applying lean in textile industry

12
This article was downloaded by: [University of Groningen] On: 15 May 2012, At: 01:30 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20 Adapting lean manufacturing principles to the textile industry George L. Hodge a , Kelly Goforth Ross a , Jeff A. Joines a & Kristin Thoney a a College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA Available online: 07 Feb 2011 To cite this article: George L. Hodge, Kelly Goforth Ross, Jeff A. Joines & Kristin Thoney (2011): Adapting lean manufacturing principles to the textile industry, Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, 22:3, 237-247 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2010.498577 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Upload: paul-andela

Post on 25-Oct-2014

139 views

Category:

Documents


7 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Applying Lean in Textile Industry

This article was downloaded by: [University of Groningen]On: 15 May 2012, At: 01:30Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Production Planning & Control: The Management ofOperationsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

Adapting lean manufacturing principles to the textileindustryGeorge L. Hodge a , Kelly Goforth Ross a , Jeff A. Joines a & Kristin Thoney aa College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA

Available online: 07 Feb 2011

To cite this article: George L. Hodge, Kelly Goforth Ross, Jeff A. Joines & Kristin Thoney (2011): Adapting leanmanufacturing principles to the textile industry, Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, 22:3,237-247

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2010.498577

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Page 2: Applying Lean in Textile Industry

Production Planning & ControlVol. 22, No. 3, April 2011, 237–247

Adapting lean manufacturing principles to the textile industry

George L. Hodge*, Kelly Goforth Ross, Jeff A. Joines and Kristin Thoney

College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA

(Final version received 17 May 2010)

A research project was conducted to determine which lean principles are appropriate for implementation in thetextile industry. Lean manufacturing involves a variety of principles and techniques, all of which have the sameultimate goal: to eliminate waste and non-value-added activities at every production or service process in order togive the most satisfaction to the customer. To stay competitive, many US textile manufacturers have sought toimprove their manufacturing processes so that they can more readily compete with overseas manufacturers. Thisstudy identifies the different tools and principles of lean. The use of lean manufacturing in the textile industry wasexamined in this research through interviews, plant tours and case studies. A model for implementing lean toolsand principles in a textile environment was developed.

Keywords: lean manufacturing; textiles; value stream mapping

1. Introduction

To stay competitive, many US textile manufacturershave sought to improve their manufacturing processes,so that they can more readily compete with overseasmanufacturers. Based on Industry Week/Manufacturing Performance Institute (IW/MPI)Census of Manufacturers, lean manufacturing tech-niques were the primary methods for improvementin both 2005 and 2006, explains Blanchard (2006).Abernathy et al. (2000) found that many retailers haveincorporated lean principles into their inventory deci-sion analysis by using SKU-level analysis (SKU, stockkeeping unit), which has put increased pressure onsuppliers to deliver goods quickly to the marketplace.The term lean is accredited to Womack et al. (1990) inthe book The Machine that Changed the World, whenthe word was used to describe the Toyota ProductionSystem. Holweg (2006) claims that this book is one ofthe most widely cited references in operations man-agement. This article presents the results of an inves-tigation into the benefits and barriers experienced bytextile companies in implementing lean manufacturing.Case studies involving seiri, seiton, seiso, seiketsu andshitsuke (5s) and value stream mapping (VSM) intextiles are presented.

The objective of lean is to create the most value forthe customer while consuming the least amount ofresources to design, build and sustain the product.In their book, Lean Thinking – BanishWaste and Create

Wealth in Your Corporation, Womack and Jones (1996)identified how Toyota’s production system is different

from the traditional mass production approach. Oncethe value stream is designed, or redesigned, improve-ments can be made by implementing lean tools andtechniques appropriate to the particular situation.

Lean is concerned with eliminating all types ofwaste, which is much more than eliminating waste by

reducing inventory. Ohno (1988) identified seven typesof waste in his book Toyota Production System andexplained that waste is sometimes hard to see, but canbe classified by: overproduction, time on hand, trans-portation, over processing, inventory, movement and

defective products. All the lean tools work towardscommon goals of eliminating this waste in order tobring the most value to the customer.

