The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

JMTM
23,2

178

The development of a lean park

homes production process using
process flow and simulation
methods
Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes and Ilias Oraifige

Received 24 July 2010

Revised 17 January 2011,
31 March 2011
Accepted 24 April 2011

School of Technology, The University of Derby, Derby, UK

Horacio Soriano-Meier
Northampton Business School, The University of Northampton,
Northampton, UK

Paul L. Forrester
Birmingham Business School, The University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, UK, and

Dani Harmanto
School of Technology, The University of Derby, Derby, UK
Abstract

Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management
Vol. 23 No. 2, 2012
pp. 178-197
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/17410381211202188

Purpose Continuous process flow is a prerequisite of lean systems as it helps to reduce throughput
times, improve quality, minimize operational costs, and shorten delivery times. The purpose of this
paper is to empirically demonstrate the application of a methodology that combines a time-based
study, discrete-event simulation and the trial and error method to enable a leaner process through
more efficient line balancing and more effective flow for a park homes production process. This
method is replicable across other contexts and industry settings.
Design/methodology/approach The paper reviews the UK park homes production industry and,
specifically, a major factory that builds these homes. It compares the factory method to traditional
on-site construction methods. An empirical study of production times was carried out to collect data in
order to analyse the current workload distribution and the process flow performance of the park homes
production process. Finally, seven discrete-event simulation models were developed in order to test
different scenarios and define the optimum line balance for every section of the production process.
Findings By combining time study, discrete-event simulation and trial and error methods, the
workload distribution and process flow performance of the park homes production line were analysed
and improved. A reduction of between 1.82 and 36.32 percent in balancing losses in some sections of
the process was achieved.
Practical implications This paper supports current knowledge on process flow improvement and
line balancing by exploring and analysing these issues in a real-life context. It can be used to guide
production management practitioners in their selection of methods and demonstrates how they are
exploited when seeking to improve process flow, efficiency and line balancing of production operations.
Originality/value The study uses a real industrial application to demonstrate how the
methodological combination and deployment of process flow improvement strategies, such as time
study, simulation, and trial and error, can help organisations achieve process flow improvements and,
as a consequence, a leaner production process.
Keywords United Kingdom, Lean production, Continuous production, Process analysis,
Lean manufacturing, Continuous process flow, Line balancing, Simulation, Park homes
Paper type Case study

1. Introduction
Increasingly competitive environments and markets have forced manufacturing
organisations to continuously seek improvements in their production processes as an
alternative to reducing operational costs (Garza-Reyes, 2010). Lean manufacturing
principles and techniques have been widely used by organisations to support such
improvements. Hines et al. (2004) describe lean as the most influential new paradigm in
manufacturing, and comments on how it has expanded from the automotive industry,
where it was originally proposed, to new industries such as primary metals and aerospace.
Lean manufacturing is a management approach to manufacturing that strives in making
organisations more competitive in the market by increasing efficiency, decreasing costs
through the elimination of non-value adding steps and inefficiencies in the processes
(Motwani, 2003), as well as reducing cycle times (Sohal and Egglestone, 1994).
One of the cornerstones of lean manufacturing is the notion of a continuous process
flow. Liker (2004) argues that continuous process flow is at the heart of the lean message
because, by shortening the elapsed time from raw material to finished goods, the best
quality, lowest cost, and shortest delivery time can be achieved. Womack and Jones
(2003) also mention that lean processes require the synchronisation and alignment of
workflow so that all stages of a process can be performed in a way conducive for
continual improvement.
Schonberger (2008) states that efficient and smooth flow can only be realised when the
causes of long and problematic lead times are resolved, using the application of lean
principles and reduction of inventories. In order to create an adequate and continuous
process flow at factory level, workload must be evenly distributed among the different
workers, operations, or stages that comprise the production lines where the products are
manufactured. Workload balancing, also known as line balancing for the purpose of this
paper, refers to the examination of the individual work elements of each operation and
determining if they can be reduced, shifted, re-sequenced, combined, or eliminated (Feld,
2001). In addition, Massod (2006) defines line balancing as the method used to determine
optimum allocation of operations at the workstations so as to minimize the cycle time of
the line for a given number of workstations, or to minimize the number of the workstations
for a given cycle time, by equalizing the loads on the workstations. Among other benefits,
Bhattacharjee and Sahu (1987) state that balanced production lines create more efficient
work-flow through the plant and avoid less congestion. In this context, if a production line
is unbalanced, then balancing losses that restrict the products flow are created. According
to Slack et al. (2009), balancing losses refer to the times wasted due to the unequal
allocation of work. Balancing losses normally represent a percentage of the total time
invested in processing the product or service. In order to balance the workload of a
production line, Feld (2001) suggests comparing the operations time against the takt time
in order to determine if the operations cycle time is greater than the takt time. Feld (2001)
argues that, if this is the case, action must be taken to change the available time, off load,
reduce the cycle time, change processes, add equipment or staff, split demand, etc. Takt
time is the basis for smooth continuous production flow and standardized work (Tapping
and Fabrizio, 2000), and Womack and Jones (1996) define it as the time that precisely
matches the production rate to the customer demand. In addition, Iwayama (1997) defines
takt time as the production time allocated for the production of a part or product in a line or
in a cell. Balancing the production lines workload against takt time is a main enabler for

