CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

1



Effective Tool Design to Improve Manufacturing Efficiency In SMEs


Mr. T. Varun Kumar
1
, Dr. B. Ganesh Babu
2
, Dr.M.Saravanan
2

1*Research Scholar (PT), Dept. of Mech Engg. Roever College of Engg &Technology,Perambalur, INDIA
2Principal, Roever College of Engg & Technology, Perambalur, INDIA
3Principal, Sir Subramanya College of Engineering and Technology, palani, INDIA



Abstract: Today one of the major factors facing is to solve the Quality, Cost and Delivery problems prevailing in the Indian SMEs. We
have visited some of the companies with a feedback form and gathered the feedback from the workers and supervisors of that SME. This
is to know the awareness about the Lean/Agile techniques between them. And this feedback brought into light that none of the SMEs are
aware of these techniques. The main reasons for not interested in these techniques are they cannot afford to those costly methods. To
solve this affordability problem we designed a dynamic and effective tool which is affordable by everyone and easily understood even
by people who have poor educational background. Our project mainly focuses on making the implementation of Agile/Lean
manufacturing system in SMEs. This tool will play a major role in increasing the quality of the products and productivity of those
enterprises and to reduce the documentation work in SMEs.
Keywords: Agile Manufacturing (AM), Small Medium Enterprise (SME), pumps, Agility.



1 Introduction

India is one of the fastest developing countries in the
world. SMEs are said to be the lifeblood of any vibrant
economy [1]. They are known to be the silent drivers of a
nations economy. Most of the SMEs are owned by Indian
citizens. Every organization would be agile in nature to
maintain its agility level it needs to be assessed, and to
know their strategic position, to identify the areas in
which they could focus for further improvement [2]. The
scoring approach is one of the simpler and practical
approaches that could be understood by all levels of
employees in the organization, and this approach is
widely used in agility assessment researches [3]. Higher
productivity, good quality & flexibility to changing
market needs are The need of the hour for SMEs. But
the usage of agile/lean manufacturing technique is not
focused in the SMEs.
Nancy (2009) [4] suggested that in the best
brainstorming sessions, ideas shoot as fast as fireworks.
Ankush (2010) [5] expressed that brainstorming enables
to generate more ideas in less time than ever before.
Implementation of the concepts like Agile/Lean
manufacturing in SMEs lack popularity due to the
following reasons.
Lack of training.

* Corresponding author. E-mail: ercrazyvarun@gmail.com



Chinese Mechanical Engineering Society and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012
Lack of resources.
Huge cost involvement as experts needs to be hired.
Time consuming activity.
An effort loses focus due to less ROI (Return on
Investment).
More efforts needed for documentation & analysis.
Our project mainly focuses on making the
implementation of Agile/Lean manufacturing easy in
SMEs also we focus to reduce the documentation work.
This will play a major role in increasing the quality of the
products and productivity of those enterprises.
Manufacturing organizations are facing challenges from
two directions. In one direction, newer manufacturing
technologies emerge to make the existing ones outmoded.
In the other direction, todays customers are demanding
more and more new products and services within a short
period of time. In order to meet these two challenges,
todays manufacturing organizations are required to act
quickly in accordance with the changing situations.
Narasimhan et al. [9] stated that lean manufacturing
and agile manufacturing are distinct, yet they are
overlapping paradigms. Sanchez and Nagi [10] mention
that lean and agile are adopted as a top world class
manufacturing system. Lean responds to competitive
pressures with limited resources. On the other hand, agile
manufacturing works with complexity brought by
constant change. Lean is a collection of operational
techniques focused on productive use (no waste) of
resources. Whereas, agile is an overall strategy focused on



Y VARUN Kumar, et al: Effective Tool Design to Improve Manufacturing Efficiency in Small and Medium Enterprises



2
thriving in an unpredictable market environment
(responsiveness).

2 Methodology

To improve the product quality and productivity and
identifying the waste and then removing it, we need to
improve the process tools and the methodology for our
current system and adopted for it. The main purpose of
this paper is to promote and implement the statistical
dynamic tools for the small and medium scale enterprise.
The methodology adopt for the current process is listed
below.