Based on a review of the literature, an initialconceptual model of lean tools and principles wasdeveloped as shown in Figure 1. A total of 20 tools

were identified and these were grouped into sixcategories: Visual Management, Policy Deployment,Quality Methods, Standardized Work, Just-In-Timeand Improvement Methods. The focus of all thesetools is meeting customer requirements which are the

centre of the model. The initial conceptual model doesnot have any order or hierarchy for implementation ofthese tools. This model was then used as a basis forinterviewing companies about their application of lean

manufacturing.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0953–7287 print/ISSN 1366–5871 online

� 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2010.498577

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

roni

ngen

] at

01:

30 1

5 M

ay 2

012

Page 3: Applying Lean in Textile Industry

Greif (1995) acknowledges that the goal of visual

management is to create a work environment that isself-explaining, self-ordering and self-improving. In his

book The Visual Factory, Grief illustrates that this idea

in a visual management triangle. In this type of

workplace, employees can immediately notice out-of-

standard situations and easily take corrective actions.A vital component of visual management is the 5s

organisation system. The 5s tool as Hirano (1996)

teaches a structural system to organise any type of

business or operation, and 5s represents five stepsincluding sort, set in order or place, shine or scrub,

standardise and sustain. Total productive maintenance

(TPM), as introduced by Nakajimi (1988), assigns

basic maintenance work such as inspection, cleaning,lubricating, tightening, etc., to the operator. This frees

up the technicians or maintenance team for productive

maintenance, which includes higher value-added activ-

ities such as equipment improvement and overhauls,training, etc. Just as in safety the target is zero

incidences, in TPM the target is zero breakdowns.Liker (2004) defines policy deployment or Hoshin

kanri is the process of bringing the objectives of top

management of the company to the plant floor level.Policy deployment is a short-term as well as a long-

term process used to identify and address critical

business requirements and expand the ability of the

workforce. Akai (1991) explains that the ultimatepurpose of ‘policy deployment’ is to create a company-

wide philosophy based on quality being supreme with a

customer-oriented approach.

Quality methods include Jidoka, Poka-Yoke andLean Six Sigma. Poka-yoke, as introduced by Shingo(1985a), is implementing simple low cost mistakeproofing devices that detect abnormal situationsbefore they occur or once they occur stop productionto prevent defects. The Lean Six Sigma approach, asTaghizadegan (2006) explains, is a data-drivenapproach to find the root cause of problems and usesthe define, measure, analyse, improve, maintain andcontrol (DMAIC) process to organise operatingprocesses.

Standardised work is the safest, easiest and themost effective way of doing the job that we currentlyknow, but the purpose of standardised work is toprovide a basis for improvement on that job. Dennis(2002) found that the goal should be to optimise theutilisation of people instead of machines, because theflexibility of people provides more benefits thanmachine utilisation.

Just in time includes Kanbans, production level-ling, single minute exchange of dies (SMED) andcellular manufacturing. SMED is a series of techniquesdeveloped by Shingo for reduction in productionchangeover time to less than 10min. Shingo (1985b)has compiled this methodology into his book entitled ARevolution in Manufacturing: the SMED System.

Improvement methods include Kaizen, KaizenBlitz and VSM. Ortiz (2006) identifies Kaizen as ateam approach to quickly tear down and rebuild aprocess layout to function more efficiently. Russell andTaylor (2002) use the term Kaizen Blitz to describewhen a process is quickly changed to eliminateactivities that have no value. Womack and Jones(1996) found that for almost all companies, valuestream redesigns are a critical step to becoming lean;the design of the end-to-end value stream must beconsidered instead of applying tools randomly, toaddress an apparent problem. VSM is used extensivelyin Six Sigma Methodology and Henderson and Larco(1999) recently added the procedure to the list of toolswhich can be used to apply the principles of lean. Sethand Gupta (2005) present a case study of VSM asapplied to an Indian automotive manufacturer show-ing both current-state and future-state maps.

Several textile companies using lean initiatives wereidentified through the review of secondary sources suchas interviews, white page papers or case studiespublished. Such companies include: AliceManufacturing, Joseph Abboud, Absecon Mills andNational Textiles.

Alice Manufacturing began using lean manufactur-ing principles as a way to cut costs, eliminate wasteand streamline processes (Dodge Reliance 2006). Thecompany’s management knew of another company,

Figure 1. Conceptual model of lean tools and principles.

238 G.L. Hodge et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

roni

ngen

] at

01:

30 1

5 M

ay 2

012

Page 4: Applying Lean in Textile Industry

Rockwell Automation who had successfully imple-

mented lean with help from a consulting firm’s

programme, and decided to use that firm as well.

Alice Manufacturing was attracted to the firm because

of the combination of lean and Six Sigma used in the

programme (Dodge Reliance 2006). After using the

new programme for about 6 months, the company

reported dramatic cultural changes that were positively

contributing to the bottom line, because lean thinking

had taught employees the value of their suggestions.