Lean park homes

production

179

JMTM
23,2

180

minimizing manufacturing lead-times (Feld, 2001), which, as established before, helps

to achieve the best quality, lowest cost and shortest delivery time.
This paper empirically applies a methodology that combines a time study,
discrete-event simulation and a trial and error method to enable a more efficient line
balancing, and as a consequence a more effective flow and leaner process in a park
homes production process. To do this, the paper initially investigates and analyses,
through time study, the current performance of the manufacturing process in terms of
process flow. Then, based on simulation analyses and the trial and error method,
it determines the optimum workload allocation for every process section and work
group, thus improving the performance of the process. Owing to the factory buildings
constraints and the size of the product manufactured, continuous process flow and a
slick turnover of inventory is a high priority for the organisation studied. In addition, the
paper briefly reviews the industry where this case study takes place (i.e. the UK park
homes industry and factory built homes) and establishes some of the differences and
advantages, from an operational point of view, that a factory built home may have over
on-site constructed homes.
The academic literature on the use of simulation as an improvement approach for
manufacturing processes and, more specifically, line balancing is extensive, but it
traditionally focuses on the simulation methodology itself (i.e. how to simulate a
particular manufacturing process or an specific characteristic of it) (Das et al., 2010;
Rajakumar et al., 2005; Zhao and de Souza, 2000; de Souza and Zhao, 1998). This paper
approaches the process flow improvement and line balancing problem from a
wider perspective. Examples of the application of these methods are rarer. So this
paper includes the analysis of the initial process flow performance and the collection of
data through an illustration of how a time study may be empirically performed before
the simulation stage. The paper therefore provides a practical example of how these
methods may be used by production management practitioners in their choice
of methods employed to increase process leanness, and how to use them to specifically
improve the process flow, efficiency and line balancing of a production line.
2. The UK park homes industry and factory built homes
Park homes is the currently accepted name for a residential mobile home, installed on
a site or home park (Berkeley Hanover Consulting, Davis Langdon Consultancy and
The University of Birminghamm, 2002). In the UK, park homes are not only considered
as an alternative for holidays or retirement living, but also as a cheaper option to more
traditional and permanent living tenures such as owner occupation, and social and
private renting. In addition, the UK park homes industry provides society with two of
its most basic needs: housing and work. According to the Community and Local
Government (2009) agency it is estimated that, in England, around 140,000 residents
live in 80,000 park homes sited in approximately 2,000 parks. The industry is highly
relevant to the UK economy, its people and both their housing and leisure needs.
Table I shows the growth in the UK park homes industry from 1994 to 2004 and the
slight contraction suffered and recovery in the subsequent years. According to a study
conducted by Berkeley Hanover Consulting, Davis Langdon Consultancy and The
University of Birmingham (2002), the future demand for park homes, particularly
among the elderly, is likely to increase in the future. In addition, this study mentions that
the government predicts a rising from about 3,000 new entrants per year in 2002

to 4,800 by 2021. However, the park homes industry is strongly linked and mirrors the
housing market, so a change in economic outlook, such as the economic recession
experienced in the UK in 2008 and 2009, may greatly impact and affect the government
projections and forecasted demand and production output for the company studied.
Factory built homes
Park homes are traditionally built in a factory and then transported to the site where they
will sit. Therefore, park homes are categorised as factory built homes. Factory built
homes are defined by the Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (2006) as residential
structures that are built primarily away from the building site in a controlled production
environment.
Factory and traditional building represent, in many fundamental aspects, two very
different methods for providing housing. For example, site homes are erected mainly at
the built site, often by different sub-contractors, working out in the elements and
effectively customising the home to the site as the work proceeds. Factory homes, on the
other hand, are built or assembled in a manufacturing facility by a closely coordinated
and integrated team and in a highly controllable environment.
Table II summarises the main advantages that the factory building approach has
over on-site construction from an operational point of view. The operational
advantages of factory building over the on-site approach mean that homes are
produced at less cost. Henderson (2006), for example, mentions that there have been at
least three different studies (Woodbridge and Associates, 2003; CMHC, 1991, 1999) to
compare the factory built manufactured housing to on-site construction. Using this
comparison, all three studies concluded that manufactured housing was 30-40 percent
less expensive than the use of on-site methods. This means that factory built homes are
more affordable than those constructed using traditional on-site methods.

Lean park homes

production

181

The home
Factory built park homes are normally timber-based products that consist of one or
more sections, with a two section home currently the most popular configuration. The
home sections are built on a wood framed deck placed over a wheeled steel chassis,
which allows the home section to be transported within the factory and to the site. The
skeleton of the interior and exterior walls and internal partitions is manufactured using
timber bearers to which panels are then added to form the walls. The space, created by
the bearers width, between the panels is filled with thermal insulation. The side and
end walls, as well as the internal partitions are fixed to the floor, which in turn is
attached to the steel chassis. The roof is constructed with a combination of timber
trusses and panels to form the skeleton and the laying of decorated aluminium tiles in
the exterior. The roof is attached to the exterior walls and internal partitions.