Fig. 1. Process Methodology

3 Problem Identification

We found that most of the MNCs uses 8D
methodology, 7QC tools, and six sigma. So they have a
standard to implement lean / agile manufacturing in their
organization. To know the awareness among employees of
SMEs about these methods we prepared the feedback
form and visited some of the SMEs and recognized their
knowledge about these tools and we found that some of
the higher authorities in those companies are aware of that,
but low level employees/operators werent aware of it.
Some companies have certifications due to
compulsion from customers and due to requirements of
system like ISO or external audit. From suggestions
gathered we came to know that to create a standard in
SMEs. We have to adopt a tool that should be less time
consuming and shouldnt bare their resources. The
barriers of using the tools in SMEs are listed below:
8 D method (time consuming approach)
7 QC tools (extensive documentation and
statistical knowledge required) SMEs normally
cant afford spending on experts
Six Sigma approach will be costly affair.
Here we designed a simple and effective tool to
rectify the problems faced by the SMEs and to create a
Standard in their companies for implementing lean/Agile
Manufacturing.

4 Designing an Effective Tool

Initially, first we have selected a particular
Manufacturing Industry and then we studied the full
processes in that company. We created a tool to measure
the QCDM (Quality, Cost, Delivery, and Morale) factors
in a company. We designed a tool in the form of
Speedometer that could be easily understandable by all
the employees of the company even at low level
employees.
4.1 Quality Tool
This tool denotes the quality of the company by
identifying the defective parts. It consists of three colored
regions namely - red, yellow, and green. The maximum
number of allowable rejections taken as 100%, from 100%
to 75% is taken as yellow region it is satisfactory region.
From 75% to zero defects is taken as green region it is
safe region. Above the 100% is taken as red region, this
should me noticeable region. The numbers of products
manufactured are noted down on the boxes given below
the speedometer, this gives the weekly report of the
product and noted in the yearly chart. The marker is
marked with red region the problems are identified and
denoted in list of issues chart.
4.2 Cost Tool
This tool denotes the cost of the company by
identifying the cycle time to manufacture a product.
Similar to the quality tool have three regions of red,
yellow, and green. The allowable maximum cycle time is
taken as 100% and safe, satisfactory and noticeable
regions are marked similar to quality tool.
4.3 Delivery Tool
This tool denotes the delivery of the company by
identifying the number of products delivered. Similar to
the quality tool have three regions of red, yellow, and
green. The desired number of products to be delivered is
taken as 100% and safe, satisfactory and noticeable
regions are marked similar to quality tool. The marker is
marked with red region the problems are identified and
denoted in list of issues chart.
4.4 Morale Tool
This tool denotes the number of suggestions given
by an employee to improvise the companys bottom line.
Similar to the quality tool have three regions of red,
yellow, and green. When the suggestions given by an
employee is higher, then it is denoted in the red region,
because whenever there are more suggestions, it tells us
there will be more problems in that company. When
suggestions are less it is marked with yellow region. If



CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

3
there are no suggestions there will be no problems in the
company and is marked in green region.


Fig. 2. QCDM measuring tool


5 DCAV Chart

DCAV chart is a new type of tool which is simple
and effective. It helps the small scale companies to raise
their standards by proper documentation of day- to-day
issues. It also makes the employees to find the core of the
problems and guides the employees to communicate
about the problem and to give a temporary and permanent
solution to the problem. It enables the employees to be
athletic in their work. The below figure shows DCAV
chart which gives the daily basis issues of a company.


Fig. 3. DCAV chart

5.1 Detect
Here the detect chart is used only when any one the
QCDM factors is marked with red region. First of all the
problem is noted in the table under corresponding QCDM
factor. Once the problem is detected the remaining
columns are filled with respective data.
5.2 Communicate
Now the problem is to be communicated and is taken
to the higher officials and necessary actions are taken.
From this factor the core of the problem is identified and is
noted in the communicate column of the DCAV chart by
using the questionnaire.
5.3 Analysis
Here the problem is analyzed by using 5 why
analysis.
State the problem you have identified as a strategic
problem to work.
Start asking why related to the problem. Like an
inquisitive toddler, keep asking why in response to
each suggested cause.
Ask as many whys as you need in order to get
insight at a level that can be addressed (asking five
times is typical). You will know you have reached
your final why because it does not make logical
sense to ask why again.
Once the reason of the problem is identified immediate
corrective action (ICA) is taken.
5.4 Validate
To validate a problem into permanent
corrective action (PCA), a brain storming session is
conducted during daily meetings. Permanent solutions are
implemented and verified during successive weeks.