The company has had many successful improvement

projects, which were at the suggestion of shop floor

employees. The company did not cite exact figures, but

reported that they were more than halfway towards

reaching the goal set when they had started the

programme (Dodge Reliance 2006).Joseph Abboud, a US suit maker, began to use lean

manufacturing principles as a way to lower the

company’s manufacturing costs to remain competitive

against lower wage manufacturing in other countries

(Langfitt 2007). Before lean manufacturing was imple-

mented, each employee stitched together all the pieces

of a garment on their own. To implement lean, the

company has set up work cells, and they work in

teams. Now fabric moves rapidly through production

in a one-piece flow. The employees are now trained in

various skills; so if pieces back up at one operation,

they can jump to another job. The company has found

these changes to be successful. The factory increased

production, and sales are up by 15% (Langfitt 2007).Absecon Mills, located in New Jersey, began using

lean manufacturing techniques as a competitive busi-

ness strategy to increase customer satisfaction though

better quality and shorter lead times (SMEAL 2005).

As a result of lean, Absecon Mills have reported the

following benefits: a decrease in raw material and

finished goods inventory, reductions in lead times and

improvements in quality (SMEAL 2005).National Textiles began their lean manufacturing

implementation process in 2004 with the help of NC

State University’s (NCSU’s) Industrial Extension

Service (IES) lean facilitators. The company’s goal

was to reduce waste and improve productivity (NCSU

IES 2007). Their first lean event yielded impressive

results, including a 30% improvement in productivity

and 40% cost reduction in that production area

(NCSU IES 2007). The project implemented such

tools as 5s, standard work and flow. The goal of the

second lean event was to improve throughput and flow

between two processes. To accomplish this goal, the

project conducted 5s activities, determined cycle time

and takt time and conducted a VSM exercise. The

result was a reduction in the number of unnecessary set

ups by 50% and a reduction of the set up time from 15to 5min (NCSU IES 2007).

The objectives of this research were:

. Identify which lean manufacturing tools arebeing utilised in US textile companies’ businessstrategies.

. Identify barriers and benefits to leanmanufacturing.

. Develop case studies of lean manufacturing intextiles.

. Determine a hierarchy, if any, for the imple-mentation of lean tools.

2. Methodology

The research was conducted in a multiphase approachusing both primary and secondary sources. During thefirst phase, secondary sources, such as professionalorganisations, economic development organisations,educational institutions and scholarly publicationswere used to develop a listing of potential contactsand develop a structured interview instrument. In thesecond phase, textile companies were first contacted byphone and e-mail. The result was a convenience sampleof 11 textile companies that were primarily located inNorth and South Carolina, USA who were availablefor interviews and plant tours during the time framefor data collection. The characteristics of these com-panies are summarised in Table 1. Interviews wereconducted with senior executives. For 10 of thecompanies, the interviews were conducted in personand plant visits were conducted to identify some ofthe best practices on the shop floor. Following theinterviews, five case studies were conducted to gatheradditional information. Three of the case studiesfocused on 5s and two focused on VSM.

Companies interviewed included both textile man-ufacturers (spinning, knitting and finishing) and com-panies that had cutting and sewing operations. Onecompany had been using lean for 4 years, but most ofthe companies had only 1 or 2 years of experience.In most cases, company interviews included multipleexecutives and plant tours included discussions withplant floor employees. The majority of the companiesinterviewed are privately held. While several identifiedthemselves as large companies in their fields, mostwould be classified as small to medium enterprises with500 or fewer employees.

3. Results

Table 2 summarises the different lean tools used by thecompanies interviewed. Visual management had beenused by 10 of the companies and 5s, which is one type

Production Planning & Control 239

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

roni

ngen

] at

01:

30 1

5 M

ay 2

012

Page 5: Applying Lean in Textile Industry

of visual management, had also been used by the same

10 companies. VSM had been used by nine of the

companies. The 5s was often cited as one of the first

lean tools implemented.Based on the interviews, barriers for implementing

lean manufacturing that were mentioned included:

. resistance to change both shop floor employees

and management;. shop floor employees are reluctant to offer

suggestions for improvements;. disconnect among marketing, sales, product and

development;. shop floor personnel are not native English

speakers; so training needs to be multilingual;

and

. mindset that because textile machinery repre-sents such a large asset, the machines shouldalways be running.

