyse
the existing processes to propose changes that will reduce cycle times, improve outputs, and
decrease the complaints associated. The study deploys Action Research methodology which
has five stages, i.e., diagnose, plan action, implement action, evaluate action, conclusion and
involves a details analysis of existing processes, identifying improvement opportunities, and
implementing lean tools and methodologies such as 5S, Visual Management, SMED,
Standard Work and OEE. The study illustrates considerable gains made possible by the
introduction of certain Lean principles, such as a 70% reduction in transportation times in the
painting production line and notable increases in OEE indices across several production
processes.

2. a. Describe the problem addressed in the paper.

b. Provide a concise summary of the current state map.
c. Detail the procedure(s) followed to improve the process and specify the Lean
Manufacturing tool(s) employed, if any.
d. Highlight the types of waste that were reduced or eliminated during the improvement
process.

a) In this case study it is being discussed about a plastic manufacturing company with high
inefficiencies and associated complaints in the manufacturing processes of wheel covers and
front bumpers. These inefficiencies appear in long cycle times, higher transportation times,
low productivity, and a significant volume of complaints about the quality and delivery of
these products.
The problems are assessed by extracting data from last quarter of 2017 which gives 5
complaints associated with wheel covers costing 1996.60 euros [1]. This results in VDA 6.3
audit conducted by the client giving rise to C – unable classification. 14% of rejection rate
had been observed from wheel covers of which 40% were from injection moulding. The OEE
for injection process was observed to be 31% and 51% for the painting which identifies the
major problem of low operational efficiency. Also, the rejection rate for front bumpers was
observed to be 5% with 57% defects arising from impurities which results in C – unable
classification in VDA 6.3 audit by the customer. The low OEE, i.e., 32% for painting process
of bumpers computes low operational efficiency [1].

Page | 1
b) Current State for both components:

Figure 1: Current Flow for Wheel Cover & Front Bumpers.

Once the company receives order from the client, it initiates purchase of raw material. Figure
1 shows that the raw material is further melted at designated temperatures so that it can be
easily transported to the moulds for injection moulding process. The current state of both the
parts involves two major processes. i.e., injection moulding and painting. Once moulding is
done, NDT testing is done to check for any cracks or defects. If there are no defects found,
the part is further moved to the next process of painting, otherwise it is again sent to melting
process. After painting is done, there is further testing conducted on the parts to check for any
quality issues or defects. If the part is found okay, it is moved to packing & dispatch,
otherwise it is moved to scrap. Currently there are 5 complaints associated to wheel covers
with an average rejection of 12% and 5% for front bumpers [1]. The manufacturer has
received C – Unable classification from the client for both the components as a result of
delayed deliveries and high rejection.

c) The study deploys Action Research methodology to improve the process which involves five
stages: 1. Diagnose – the problem is identified, and purpose is clarified, 2. Plan actions –
actions are proposed to solve the problem, 3. Implement actions – actions are implemented,
4. Evaluate actions – actions are assessed to ensure they meet goals and remain consistent
over time and 5. Conclusion – the key results and benefits are identified [1]. Using Action-
Research methodology, the present production system was analysed for wheel covers and
front bumpers to discover potential problems that could be solved. The methodology can be
summarized as:
1. A thorough examination of current procedures and performance measures, such as
nonconformances, complaints, delivery delays, and OEE (Overall Equipment
Effectiveness) values was conducted.
2. Improvement opportunities based on the analysis were identified.

Page | 2
 3. Lean Manufacturing technologies and practices such as 5S, Visual Management, SMED
(Single-Minute Exchange of Die), and Standard Work were used to address identified
inefficiencies.
4. Further improvements beyond Lean tools and processes were proposed and executed as
needed.
5. Post execution, results were monitored and established resulting in recording of benefits
and advantages.
Following Lean tools are employed to address the problem:
1. 5S to solve instability of teams by organising the tools, materials and removing unwanted
items while reducing non-value-added activities.
2. SMED (Single Minute Exchange of Die) to reduce the downtime due to production
changes by converting internal activities to external activities while reducing the overall
downtime by 30 minutes 32 seconds (approximately 36.79% of the initial time).
3. Visual Management to solve disorganization, disarray, and cleaning of the factory by
displaying the information in the workplace to inform teams and highlighting the
problems.
4. Standard Work Practices to solve corrective maintenance and quality control failures by
establishing standard working procedures to reduce no-value-added activities and
eliminating the wastes.

d) There were different types of wastes reduced/ eliminated during the improvement process in
the plastic manufacturing company which are as follows:
1. Transportation: The initial process of front bumpers had long cycle times as the layout
of the process was complicated where operator had to move part multiple times to get to
the painting process. As the layout was redefined, the shipping time was reduced by 70%.
2. Waiting Time: With the implementation of 5S, the searching time for tools and materials
was reduced by 65% resulting in faster operations and reduced cycle times which resulted
in increased OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness) in the injection and painting
processes of both the components.
3. Over-processing: The implementation of Lean technologies such as SMED (Single
Minute Exchange of Die) and Standard Work reduced the over-processing. With SMED,
the downtime was reduced by 36.79% and defects were reduced by 90% by
implementing Standard Work methodology which not only stabilizes the process but also
establishes a standard procedure with minimum wastes.
4. Motion Waste: Standard Work and Visual Management were implemented to improve
operations and avoid wasteful mobility.
5. Defects Waste: Defects were reduced by 90% through implementation of Standard Work
and other solutions like the inclusion of Master Gray in wheel covers which improved the
quality index by 10%. With the reduction in complaints and rejection rate, the

Page | 3
 manufacturing company rating changed to A-capable in VDA benchmark audit by the
client.
6. Skills Waste: With the implementation of Standard Work, the operators were trained to
ensue optimal utilization of employee skills and expertise.