6 Gap Analysis

Here the questionnaire and the score allotment have
been prepared for all agility criteria. The prepared
questionnaire is presented to the organization executives
were filled by employee and, based on their responses; the
agility level is being identified. Questionnaire is given to the
employees before agile implementation and AM criteria
identification.
Table 1. Gap Analysis before AM Criteria
S.N
o
AM Enabler
Marks
Obtained
Max.
Marks
% Gap
Extending
1
Management
responsibility agility
300 500 40
2
Manufacturing
responsibility agility
48 150 68.00
3 Work force 34 100 66
4 Technology 65 150 56.67
5
Manufacturing Strategy
agility
45 100 55

Agility index x total marks scored = 1000

After collecting the filled questionnaire from the
organization executives, the total score of the organization is
found to be 492 by summing up the maximum marks
obtained by the five enablers they are management
responsibility agility, manufacturing responsibility agility,
workforce, technology and manufacturing strategy agility as
300, 48, 34, 65 and 45. So, the agility index would be
0.492.The agility index is calculated by dividing the



Y VARUN Kumar, et al: Effective Tool Design to Improve Manufacturing Efficiency in Small and Medium Enterprises



4
summation of marks obtained by the enablers to the
maximum marks. The bench mark set that if the organization
is able to score above 500 marks, then the organization could
achieve agility, or if it is below 500, then the organization is
said to be below the agility level. The below figure shows that
gap analysis are found before AM criteria.


Fig. 4. Gap Analysis Graph before AM Criteria

Here, the gaps need to be found, which hamper the
organizational growth. Based on the methodology adopted,
the current agile position in each enabler is found, and the
gap is calculated. By applying the effective methods and
then collecting the filled questionnaire from the
organization executives, the total score of the organization
is found to be 529 by summing up the maximum marks
obtained by the five enablers. Management responsibility
agility, manufacturing agility, workforce, technology and
manufacturing strategy agility are as 326, 54, 34, 65, and
50. So, the agility index would be 0.529.

Table 2. Gap Analysis after Am Criteria
S.No AM Enabler
Marks
Obtain
ed
Max.
Marks
% Gap
Extending
1
Management
responsibility agility
253 500 49.4
2
Manufacturing
responsibility agility
52 150 65.33
3 Work force 34 100 66
4 Technology 65 150 56.67
5
Manufacturing
Strategy agility
50 100 50

The agility index is calculated by dividing the
summation of marks obtained by the enablers to the
maximum marks. The bench mark set that if the
organization is able to score above 500 marks, then the
organization could achieve agility. Here, the benchmark
has been accepted by the decision makers. In our criteria
the agility level is above our expectation, so we can apply
our tool to the system. The gap analysis graph after AM
criteria is shown below.


Fig. 5. Gap Analysis Graph after Am Criteria

7 Safety and Quality Charts

Safety charts are necessary for an industry to
determine the safety level. Here the prescribed safety chart
describes about the companys safety level for a fiscal
year. It has an S Shape which illustrates the number of
months in a year and the boxes between the S denotes the
days of the month. Whenever theres any safety problem, it
is marked in the corresponding boxes. Then the monthly
box also is marked with red palette. This safety chart
denotes the current safety level and it also helps to reduce
the safety problems in an organization.
Total Quality Management (TQM) is widely used in
large scale enterprises as a quality management approach.
Here the quality of the physical product was considered to be
very important since decades, but now it is the time when
everyone is talking beyond quality of the product. The
organizations are striving for excellence in whatever they
do. In order to achieve this they are moving towards TQM.
However it is not so popular in Small and Medium scale
Enterprises (SMEs). SMEs are very much for the ISO9001
certification, but when it comes to implementing TQM
principles they are not seen so excited about it [6]. Large
numbers of organizations view that ISO 9000 as the end of
their quality journey. Since they have been forced to get the
certificate or may be because TQM is very much abstract
with many definitions and a lack of clear cut requirements
[7].