Changing the culture of the organisation was themost frequently discussed barrier. Companies neededtop management commitment to get started with theinitiatives. Most of the lean initiatives involved theshop floor personnel and they needed to be engagedactively. Lean projects were selected initially to givesome early success.

Based on the interviews, the benefits of imple-menting lean manufacturing that were mentionedincluded:

. creating smaller lot sizes;

. reduction of raw materials;

Table 2. Lean tool matrix for companies interviewed.

Companies

Lean tool A B C D E F G H I J K

5s � � � � � � � � � �

Cellular manufacturing � � �

Kaizen � � � � � � �

Kanban � � �

Mistake proofing �

Policy deployment �

Rapid Improvement �

Six Sigma � � � � � �

Quick Changeover (SMED) � � � � �

Standardised Work � � � � � �

Supermarket � � �

TPM � � � � �

VSM � � � � � � � � �

Visual Management � � � � � � � � � �

Table 1. Description of Companies interviewed.

Company Area of manufacture Size of company

A Performs spinning, warping, slashing and weaving. Finished product is woven SmallB Plant performs dyeing and finishing, slashing, warping and weaving. Finished product is

wovenLarge

C Performs cut and sew operations to knit goods. Finished products are knit garments LargeD Plant performs spinning and warping operations which supply an internal customer LargeE Spins a diverse variety of yarns supplying only external customers LargeF Plant performs spinning and knitting operations which supply an internal customer LargeG Performs warping, dyeing, weaving, knitting, and printing. Finished product is either a

knit or wovenSmall

H Performs cut and sew, assembly, and distribution activities to textile auxiliary products MediumI Performs warping, weaving, and finishing operations. Finished product is woven MediumJ Plant performs cut and sew, assembly, and distribution of a variety of products with

government contractsLarge

K Performs cut and sew, and assembly of a particular type of product under governmentcontracts

Small

Note: Company size: small, medium or large as indicated by companies own description given during the interview.

240 G.L. Hodge et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

roni

ngen

] at

01:

30 1

5 M

ay 2

012

Page 6: Applying Lean in Textile Industry

. reduction in product complexity;

. decreased inventory (by 50% in one company);

. reduced changeover times (from 1.5 days to45min in one example);

. increased production (after implementing 5s,one company experienced a 16% gain in 1month);

. cleared space for increased production and newbusiness;

. reduced finished goods inventory;

. increased first pass quality (from 53% to 80% inone case); and

. reduction in production time.

Concerns were expressed that some of the benefitsmight not be seen for months or even years.

Five in depth case studies were conducted. Three ofthe case studies involved VSM and two case studiesinvolved 5s. The following sections summarise three ofthe case studies.

3.1. Case study: Company A – 5s

Company A performs spinning, slashing, warping andweaving and produces a wide variety of items fromdraperies to denim, with capabilities to offer fullpackage. Company A introduced the concept of 5s totheir workforce via a consulting firm, which workswith companies to promote industrial development. Inone particular area of one of the company’s plants, theoperation was producing three times more waste thanthe goal. Production in the department was stopped for3 days for the initial event. The company chose to haltproduction in this area to show their commitment tothe initiative, because they wanted everyone to take theevent seriously. Everyone working on the 5s crew wasstill paid his regular wage to come in and work on theevent; however the event was voluntary. Everyoneworking in the area showed up for the event, and therewere a total of about 30 people.

The first step was to sort out the clutter from tablesand workstations and equipment to remove items notessential to performing the process and any unneededequipment. They used the red tag tactic, to separatethese items from the regular production area. The nextstep was to set locations and limits for equipment anditem storage using indicators. Indicators such as linesand identification signs were also placed to demarkwalkways and the different storage areas. For example,storage locations of empty beams were marked off withlines on the floor, which not only identified to theworker where to store these items, but also provided alimit to how many beams could be stored, becausebeams were not to be stored past the line of the floor.

Tools and equipment to be used frequently during theworkday were placed and stored close to their point ofuse making it easy for workers to retrieve these items touse when needed.

Cleaning up and organising the area was animportant goal that top management had in mindwhen embarking on this 5s event. The floors andmachines were given a good cleaning to remove wasteand oil. The next step was to ensure that standardworking practices were in place and that everyone inthe area was trained in 5s and understood the goals ofthe organisation. The key procedures were writtendown and readily available for any worker who had aquestion about his/her role in the process.

In order to sustain the improvements made to theproduction area where the 5s event had taken place,the company used a 5s audit system. This audit systemis used to ensure that 5s is continually carried outwithin the area and that the procedures and activityboards are kept current.