Year

2007

2006

2005

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

Park homes produced

2,605

2,270

2,535

3,350

2,350

2,200

1,950

1,500

1,500

Source: UKs National Caravan Council

Table I.
Park homes industry
growth comparison

JMTM
23,2

Area

Benefits

Raw material

182

Table II.
Advantages of the
factory building
approach over the on-site
building approach

Inventory is better controlled and materials are protected from theft and
weather damage
All construction materials, interior features and appliances are
purchased in volume for additional savings
Improved reliability in suppliers delivery
Smaller number of suppliers
Labour
Movement of employees from one site to another is avoided
Better recruitment control (e.g. recruitment of unskilled and temporary
workers may be avoided)
All the technicians, craftsmen and assemblers are in the same team and
professionally supervised
Easier decision making
Improved labour productivity due to factory production approach
Machinery/equipment/tools Faster response from the maintenance team
Constant movement of machinery, equipment and tools is avoided
Easier access to machinery, equipment and tools replacement parts
Systems
Easier implementation of new philosophies, working approaches,
quality control methodologies, etc.
Easier standardisation of operations and creation of process flow,
which may result in production/construction cost and waste reduction
All aspects of the construction process can be controlled and continually
inspected by not one but several inspectors
Environment
Better working conditions for employees (e.g. workers are not exposed
to extreme weather conditions such as rain, snow, etc.)
The weather does not interfere with construction and cause delays
Source: In-situ authors observations

3. Park homes production process a general description

The park homes production process used as the basis for this case study is performed by
a park home manufacturer in its two facilities located in Northamptonshire, UK. When
the manufacturing facilities work at full capacity, three production lines are run in order
to separately produce every one of the three main product categories (i.e. park homes,
leisure homes and modular building) manufactured by the company. Traditionally the
demand and production of park homes has exceeded that of leisure homes and modular
building. The park homes production process of the company studied is completely
manual and labour intensive. It mainly consists of activities such as carpentering,
plumbing, electrical wiring and home decorating. Although these activities may
be considered specialised, the factorys production environment allows the workers to
be quickly trained to perform them without having a relevant qualification. In this case,
the team leaders are comprised of qualified carpenters, plumbers, electricians and
decorators that supervise and approve the work done by the operators.
When working at full capacity, the park homes production line is able to
manufacture 21 units per week. For the purpose of this paper, the term unit refers to
only one section of the park home (as mentioned before, a two section home is currently
the most popular configuration). An overview of the flow and sequence of the park
homes production process is shown in Figure 1 and briefly described below.

Lean park homes

production

183

Figure 1.
Illustration of the
park homes production
process used as the
basis for this study

(1) Floor assembly

The construction of the floor is the initial stage in the process to manufacture a park
home. The floor assembly department consists of two stations (FA1a and FA1b,
Figure 1) that perform the same operations; the units are allocated to the first available
station when they arrive. Two production operators are employed in every station.
The production target of this department is 28 units per week, which results in
14 units per week per station. The floor assembly department not only supplies
the production line of park homes, which has a weekly production rate of

JMTM
23,2

184

21 units per week, but also the production line of leisure homes, with a weekly
production rate of seven units per week.
(2) Plumbing
In this section of the process, the gas and water plumbing systems are manufactured
according to the specification requirements for every particular park home. The work
in this section of the process is organised in only one station (P1) in which a group of
three operators work. It must be mentioned that although just three operators work
directly in this section of the process, there are some others in charge of working on
what is called second-hand plumbing. Second-hand plumbing involves activities
such as installing baths, showers, sinks, etc. However, for the purpose of the analyses
carried out in this study, these activities have been considered and analysed in the
section of the process where they are performed (internal assembly). When working
at full capacity, the production target of the plumbing department is 28 units per week.
Like the floor assembly department, the plumbing section does not only supply the
park homes production line but also the production line of leisure homes.
(3) Internal walls assembly
The internal walls may be considered a sub-assembly of the park home units as their
production does not require a previous manufacturing stage, and later they are
assembled to the park home units downstream in the process (Figure 1). The internal
walls assembly section of the process is organised in three small working stations that
serve as suppliers of the main assembly line. Station IWA1 supplies stations IWA2a and
IWA2b, which perform the same operations. Therefore, the whole section comprises a
sequence of two steps (e.g. station IWA1 and either station IWA2a or IWA2b, whichever
is available first). In terms of the number of workers in every station, station IWA1
employs one person while stations IWA2a and IWA2b employ two and one, respectively.
The production rate of the internal walls assembly section is 21 units per week, which
results in 10.5 units per week for each of the stations IWA2a and IWA2b. Since the types
and sizes of park homes vary, the number of walls also varies accordingly. Therefore,
although this section of the process must complete 21 units a weeks, the total number of
built walls may vary from week to week.
(4) External walls assembly
External walls can also be considered a sub-assembly within the park homes production
process (Figure 1). This section of the process is organised in a single and individual
station (EWA) that employs two workers. The production rate of this section is 21 units
per week. Similarly as for the internal walls, since the types and sizes of park homes
vary, the number of walls manufactured also varies accordingly (e.g. it varies between
one and two walls per unit). Therefore, although this section of the process must
complete 21 units per week, the total number of built walls may vary from week to week.
(5) Roof assembly
The roof can be also considered a sub-assembly of the park home units and its
manufacture is carried out in a separated section in a mini-production line. The work
in the roofs mini-production line is organised in three sequential stations.
For example, production is initiated in station RA1, once that it is completed it goes