CHINESE JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

5














Fig. 6. Safety and Quality Chart

In Quality charts, each organization must decide for
itself how best to try to bring quality to their products. Not
all firms come up with the same answer and for good
reason. Firstly, there are several different ways of gaining
competitive advantage. Secondly, businesses need to play
to their strengths and not all businesses have the same
strengths. Thirdly, many markets are segmented and what
is important to one set of customers may be less important
to another set. So businesses need to decide which
segments of the market they are targeting. Ways of seeking
to gain competitive advantage include:
Offering lower prices.
Offering clearly superior products at above
average prices.
Delivering products more quickly.
Offering superior customer service, including after
sales service.

8 Conclusion

In our progress, this effective tool will be part of
visual factory concept and if this tool is followed by SMEs,
then implementation of agile and TQM is very easier and
quality of the product will also be increased. This tool will
get appreciation from customers and auditors. It requires
less time and resources. Problems are communicated to
appropriate levels and faster solutions to the problems are
given. Concurrent effort along with TS/ISO requirements
are made ease the effort of documentation work. By using
this tool any SMEs could develop their standards to
implement lean/Agile manufacturing.
We have now framed an effective tool to solve
quality, cost, and delivery problems in SMEs. This will
show where the defects are occurred and rectifications are
made as soon. In future, gap analysis is to be found out
widely in all aspects and real time application is made for
active implementation and to reduce documentation work.

References
[1] M Sharma, A Mehra, H Jola, A Kumar, Scope of cloud computing
for SMEs in India, Journal of Computing, Volume 2 Issue 5, May
2010, ISSN 2151-9617.
[2] Vinodh S, Sundararaj G, Devadasan SR, Rajanayagam D (2009)
Agility through rapid prototyping technology in a manufacturing
environment using a 3D printer. Journal of Manuf Technol Manag
20 (7):10231041.
[3] Vinodh S, Sundararaj G, Devadasan SR, Rajanayagam D (2008)
Quantification of agility experimentation in an Indian electronics
switches manufacturing company. Journal of Eng Design Technol 6
(1):4864.
[4] Nancy R. Tague, Brainstorming: Basic to Brilliant, Simple to
Sophisticated, published by ASQ Quality Press, New York, p.05,
2009.
[5] Ankush Chopra, MindManager to increase academic productivity,
published by Mindjet Corporation, San Francisco, p.03, 2010.
[6] Shirley Coleman and Alex Douglas, Perspective- Where next for
ISO 9000 companies? The TQM Magazine, 2003, Vol.15 (2),
pp.88-92.
[7] Taylor, W.A., Organizational differences in ISO 9000
implementation practices, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management,1995,Vol. 12, no. 7, pp.10-27.
[8] Chong, Y. Lee., G. A. K., TQM in small manufacturers: An
exploratory study in China, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management, 2003, pp. 715-197.
[9] R. Narasimhan, M. Swink, and S.W. Kim, Disentangling leanness
and agility: An empirical investigation, Journal of Operations
Management, 2006, vol. 24, pp. 440-457.
[10] L.M. Sanchez, and R. Nagi,, A review of agile manufacturing
systems, International Journal of Production Research,2001, vol.39,
No.16,3561-3600.

Biographical notes

VARUN Kumar, born in 1985, is currently a PhD candidate at
Anna University, Chennai, India. He received his bachelor degree
from M.Kumarasamy college of Engineering, karur, in 2006. He
received his master degree in CAD/CAM Engineering at Anna
University, India. His research interests include agile
manufacturing, Composite Materials and optimization
Techniques.
Tel: +91-9003409044; E-mail: ercrazyvarun@gmail.com

GANESH Babu, born in 1970, is currently working as principal at
Roever college of Engg and Technology, Perambalur, India. He
received his master degree in Production Engineering at Madurai
Kamaraj University, India. His research interests include
Modeling and Optimization, Composite Materials, Machining
Simulation and Robotics.
Tel: +91-9750970177; E-mail: profbgb@gmail.com

SARAVANAN M, born in 1971, is currently working as principal
at Sri Subramanya college of Engg and Technology, Palani, India.
He received his master degree in Production Engineering at
Madurai Kamaraj University, India. His research interests include
Modeling and Optimization, Scheduling, Machining Simulation
and Manufacturing Systems.
Tel: +91-9443274296; E-mail: sarandgl@yahoo.co.in