Another important action taken to sustain 5s wasthe weekly meeting established after the 3-day event.These weekly meetings brought about suggestions forimproving the process and work environment for thepeople. At first, workers were reluctant to offer ideas,but once some ideas were brought by management forencouragement, the ideas came easier to the techni-cians and shop floor workers. Since they began themeetings, 32 suggestions for improvement actions havebeen submitted and approved. These suggestions weregiven priority by the managers; a suggestion could begiven high, medium or low priority. These suggestionswere documented and put on an action sheet thatwould get updated as the projects were closer tocompletion. Actions could have a status of either underinvestigation, draft, agreed or complete.

Some of the improvements made from thesesuggestions included: a retractable air line hook up ateach machine making the air line easy to locate andretrieve when the operator needs to use it, splashguards on machines and mirrors on each machineenabling the operators to see the front end of themachine while not actually standing at the front of themachine.

Company A saw the reduction of waste evenbeyond their expectations and goals, as a result ofthe 5s programme. However, the resulting reduction ofwaste was gradual and took over 6 months to takeeffect. Another benefit of the 5s weekly meeting was agreater awareness of the impact of waste among theemployees involved. Operators began competing tohave the least amount of waste in the area. Company Aplans to continue with the employee meetings, but hascut back to bi-weekly meetings at this point due to this

Production Planning & Control 241

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

roni

ngen

] at

01:

30 1

5 M

ay 2

012

Page 7: Applying Lean in Textile Industry

being a slower season. Company A is pleased with thesuccess of 5s in that department and would like toimplement the programme in other areas of the plantas well.

3.2. Case study: Company E – 5s

Company E is a large producer of a diverse variety ofyarn types for commodity consumption. At CompanyE, the drive for lean implementation came fromcorporates. Company E first implemented 5s in itsplants after two employees attended a 5s seminar.Company E used the help of a local consultant, whowas later phased out when the programme haddeveloped. The company began by establishing a 5straining programme which moved from plant to plantwithin the company. The 5s teams were established atthe plants, but the ultimate goal is to have everyemployee trained in 5s. Most plants in the companyhave modern automation with few employees.Therefore, it was not feasible to pull people off theirjobs for very long periods of time to do 5s events. Thus,the employees on the 5s teams would be expected tocomplete their projects while on shift. One key com-ponent of this was ownership; someone had to takeresponsibility for the suggested project and that personbecame the facilitator for that lean team. What enabledthe 5s implementation to be such a success was that theplant managers and training facilitators have the samevision.

Company E implemented 5s with all the steps asCompany A did. Company E did not pull employees oftheir jobs for long periods of time or bring employeesof shift for an event. The 5s coordinator taught the 5ssystem to the teams, but the responsibility of theproject was placed on the facilitator for that team. Thiscase involves 5s implementation at a particular plant,which unlike the other two cases was not done on anarea responsible for processing a product, but a toolroom. This case further exemplifies the fact that a 5sprogramme can be used anywhere.

The extent that the 5s facilitator, a technician, forthis project had implemented the 5s system in the toolroom at this facility was remarkable. Company E didnot use the 5s event format. Rather, Company Etrained 5s team members in a short classroom format,which provided them literature: 5s for Operators byHirano from Productivity Press and then expected the5s facilitator and the team members to take ownershipof the project. The 5s coordinator interviewed revealedthat team and facilitator selection was the key for thissystem of 5s implementation to work. A supervisor ortechnician in the area of the project was usually chosen

as the facilitator. The teams required the right mix ofpeople, some working in the area and some that didnot, because sometimes those not working in an areacould bring new and different ideas. The 5s projects forCompany E have taken a ‘piece mill’ approach, wherea little is done at a time. The plant tool room observedin this case study was no exception. The facilitator ofthe project, who gave the tour of the plant and toolroom, explained that the project had taken months tocomplete.

What made the tool room at this particular facilityso remarkable was the detail which had been taken tolabel each part, belt, screw and piece of machinery.Each cabinet in the tool room was labelled with avisual icon and a text description of the machine inwhich the parts stored within belonged. On eachdrawer was an icon and text description of the partcontained inside the drawer. On the top of each cabinetwas a catalogue of all the parts stored within contain-ing their description, location and reorder information.To keep the top of cabinets clear of clutter, the surfaceswere not flat but slanted. Therefore, anything placedon top would slide off. On the wall, there were hooksto store various belts required by machinery. To ensurethat the right belt was stored on the right hook, therewere outline drawings of the belts on the walls with thehooks and text descriptions of the belts above thehooks.