3. Describe the solution implemented to address the identified problem.

The solution developed to solve the highlighted problem included the use of different Lean
Manufacturing techniques and processes, as well as further performance improvements.
The improvement programme began with a detailed examination of the existing procedures
for manufacturing wheel covers and front bumpers. This investigation looked at a variety of
performance parameters, including nonconformances, complaints, delivery delays, and OEE
values by considering the data for last quarter of 2017. Based on the analysis, specific areas
for improvement were identified. These areas likely included transportation times, production
bottlenecks, quality defects, and overall process efficiency. Upon identification of
improvement opportunities, following lean tools and methodologies were used to improve
the overall process:
1. 5S: Implemented to organise the workplace, minimise clutter, and increase productivity.
2. Visual Management: To make information and processes more visible, resulting in
better decision-making and process monitoring.
3. SMED (Single Minute Exchange of Die): Implemented to reduce setup and changeover
times, while overall enhancing equipment uptime and flexibility.
4. Standard Work: Standardised processes are established to maintain job uniformity and
efficiency.
5. OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness): Monitored and upgraded to maximise the
efficiency of equipment and manufacturing processes.

In addition to Lean tools and processes, further improvement initiatives were most likely
applied as needed which include - process optimisation to simplify workflows and remove
pointless stages; staff skill and knowledge development programmes; quality improvement
projects to lower defect rates and lower customer complaints; improvements to inventory
management to reduce waste and boost supply chain effectiveness. Performance metrics were
regularly tracked during the implementation phase in order to assess the efficacy of the
solutions that were put into place. To guarantee that the intended advancements were
accomplished, adjustments were made as necessary.
The overall solution was a thorough strategy that addressed several production process facets
with the goals of reducing waste, increasing productivity, and raising customer satisfaction
and product quality.

Page | 4
4. Reflect on the improvement process and articulate what you would have done
differently. b. Suggest additional tools that could have been used and explain the
reasoning behind your choices.

a) There are several aspects that could have been approached differently as per my view:
1. Continuous Improvement Culture: Adoption of lean tools and methodologies is not a
one-time/ one-day effort but requires a zeal and mindset for continuous improvement.
Clearly promoting and fostering a continuous improvement culture in which all staff
members are motivated to find and fix inefficiencies has more potential to eventually lead
to even more long-lasting and sustainable gains. It is very important to foster a culture
that emphasises on continuous improvement in day-to-day activities which will give
tangible gains.
2. Engagement and Communication: In order to maximize gains and reduce the wastes
associated with the processes, it is very important to make the workers understand about
the losses that are being produced. All the stakeholders need to be engaged in small
practices which involve brainstorming ideas and eventually addressing the concerns
would have been more helpful in establishing sustainable and effective lean
methodologies.

b) Additional lean tools that could have been used and have been very helpful in reducing &
eliminating the wastes are:
1. VSM (Virtual Stream Mapping): VSM is a very powerful tool to visualise the
entire flow of materials and information to get the final product to the client. VSM
involves identification of value-added, non-value-added activities, which will give a
clear and better picture of opportunities where improvements can be made, and
overall process can be optimised and will establish a future state map. In this
company, VSM would have given a better understanding of the wastes associated
with the processes and eliminating those wastes while reducing the downtime, delays
and improving quality index of the products.
2. MODAPTS (Modular Arrangement of Pre-determined Time Standards):
MODAPTS is time-motion study to measure and analyse the time required to perform
specific tasks. This study will be implemented by breaking down the tasks into small
elements and then pre-determined time standards are to be established against each
element. It will help in establishing benchmarks for consistent performance,
designing better layouts, streamlining workflows while reducing cycle times,
downtime and eliminating wastes.
3. Why-Why Analysis: It is lean tool used to find the root cause of the problem by
narrowing down and eliminate possible causes, ideally to one or more addressable
cause. In this company, this tool would have been applied at all the processes
individually to identify the main reasons for defects and inefficiencies. This tool will

Page | 5
be helpful in effectively reducing different types of MUDA like overprocess,
unnecessary motion, waiting time, transportation, inventory, overproduction, and
defects by eliminating the root cause.

Page | 6
References:

[1] P. Ribeiro, J.C. Sa, L.P. Ferreira, F.J.G. Silva, M.T. Pereira, G. Santos, “The Impact of the
Application of Lean Tools for Improvement of Process in a Plastic Company: a case study.
Procedia Manuf. 38 (2019), 765-775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.104.
[Accessed: January 31, 2024].

Page | 7