to station RA2 and finally to station RA3. When the production line works at full
capacity, the number of workers employed is: four in station RA1, one in station
RA2 and five in station RA3. The production target of the roof assembly section is 21
units per week.
(6) External assembly
This stage in the production process is where all the sub-assemblies (roof and external
and internal walls) and the plumbing systems previously described are assembled to
and installed in the floor. The organisation of this section of the process is similar to a
flow line due to the product (park home) is moved through the factorys shop-floor
while some jobs such as setting the walls insulation, panels and skirting board,
painting and general decoration are done externally on it. The operations carried out in
this part of the process are performed by 14 workers that are divided in nine groups
(EA1 to EA9) (Figure 1). Like most of the other parts of the production process, the
production rate for the external assembly section is 21 units per week.
(7) Internal assembly
This stage in the process is similar to the external assembly, except that all the
operations are carried out internally in the park home. These operations are performed
by 28 workers, divided into 14 groups (IA1 to IA14) (Figure 1). Similar to external
assembly, the production rate for the internal assembly section is 21 units per week (half
the park home) or approximately 11 park homes/week. Activities carried out by these
groups include: the installation of bath, boiler, sinks, showers and kitchen and room
furniture; assembly of internal doors; fitting of coving, skirting boards and wallpaper;
and general decoration.
4. Process flow analysis and improvement methodology
Figure 2 shows the methodology used in this study to analyse and improve the current
process flow performance of the park homes production line.
4.1 Analysis of current process flow state time study
The first improvement stage in the process flow improvement methodology shown in
Figure 2 involved analysing the current process flow performance of the production
system. A time study was carried out to collect the data needed to determine the current
workload distribution for the park homes production line and its process flow
performance. Time study is a work measurement technique for recording the times and
rate of working for the elements of a specified job, carried out under specified conditions,
and for analysing the data so as to obtain the time necessary for the carrying out of the
job at a defined level of performance (Slack et al., 2009). Baines (1995) argues that time
study, as well as being the oldest, is the most flexible of the work measurement
techniques as it can be applied to any type of work carried out in any environment.
Owing to the extent, complexity and sectional physical distribution of the park
homes production process, time study was conducted through seven independent
studies, one for each of the seven production stages/sections described before.
As suggested by Slack et al. (2009), the first step in performing the time studies was for
the observer to become familiar with the park homes production process and identify
the different operations performed in every section of the process. Previous exposure

Lean park homes

production

185

JMTM
23,2

Become familiar with the

process

Identify the different

operations performed

186

Determine the
observations sample

Make aware operators

of the time study

Develop conceptual
model(s) of the process

Evaluate and select the

most suitable simulation
software

Create the computer

simulation model(s)
Define an official
schedule to carry out
the study
Define operations
takt time
Carry out time study
Compare operations
time vs. takt time

Implement modifications
suggested, by the
simulation analysis, to
improve balance of the
production line
Monitor modifications

No

Expected
results?
Yes

Model(s) verification and

validation

Run simulation
experiments using the
trial and error method

Permanently adopt and

document process
modifications

Interpret and
communicate simulation
results to management

Calculate balancing
losses

Interpret results to
define current process
flow performance and
communicate results to
management

Figure 2.
Process flow improvement
and line balancing
methodology

Analysis of current process flow

state (Time study)

Improvement (Simulation & Trial

and Errors Approaches)

Implementation

Process flow and line balancing improvement phases

to the production process and consultation with the process experts helped to establish
that, due to the slow nature of the process, a sample size of five observations was the
most convenient. Although it may be argued that larger sample size of observations
results in the provision of more accurate information, a larger sample was not practical
for this type of process due to it was estimated that a single complete observation of a
process section could have taken up to one week. On the other hand, in order not to
disrupt the daily tasks and responsibilities of the production operators and cause
confusion due to the presence of an observer in the factorys shop-floor, the production
manager let them know beforehand the purpose and aim of the project carried out by this
person. In addition, an official schedule to carry out the studies was agreed with the
production manager. Although a complete time study also includes some other activities

such as rating and adjusting the observed times in order to establish the basic times of
the elements, as well as defining and including allowances for every operation in order to
calculate its standard times, these were not performed in the time studies conducted in
this project. The reason for this was that the times taken were only used for measuring
the current performance, in terms of process flow and line balancing, of the operations
and not for defining basic and standard times (Shaw, 1963).
In order to analyse the line balance and process flow, the average cycle time of the
operations obtained from the five observations was compared against the takt time,
as suggested by Feld (2001), and the balancing losses calculated. The takt time was
calculated by dividing the customer demand of the process stage analysed into the
available working time per week of 2,200 minutes. If any operations cycle time exceeded
the takt time, denoted by a negative figure in the balancing loss, this indicated that the
production line could not produce at the necessary rate, unless overtime were paid or
inventory buffers or extra staff were used. The balancing losses were calculated using
equation (1), where n represents the number of groups:
P
Takt time 2 Average cycle time
100
1
Balancing loss
n Takt time
A high percentage of balancing loss indicates a high level of idle time for an operation or
section of the process. The results of the current process flow analysis are shown in
Table III and in Figure 3.
Interpretation of results and practical implications. The results presented in Table III
and in Figure 3 show the current balancing losses of the park homes production line, and
the excess time for some of the operations/groups compared to their corresponding takt
times. In terms of the balancing losses, the analysis shows that individual
operations/groups have idle time ranging from 6.74 to 64.49 percent, which indicates
that the workload is not evenly distributed among the operations/groups. In practice this
created a build-up of work-in-process (WIP) in some operations while others part of the
process were left idle. In overall terms, the park homes production line should not have
any problem to achieve its weekly production in every section, except roof assembly.
This was empirically corroborated by looking at past production records. However, as
there are some activities that exceeded the takt time, overtime and extra shifts were a
common practice in the process sections where this happened. It must be mentioned that
when the results of the study were presented to the management they were shocked
and commented [. . .].but all the line operators look so busy all the time. This indicates
that an analytical study, such as the one performed in this investigation, is necessary to
fully understand the operation of a factorys shop-floor and production line.
Unfortunately, small and medium size organisations such as the one studied often
lack the technical knowledge and resources to perform a study of this type.
In order to help the organisation studied to improve the leanness of its production
process through a better process flow and balance of its park homes production line,
a simulation improvement approach was followed as shown in Figure 2.
4.2 Improvement of process flow performance and line balancing simulation and trial
and error
Computer simulation as an approach for line balancing and simulation models
development. Operations research academics and researchers have proposed,