The company representative who was interviewed,reported that the money his company had invested inthe 5s system was in the hundreds of dollars, while thesavings were in the hundred thousands. The 5s projectin the tool room in this case study has eliminated thewaste of ordering a part already in stock, because allthe parts and tools can now be easily found. Thefacilitator of the 5s project in the tool room believedthat this project would save his company over 40,000dollars over the next year in tool and part replacementcosts.

3.3. Case study: Company G – value stream mapping

Company G is a small textile mill, with under 150employees, producing woven and knit fabrics for avariety of end uses. For this case, a VSM trainingactivity at Company G event was observed whichlasted three 8-hour work days. Seven of Company G’semployees participated in the event; among them werethe Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Plant Manager,Plant Engineer, Customer Service Manager, twoProduction Managers and a technician. The activitywas facilitated by lean specialist from the consultinggroup whom the Company G is using to help with

242 G.L. Hodge et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

roni

ngen

] at

01:

30 1

5 M

ay 2

012

Page 8: Applying Lean in Textile Industry

organisation and training in their initial lean pro-gramme implementations.

First, the facilitator introduced himself and askedeveryone in the room to do the same. Afterwards,the facilitator briefly explained lean manufacturing tothe group, and the eight types of waste as well as theconcepts of value added, non-value added and non-value added but required. Then he explained thepurpose of VSM, and the group went through anexample of a current state map on a fictitious companytogether. After lunch on the first day, the team beganwork on the Company’s current state map. The firststep was to decide on which product or family ofproducts should be mapped. The facilitator asked thatthe team choose a product(s) which was produced inhigh volume. After the team had decided on theproduct, the takt was calculated based upon a 4-weekforecast from the customer. The team then broke upinto two groups, one to gather information to createthe information flow and the other to collect the cycletime, changeover time and machine utilisation per-centage and to count the inventory between eachprocess of the value stream for this product. Then eachprocess in the material flow was drawn out for

everyone in the group to see and agree with, alongwith every step and report generated in the informationflow. After everyone had agreed on the material andinformation flow of the map, the facilitator adjournedthe group for the day.

On the next morning, the facilitator showed thegroup how they could calculate their lead time in daysbetween each process by dividing the amount ininventory by the takt (customer requirement perday). He also explain that the value-added time wasthe cycle time or the time that was spent at eachprocess actually processing a unit of product, which inCompany G’s case one unit would be 1 yard ofmaterial. The lead times between each process werethen added to get the production lead time, and thecycle times at each process were added to get the value-added time, as shown in Figure 2 which is a depictionof Company G’s current state map. A few of the teammembers were astounded at how large this number wasand did not believe that it could be correct, but theCFO quickly interjected, explaining that the averageinventory turnaround for the company was only 3 daysless. The percent value added was then calculated bytaking the ratio of value-added time to production lead

Figure 2. Company G’s current state map – product B.

Production Planning & Control 243

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

roni

ngen

] at

01:

30 1

5 M

ay 2

012

Page 9: Applying Lean in Textile Industry

time. Company G’s percent value added for thisproduct was less than 1% (Figure 2). That afternoonwas spent learning about designing a lean flow.Concepts such as one piece flow, kanban, supermar-kets, and push versus pull were introduced. Thefacilitator then went through an example of a futurestate map for the fictitious company that had beenused as the current state map example, in order for thegroup to understand how creating pull systems canreduce lead time and increase the percent of value-added time.

The team spent the next morning brainstormingideas to improve their process, which wouldbecome kaizen bursts1 in the future state map.Figure 3 depicts Company G’s future state map.One of the major improvements decided upon by thegroup was to reduce the paper work from productioncontrol. As Figure 2 shows, there were three differentreports that would be eliminated in the future state(Figure 3) along with two electronic scheduling

communications. In the future state, the schedule isonly sent to shipping, where a supermarket will becreated. When the stock in the supermarket reachesa certain level, a kanban signal will schedule theproduction at the downstream processes (Figure 3).Other kaizen bursts in the future state map whichtarget improvement in product flow included creatingjust in time warps in this style, so that one loom couldbe dedicated to this product and creating continuousflow through weaving. The other kaizen bursts areassociated with updating and repairing equipment.These ideas for improving the process will beprioritised and will then become the basis for sched-uling kaizen events.

4. Conclusions

Based on data collected from interviews and casestudies for this research project, a Lean

Figure 3. Company G’s future state map – product B.

244 G.L. Hodge et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

roni

ngen

] at

01:

30 1

5 M

ay 2

012

Page 10: Applying Lean in Textile Industry

Implementation Model (Figure 4) was developed.A hierarchical approach to implementing lean isproposed. All levels contribute to the overall goal ofimproving customer satisfaction, which is shown as thetop of the model. Implementation of lean manufactur-ing should begin with Policy Deployment tools toinitiate cultural changes. Resistance to change by bothmanagement and shop floor workers was most oftencited as a barrier to implementing lean. PolicyDeployment methods get the workforce activelyinvolved in the lean process. The next level is VisualManagement. A 5s programme was the first tool usedby many companies. 5s projects can be used through-out the manufacturing facility and are not limited tojust the production line as the case study for tool roomredesign demonstrated. Visual Management basedprojects build a foundation of stability in the processand may provide early successes with using lean toolssuch as 5s and TPM. The next level is to developContinuous Improvement based projects. Shop floorpersonnel are able to identify areas for improvementsand use tools such as Rapid Improvement analysis andmistake proofing devices. Building on the continuousimprovement efforts, Standardised Work tools are

used to develop standard operating practices and setcycle times to meet customer requirements. The finallevel is Just-In-Time tools, such as kanbans, super-markets and quick changeover, which reduce wastesuch that the customer gets the right product at theright time, directly impacting customer satisfaction.Just-In-Time builds on the stability and standardisa-tion of the previous levels and is most closely linked tocustomer satisfaction.

VSM is shown outside of the pyramid, as it can beused for all levels of the Lean ImplementationModel. In the literature, value stream mapping wasidentified as an initial tool. However, based on theinterviews, it was not always found to be useful as thefirst tool used. The sides of the pyramid are shown as acycle of arrows because implementing lean is acontinuous process that involves all the levels and allthe efforts should focus on improving customersatisfaction.

Lean manufacturing principles have been imple-mented in many different industries for a number ofyears. Widespread application of lean was not found intextile companies. Based on interviews and case stud-ies, implementation of lean was relatively recent to

Figure 4. Lean implementation model.

Production Planning & Control 245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

roni

ngen

] at

01:

30 1

5 M

ay 2

012

Page 11: Applying Lean in Textile Industry

many textile companies with visual methods being themost frequently utilised.

Lean Manufacturing is a strategy that does notrequire a large investment in automation or informa-tion technology; that does not require employees withadvanced analytical training. Lean manufacturing is astrategy that can be implemented in both large andsmall companies where all employees can be involvedin improving operations to meet the customers’ needs.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Institute of Textile Technology forproviding financial support for this research. This article isbased on the thesis by Kelly Goforth, submitted in partialfulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master ofScience in Textiles at the College of Textiles, North CarolinaState University in May 2007.

Note

1. Rother and Shook (2002) Kaizen bursts as icons used inVSM to highlight improvement needs at specific processand which are critical for the future state map.

Notes on contributors

George L. Hodge is an InterimAssistant Dean in the GraduateSchool at North Carolina StateUniversity (NCSU) and an associateprofessor in the Textile Engineering,Chemistry and Science Department,where he teaches courses in TextileSupply Chain Management. Hisareas of research include: lean

manufacturing, e-business, data mining, information qualityand enterprise integration. He has served on the boards ofAPICS Textile and Apparel Specific Industry Group andComputer Integrated Manufacturing in Higher Education(CIM/HE). He received his PhD from NCSU in IndustrialEngineering, MS in Industrial and Systems Engineering fromthe Ohio State University and BS from NCSU in NuclearEngineering.

Kelly Goforth Ross is a student atNorth Carolina State University.Most recently, she had worked on aproject with a startup companyreviewing and documenting biograph-ical information using a proprietarydatabase and software for a newproduct. Previously, she had been amarket analyst for Glen Raven, a

global vertically integrated textile company. In the May of2005, Kelly graduated with a BS in Textile Management from

North Carolina State University. Kelly was fortunate to beselected as an Institute of Textile Technology GraduateFellow and graduated with the Class of 2007. In the summerof 2006, Kelly interned with Guilford Fibers in Fuquay-Varina, NC in their process engineering department. Kellyreturned to the College of Textiles at North Carolina State inthe fall of 2009 to pursue her PhD with the TextileTechnology Management programme.