Lean park homes

production

187

7. Internal assembly

6. External assembly

4. External walls assembly

5. Roof assembly

2. Plumbing
3. Internal walls assembly

FA1a
FA1b
P1
IWA1
IWA2a
IWA2b
EWA
RA1
RA2
RA3
EA1
EA2
EA3
EA4
EA5
EA6
EA7
EA8
EA9
IA1
IA2
IA3
IA4
IA5
IA6
IA7
IA8
IA9
IA10
IA11
IA12
IA13
IA14

1. Floor assembly

Table III.
Current process flow
performance of the park
homes production
process
Group

Average time
121.21
121.21
60
81.10
95.8
109.6
97.7
94
54.4
178
91.2
89.6
66.2
66.8
63.2
108
37.2
54.8
47.2
103
152.3
116.6
268
207.6
165.8
72.3
72.3
98
147
222.2
256.6
121.16
147.6

No. of workers
2
2
3
1
2
1
2
4
1
5
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
2

157.14
157.14
78.57
104.76
209.52
209.52
104.76
104.76
104.76
104.76
104.76
104.76
104.76
104.76
104.76
104.76
104.76
104.76
104.76
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200

Takt time
22.86
22.86
23.63
22.58
54.27
47.68
6.74
10.27
48.07
2 69.91
12.94
14.47
36.81
36.24
39.67
2 3.09
64.49
47.69
54.94
48.50
23.85
41.70
2 34.00
2 3.80
17.10
63.85
63.85
51.00
26.50
2 11.10
2 28.30
39.42
26.20

Balancing loss (%)

23.20

33.80

6.74
23.86

23.63
45.30

22.86

Total balancing loss (%)

188

Process section

JMTM
23,2

Park Homes Production Process

80
60
Iddle time

40

Average time

20
0

Minutes

Percentage

100

Floor Assembly

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Iddle time
Average time

FA1a

Process Section

(b)

Plumbing

Takt time
200

Iddle time
Average time

Minutes

Minutes

Internal Walls Assembly

Takt time

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

150
100

Iddle time
Average time

50
0

P1

IWA1

IWA2a

(c)

Roof Assembly

Takt time

80
Iddle time
Average time

40

Minutes

Minutes

100

60

20
EWA

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Iddle time
Average time

RA1

Internal Assembly (Part 1)

300

Iddle time
Average time

Iddle time

Takt time

250

100
80

Minutes

Minutes

RA3

(f)

External Assembly

60

150
100

20

50
EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 EA5 EA6 EA7 EA8 EA9

(g)

Takt time

Average time

200

40

Takt time

RA2

(e)

120

IWA2b

(d)

External Walls Assembly

120

189

FA1b

(a)

90
80
70

Takt time

Lean park homes

production

IA1

IA2

IA3

IA4

(h)

IA5

IA6

Figure 3.
Graphical illustration of
the current process flow
IA7
performance of the park
(Continued) homes production process

JMTM
23,2

Internal Assembly (Part 2)

300
Iddle time

190

Minutes

250

Average time

Takt time

200
150
100
50
0
IA8

IA9 IA10 IA11 IA12 IA13 IA14

(i)

Figure 3.

Notes: (a) Overall process; (b) floor assembly; (c) plumbing; (d) internal walls assembly;
(e) external walls assembly; (f) roof assembly; (g) external assembly; (h) internal assembly
part 1; (i) internal assembly part 2

over the years, numerous methods and mathematical algorisms for line balancing
(Kilbridge and Wester, 1961; Steyn, 1997; Dolgui et al., 2005; Miltenburg, 2002; Nkasu
and Leung, 1995). However, manual analyses and line balancing using these methods
may become complex as the number of process stages, workers and different flowing
paths of the products increase.
An additional practical method for line balancing is trial and error. Bhattacharjee and
Sahu (1987) mention that early line balancing was done manually by trial and error
methods, which were used to directly experiment with different scenarios in the
production lines. However, although it would be more desirable to investigate and test
different balancing proposals directly into the park homes production line, this approach
may however be expensive, time-consuming, disruptive, unpractical or dangerous to
perform directly. Therefore, computer-based simulation is an appropriate method to
solve line balancing problems without disrupting normal production or solving complex
mathematical algorisms. Zhao and de Souza (2000) comment that computer simulation is
an effective way of tackling production line balancing problems via a what-if scenario
analysis. However, as simulation may represent a challenge in terms of purchase cost,
time for use and training, especially for small and medium side organisations such as the
one studied, it is recommended that these organisations should seek assistance from
external parties, such as consultants or universities, if considering using simulation.
Computer-based simulation can take many forms, but generally the technique is
applied by developing a computer model using either a simulation language, package,
tool or integrated environment system (OKane, 2003). Discrete-event simulation is the
modelling of a system as it evolves over time, by a representation in which the state
variables change instantaneously at separate points in time (Law and Kelton, 1991). It
has been used widely and successfully in manufacturing industry, including as a
support approach for line balancing. Work and analyses of this type have been carried
out by de Souza and Zhao (1998), Zhao and de Souza (1998) and Shevell et al. (1986).
As a first step to determine the optimum balance of the park homes production line,
seven conceptual models, one for every section of the park homes production process,
were developed. The conceptual models were created based on the resultant line

balancing, work distribution and production line configuration from the study presented
in Section 4.1, illustrated in Table III and Figures 1 and 3. The conceptual models were
then translated into a computer model using Process Model 5.0 simulation software.
Several discrete-event simulation software packages are available in the market, but
Process Model 5.0 was selected based on the type of production process to be replicated
and the simple to use characteristic of the software. The models constructed were
described in terms of four interrelated elements: workstations, entities, resources
(workers) and a process plan. As shown in Table III and Figure 1, they mainly consisted
of two groups with four workers for the floor assembly section; one group with three
workers for the plumbing section; three groups with four workers for the internal walls
assembly section; one group with two workers for the external walls assembly section;
three groups with ten workers for the roof assembly section; nine groups with 14
workers for the external assembly section and 14 groups with 28 workers for the internal
assembly section. The resulting models were animated to show the movements of
entities and utilisation of resources with elapsed time. The simulations could be
interrupted at any stage and a comprehensive reporting system could be viewed, either
in graphical or tabular form.
The reliability and accuracy in the results generated by a simulation model are
important aspects of any successful simulation study. Therefore, any model must be
verified and validated to ensure that it performs as a true representation of the replicated
system. The seven simulation models created were verified and validated using a
combination of several techniques such as visual check, trace validity, degenerate test,
fix values and factory physics (Sargent, 2000; Standridge, 2004). Figure 4 shows
zoomed portions of two of the displays in the simulation models.
Simulation experiments and results. As an initial step, the experimental balancing
strategy consisted in estimating the theoretical individual contribution of every worker
on the average time of their operations. For example, if the assembly of every floor was
determined to take 121.21 minutes with two workers (Table III), then the assembly of one
floor was assumed to take 242.42 minutes with one worker. Then, as suggested by Zhao
and de Souza (2000), simulation experiments were conducted based on a what-if
scenario analysis and the results recorded on a data sheet for evaluation. Valentine
(2008) suggests the experimental trial and error approach as the most fundamental and
elemental method for investigation and learning, which in this particular application
supported the what-if simulation balancing methodology. Finally, different scenarios

(a)

(b)

Lean park homes

production

191

Figure 4.
External assembly (a) and
internal assembly (b)
simulation models

JMTM
23,2

192

were tested by adding or removing workers and/or groups, and activities were
redistributed until an optimum number of workers, groups and distribution of activities
were defined to minimize balancing losses.
Table IV shows a comparison between the initial flow performance of the park homes
production line and its optimum balancing state after the experiments were run with the
optimum number of workers, groups and distribution of activities. Figure 5 also shows the
before and after state of the park homes production line in terms of the balancing losses.
Interpretation of the simulation balancing results and practical implications. The
results presented in Table IV and in Figure 5 show the balancing improvements
achieved using the combination of time study, computer simulation and trial and
error strategies in the park homes production process. In particular, a reduction of
20.01 percent in balancing loss of the floor assembly section was achieved. Theoretically,
No. of groups
Process section

Table IV.
Comparison between
the before and after
flow performance states
of the park homes
production line

No. of workers

Total balancing
loss (%)

Current Optimum Current Optimum Current Optimum

1. Floor assembly
2. Pluming
3. Internal walls
assembly
4. External walls
assembly
5. Roof assembly
6. External
assembly
7. Internal
assembly
Total

Balancing loss
reduction (%)

2
1

1
1

4
3

3
3

22.86
23.63

2 2.85
23.63

20.1
0

45.3

8.98

36.32

1
3

1
2

2
10

2
12

6.74
2 3.86

6.74
2.04

0
1.82

14

12

33.8

19.89

13.91

14
33

12
27

28
65

28
63

23.2

15.86

7.34

100

Percentage

80
Iddle time

60

Average time
40
20

Figure 5.
Comparison between the
percentage of balancing
losses before and after the
simulation and trial and
error balancing exercise

4
5
3
Process Section

Notes: B before the simulation and trial and error balancing exercise;
A after the simulation and trial and error balancing exercise

and as suggested by Feld (2001), the process cycle time should not exceed the operations
takt time, as bottlenecks would occur, meaning that demand would not be met. Therefore,
balancing losses should never be negative, as they are in the floor assembly section
(Table IV). However, the proposed line balance may be considered as an initial optimum
balance for the time being. In practice, this can be dynamically modified by readjusting
operations, groups and workers by fractions of time. Slack et al. (2009) comment that it is
sometimes possible, in practice, to hire fractions of people to staff some operations or to
move them around accordingly effectively this involves the use of job and task rotation
in the work design of individuals, and may involve the operators themselves judging when
and where to move in the process dependent on the build up of work in the flow. This is the
case of the organisation were this study was performed. When the production supervisors
were shown the optimum balancing proposal in terms of numbers of groups and workers
and the situation in the floor assembly section was explained, they agreed that workers
from other sections with high balancing losses could be moved to this particular section for
determined periods of time to help provide the extra labour needed. Thus, it is more a
theoretical balancing loss than one in practice, compensated for by sensible supervision
and flexible operator working.
In the case of the plumbing section, an improved balance could not be achieved. Here it
was suggested to the production manager and supervisors that one of the three workers
could be relocated to a different operation so that they would spend only half of the week in
the plumbing section. This would reduce the balancing losses from 23.63 (Table IV) to
8.36 percent. Again, this is a sensible practical working solution to a theoretical balancing
loss. As shown in Table IV, a reduction of between 1.82 and 36.32 percent in the balancing
losses of the internal walls assembly, roof assembly and internal and external assembly
sections was achieved. The external walls assembly section was the only activity found to
currently have optimum line balance in relation to the number of groups and workers, as
well as the distribution of activities within this operation.
5. Conclusions
Continuous process flow is an important condition of lean systems as it improves
quality, minimizes operational costs, and reduces delivery times. Optimum workload
balancing is an important prerequisite to achieve a continuous process flow through the
different stages, operations or activities that comprise the production system. Line
balancing is a problem as old as the use of production lines and has been addressed over
the years by operational research academics and production management researchers.
A range of methods and mathematical algorithms have consequently been proposed to
determine the optimum line balance of a production or manufacturing system. However,
line balancing, through the use of these approaches, becomes progressively more
complex as the number of basic elements in any manufacturing system, such as number
of process stages, workers, activities and production sequence increase.
This paper has demonstrated how the issues of continuous flow and line balancing
can be addressed in a contemporary and complex production setting. Specifically, this
paper has shown how a logical methodology encompassing time study, experimental
discrete-event simulation and trial and error can be deployed to balance the workload
between stages of production and, as a consequence, improve the process flow of a
park homes production line.