Jeff A. Joines is an AssociateProfessor in the Textile Engineering,Chemistry and Science Department atNC State University and is currentlythe Associate Department Head forUndergraduate Studies. He received aBS in Electrical Engineering and BS inIndustrial Engineering in 1990, a MSin Industrial Engineering in 1990 and

PhD in Industrial Engineering in 1996, all from NC StateUniversity. He received the 1997 Pritsker DoctoralDissertation Award from Institute of Industrial Engineers.He was awarded the 2006 NC State University OutstandingTeaching Award and the 2009 Gertrude Cox Award forInnovative Excellence in Teaching and Learning withTechnology. His research interests include evolutionaryoptimisation, object-oriented simulation, simulation-basedscheduling and supply chain optimisation.

Kristin Thoney is an associate profes-sor in the Textile and Apparel,Technology and ManagementDepartment at NC State. She is alsoAssociate Department Head andDirector of Undergraduate pro-grammes for the TATM Department.She joined the faculty in 2000after earning a PhD in industrial

engineering and operations research. from NC State. Kristinalso has a MS in operations research from NC State and a BSin mathematics from Valparaiso University. Her researchinterests include logistics, production scheduling, inventorymanagement and other types of supply chain modellinginvolving optimisation and simulation approaches.

References

Abernathy, F.H., et al., 2000. Control your inventory in a

world of lean retailing. Harvard Business Review, 78 (6),

169–176.Akai, Y., 1991. Hoshin kanri: policy deployment for successful

TQM. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Blanchard, D., 2006. Census of manufacturers – what’s

working for US manufacturers. Industry Week, 255 (10),

49–51.Dennis, P., 2002. Lean production simplified. Portland, OR:

Productivity Press.

DodgeReliance, 2006.When the going gets tough, the tough get

lean [online]. Available from: http://www.dodgereliance.

com [Accessed 22 January 2007].

246 G.L. Hodge et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

roni

ngen

] at

01:

30 1

5 M

ay 2

012

Page 12: Applying Lean in Textile Industry

Grief, M., 1995. The visual factory: hiroyuki hirano. Portland,

OR: Productivity Press.Henderson, B.A. and Larco, J.L., 1999. Lean transformation:

how to change your business into a lean enterprise. 1st ed.

Richmond, Virginia: The Oaklea Press.

Hirano, H., 1996. 5s for operators: 5 pillars of the visual

workplace. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

Holweg, M., 2006. The genealogy of lean production. Journal

of Operations Management, 2 (25), 420–437.

Langfitt, F., 2007. Suit maker goes ‘lean’ to keep jobs in U.S.

[online]. Available from: http://www.nrp.org/templates/

story/story.php?storyId=6968780&sc=emaf [Accessed

24 January 2007].Liker, J.K., 2004. The Toyota way. New York: McGraw-Hill.Nakajimi, S., 1988. Total productive maintenance. Portland,

OR: Productivity Press.NCSU IES, 2007. National textiles forest city plant continueslean journey with IES [online]. Available from http://www.ies.ncsu.edu/ Unpublished manuscript. [Accessed 30January 2007].

Ohno, T., 1988. Toyota production system: beyond large-scale

production. New York: Productivity Press.

Ortiz, C., 2006. All out kaizen. Industrial Engineer IE, 38 (4),

30–34.

Rother, M. and Shook, S., 2002. Value stream mappingworkshop. Brookline, MA: The Lean Enterprise Institute.

Russell, R.S. and Taylor, B.W., 2002. Operations manage-ment. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Seth, D. and Gupta, V., 2005. Application of value streammapping for lean operations and cycle time reduction: an

Indian case study. Production Planning and Control, 16 (1),44–59.

Shingo, S., 1985a. Zero quality control: source inspection and

the Poka-yoke system. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.Shingo, S., 1985b. A revolution in manufacturing: the SMEDsystem. Stanford, CT: Productivity Press.

SMEAL, 2005. Implementing lean: from concept to results[online]. Available from: http://www.smeal.psu.edu/cmtoc/forum/Forum58_AbseconHighlights.pdf [Accessed 22January 2007].

Taghizadegan, S., 2006. Essentials of lean six sigma. Oxford,UK: Elsevier Inc.

Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T., 1996. Lean thinking: banish

waste and create wealth in your corporation. New York:Free Simon & Schuster.

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., and Roos, D., 1990. The machine

that changed the world: the story of lean production.New York: Simon & Schuster.

Production Planning & Control 247

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

roni

ngen

] at

01:

30 1

5 M

ay 2

012