Lean park homes

production

193

JMTM
23,2

194

Optimum balance was defined in this paper in relation to the number of workers,
groups and the distribution of activities for each of the sections that comprise the park
homes production process. As a consequence a significant reduction in balancing losses
was achieved for a number of the production sections. However, although the balance
was improved, the park homes production line still experienced some balancing losses.
So it was further demonstrated how these losses could be further reduced using the
dynamic approach of fractioning workers time, whereby workers were rotated around
the different sections of the production process. Delegation of responsibility to
supervisors and shopfloor staff, in terms of job rotation and the discretion to move
workers to points of high workload, thus provides a sensible and practical solution to
any remaining theoretical balancing problems. In this way, this study has also
provided insight to the means by which production managers can effectively and
efficiently move workers around the shop-floor at the operational level to optimize the
process flow and improve the leanness of the operation. This enables the flexibility to
sustain line balance and continuous process flow under real life dynamic conditions.
Although the adjustments made to the park homes production process were not
monitored and evaluated as part of this study, the methodology presented in this paper
(Figure 2) suggests taking the actions described above. This ensures operational
effectiveness on the shop-floor having implemented the process flow and line balancing
improvements proposed through simulation analysis. Finally, the methodology
proposed and empirically applied in this paper comprises some basic and generic steps
that can be easily replicated to good effect in other production organisations and
settings beyond the context of the case company.
References
Baines, A. (1995), Work measurement the basic principles revisited, Work Study, Vol. 44 No. 7,
pp. 10-14.
Berkeley Hanover Consulting, Davis Langdon Consultancy and The University of
Birmingham (2002), Economics of the Park Homes Industry, Queens Printer and
Controller of Her Majestys Stationary Office, London, October.
Bhattacharjee, T. and Sahu, S. (1987), A critique of some current assembly line balancing
techniques, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 7 No. 6,
pp. 32-43.
CMHC (1991), Comparative Evaluation of Factory Built House Construction Methods vis-a`-vis the
Traditional Construction Method On-site, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp.,
Government of Canada, Ottawa.
CMHC (1999), Revitalization of the Manufacturing Housing Industry, Canadian Mortgage and
Housing Corp., Government of Canada, Ottawa.
Community and Local Government (2009), Park homes, available at: www.communities.gov.
uk/housing/buyingselling/parkmobile/ (accessed 2 January).
Das, B., Sanchez-Rivas, J.M., Garcia-Diaz, A. and MacDonald, C. (2010), A computer simulation
approach to evaluating assembly line balancing with variable operation times, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 872-87.
de Souza, R. and Zhao, Z.Y. (1998), Knowledge-intensive simulation and its application in the
hard disk drive industry, Journal of Intelligent Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 9, pp. 251-63.
Dolgui, A., Finel, B. and Vernadat, F. (2005), A heuristic approach for transfer lines balancing,
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 159-72.

Feld, W. (2001), Lean Manufacturing: Tools, Techniques, and How to Use Them, CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Garza-Reyes, J.A. (2010), An Investigation into Some Measures of Manufacturing Performance
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE ), Process Capability (PC ), OEE and ORE,
Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbruecken.
Henderson, S. (2006), Strategic analysis of a factory built home opportunity in Western Canada,
MBA dissertation, Faculty of Business Administration, Simon Fraser University,
Bumaby.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean
thinking, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1011.
Iwayama, H. (1997), Basic Concept of Just-in-time System, IBQP-PR, Curitiba.
Kilbridge, K. and Wester, L. (1961), A heuristic method for assembly line balancing,
The Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 292-8.
Law, A. and Kelton, W. (1991), Simulation Modeling and Analysis, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Liker, J. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the Worlds Greatest
Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance (2006), Factory Built Housing Roadmap (Including
Recommendations for Energy Research), US Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Affordable Housing Research and Urban Technology Division,
Washington, DC, January.
Massod, S. (2006), Line balancing and simulation of an automated production transfer line,
Assembly Automation, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 69-74.
Miltenburg, J. (2002), Balancing and scheduling mixed-model U-shaped production lines,
International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 123-55.
Motwani, J. (2003), A business process change framework for examining lean manufacturing:
a case study, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103 Nos 5/6, pp. 339-47.
Nkasu, M.M. and Leung, K.H. (1995), A stochastic approach to assembly line balancing,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 975-91.
OKane, J. (2003), Simulation as an enabler for organisational excellence, Measuring Business
Excellence, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 12-19.
Rajakumar, S., Arunachalam, V.P. and Selladurai, V. (2005), Simulation of workflow balancing
in assembly shopfloor operations, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 265-81.
Sargent, R. (2000), Verification, validation and accreditation of simulation models, Proceedings
of the 32nd Winter Simulation Conference, Orlando, FL, USA.
Schonberger, R. (2008), The skinny on lean management, Sales & Marketing Management,
Vol. 160 No. 6, p. 11.
Shaw, A. (1963), Stop-watch time study, in Maynard, H.B. (Ed.), Industrial Engineering
Handbook, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 3-23-43.
Shevell, S.F., Buzacott, J.A. and Magazine, M.J. (1986), Simulation and analysis of a circuit board
manufacturing facility, Proceedings of the 18th Winter Simulation Conference,
Washington, DC, USA, pp. 686-93.
Slack, N., Chambers, S. and Johnston, R. (2009), Operations Management, 6th ed.,
FT/Prentice-Hall, London.

Lean park homes

production

195

JMTM
23,2

196

Sohal, S. and Egglestone, A. (1994), Lean production: experience among Australian

organizations, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14
No. 11, pp. 35-51.
Standridge, C. (2004), How factory physics helps simulation, Proceedings of the 36th Winter
Simulation Conference, Washington, DC, USA.
Steyn, P.G. (1977), Scheduling multi-model production lines, Business Management, Vol. 8
No. 1.
Tapping, D. and Fabrizio, T. (2000), Value Stream Management: Eight Steps to Planning,
Mapping and Sustaining Lean Improvements, Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Valentine, C.W. (2008), An Introduction to Experimental Psychology in Relation to Education,
Bastian Books, Toronto.
Womack, J. and Jones, D. (1996), Lean Thinking, Simon & Shuster, New York, NY.
Womack, J. and Jones, D. (2003), Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation, 2nd ed., Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Woodbridge and Associates (2003), Manufacturing of Value-added Wood Products in Western
North America, Woodbridge and Associates, Vancouver.
Zhao, Z.Y. and de Souza, R. (1998), On improving the performance of hard disk drive final
assembly via knowledge intensive simulation, Journal of Electronics Manufacturing,
Vol. 1, pp. 23-5.
Zhao, Z.Y. and de Souza, R. (2000), Genetic production line-balancing for the hard disk drive
industry, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 297-302.
About the authors
Dr Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes is a Lecturer in Manufacturing Engineering at the School of
Technology of the University of Derby, UK. He graduated in 1998 from the Autonoma de Nuevo
Leon University (UANL) in Mexico as Mechanical Administrator Engineer. In 2001 he graduated
as Master in Sciences, with major in Production and Quality, from the same University. In 2003
he was awarded a scholarship from the Mexicos National Council of Science and Technology
(CONACYT) to pursue a PhD in Manufacturing Systems and Operations Management at the
University of Manchester, from where he graduated in 2008. He has recently completed an MBA
at the Northampton Business School of the University of Northampton and a Postgraduate
Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education at the University of Derby. He is also a
Chartered Engineer (CEng) and a certified Six Sigma-Green Belt. He has six years of industrial
experience working as Production Manager, Production Engineer and Operations Manager for
several international and local companies in both the UK and Mexico. Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: j.reyes@derby.ac.uk
Dr Ilias Oraifige is currently the Subject Head for Engineering and The Built Environment at
the School of Technology of the University of Derby, UK. He is also a University Reader in
Engineering Design and Simulation at the same university. Dr Oraifige obtained his BEng
Engineering degree in 1988 and his MSc in Industrial Logistics in 1992 from the University of
Central England. Dr Oraifige obtained his PhD in Simulation, Control and Co-ordination of
Hierarchical Structures in IMS in 1998 from the University of Wolverhampton, UK. He had many
years of industrial experience as a senior logistics controller working with large organisations
such as SCANIA, CPVI, VOLVE, and ISUZU. The main role included being responsible for the
production planning of the air suspension systems unit at BTR Automotives, UK with a
turnover of 15 million.
Dr Horacio Soriano-Meier is a Senior Lecturer in Operations Management at the Northampton
Business School of the University of Northampton. He received his BSc in Civil Engineering

in 1978 from the Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas; his MBA from Bryant College (now
Bryant University), Smithfield, USA in 1985 and his PhD in Operations Management at Keele
University, UK in 2001. He has held previous academic posts in the area of Operations
Management in the Universities of Cardiff and Birmingham in the UK, and ULA, UCV and
INTEL in Venezuela. He has supervised a number of successful PhD and MSc projects and prior
to his academic career, he worked as an engineer and management consultant.
Dr Paul L. Forrester is a Senior Lecturer in Operations Management at the Birmingham
Business School of the University of Birmingham, UK, and a member of the Procurement and
Operations Management Group. His research interests lie in the strategic, design and
organizational issues of managing operations and projects, the extension of operations
management concepts to service organizations, and the use of virtual learning for management
education. He has supervised a number of successful PhD projects and has over 30 academic
journal and book chapter publications, in addition to over 100 conference papers.
Dr Dani Harmanto is currently the programme leader of BEng (Hons) Mechanical and BEng
(Hons) Manufacturing Engineering at the School of Technology of the University of Derby, UK.
He is also a Senior Lecturer in Automotive Engineering. Dr Harmanto obtained his BEng
Engineering degree in 1993 and his MSc in Automotive Engineering in 1995 from Coventry
University. He obtained his PhD in Automotive Engineering Body Panel in 1999 from Coventry
University, UK. He has a number of years of industrial experience working as a Research
Associate for Daewoo Technical Centre and Project Engineer at Padtek Ltd. He recently won an
award from SolidWorks Corp. on his video training on SolidWorks Fundamental. He has also
conducted several consultations on Finite Element Analysis and Computational Fluid Dynamics.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Lean park homes

production

197