Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ABSTRACT
Recently the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system has been proposed in order to meet the current automotive
market winning order criterion of a blend of cost and availability. This study shows how strategically a hybrid
lean-agile manufacturing system can be implemented. It shows statistically that almost one third of the variation
in successfully dealing with the sources of competitive advantage in automotive sector can be explained by
adopting the strategic facet of the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system. The cost demanded by the
implementation of the hybrid lean-agile manufacturing system can be moderated by the gained benefits of
reduced operational cost and reduced time to market.
Manufacturing team leaders should be the focus of training efforts since they are the change agents to
lead improvements in performance as the implementation of the proposed HLAMS should be push
implementation by the manufacturing team leaders rather than pull implementation by the team
themselves. The implementation of the HLAMS necessitates building culture, structure, and systems.
Building culture requires the following: (1) culture development requires leadership with a continuous
passion for perfection to create attitudes in all employees so that their behavior positively influences
product and service quality; (2) culture development also requires the empowerment of all employees
in the pursuit of quality; (3) team work implies that there is an organized, engaged, and self-
disciplined team; (4) it is instilled in all staff that poor quality is a major waste and must be improved
to "near perfect", by continuous improvement with employees who are enabled to solve problems
using tools such as Five Why’s.
Building organizational structure comprises the following: (1) low and high level ownership of
quality; (2) technical and management support to resolve problems; (3) removal of indirect workers,
adopting narrow job classifications, and adopting cross training; (4) short feedback loops based on a
flat organization structure; (5) mechanisms for continuous improvement with routine daily stand-up
team meetings to flush out problems; (6) managers act as facilitators and provide mentoring.
There are two types of quality systems: problem preventive system and problem corrective system.
While the problem preventive quality system prevents problems from happening in the first place, the
problem corrective quality system deals with problems only when they arise. The HLAMS adopts
hybridization of these two quality systems in terms of (1) instilling flexibility into the design and
manufacturing processes for embracing change; (2) adopting robust design of product using Quality
Function Deployment (QFD) to satisfy customers and stakeholders and using Design for Manufacture
in order to provide the manufacturing and transportation processes with what these processes need;
(3) adopting robust design of processes using Five S’s and Poka Yoke; (4) adopting systematic
procedures of doing things using ISO and QS standards; (5) detecting problems that can arise as early
as possible using Statistical Process Control, Management By Walking Around, customer satisfaction
surveys, staff surveys, quality standards audits, Kaizen continuous improvement events, product strip
down, and inspection and testing; (6) analyzing the root causes of those problems and removing those
root causes using Pareto analysis, Ishikawa/fishbone diagrams, Five Why’s, value stream mapping,
and FMEA. The pragmatic reader might now well ask: “How valid is the strategic facet of the
proposed HLAMS?” The next section will answer this question.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Professor Arthur Sybrandy from Maastricht School of Management, The Netherlands, is
acknowledged for his insightful contribution to this research work. The people of Maastricht School
of Management, The Netherlands, and the people of The Regional IT Institute, Egypt, are
acknowledged for their support for accomplishing this research.
REFERENCES
[1]. Womack, J., Jones, D., Roos, D., (1990) The machine that changed the world, Macmillan , New York.
[2]. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., (1996) Lean thinking, Simon and Schuster, NY.
[3]. Davis, E., (April 1995) “What is on American minds?” Management Review, pp. 14-20.
[4]. Davis, T., (July 1993) “Effective supply chain management,” Sloan Management Review.
[5]. Harber, J.E., (2005) “Building an auto company on common,” Manufacturing Engineering, Society of
Manufacturing Engineers, vol. 135, no. 3.
[6]. Czinkota, M.R., Ronkainen, I.A., Moffett, M.H., (2004) Fundamentals of international business, South-
Western: a division of Thomson Learning, Inc.
[7]. Brooke, L., (May 2008) “Creating a global footprint,” Automotive Engineering, pp. 48-49.
[8]. Daniels, J.D., Radebaugh, L.H., Sullivan, D.P., International business environments and operations, Pearson
Prentice Hall, 2004.
[9]. Byrd, J.B., (2008) “Manufacturing's next great leap,” Manufacturing Engineering, Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, vol. 141, no. 2.
[10]. Hansen, R. C., (2005) Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), Industrial Press.
[11]. Elmoselhy, S.A.M., (September 2007) Hybrid lean-agile manufacturing business model in the automotive
sector, MBA thesis, Maastricht School of Management, The Netherlands.
[12]. Deming, W.E., (2000) The new economics for industry, government, education, The MIT Press.
[13]. Annappa, C.M., Panditrao, K.S., (2012) “Application of value engineering for cost reduction – a case study
of universal testing machine,” International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, vol. 4, no. 1,
To what extent are workers measured and Informal Tracking & Review
8.3
judged on setup performance?
Setups Performance Tracked
APPENDIX B
Value Chain Agility Assessment Tool
For all the questions in the following four assessment sections of organization, process, technology,
and people, the following rubric should be used: 2 Yes – 1 Partially – 0 Unsure or No. The higher the
score your enterprise gets, the better it is on the value chain agility scale.
1. Organization
1.1. Organization Goals:
The organization goals are the facet of value chain strategy that prioritizes organizational performance
requirements of delivery reliability, responsiveness, and flexibility with the internal needs of cost
reduction, profitability and asset utilization.
1.1.1. Have you defined your value chains in terms of products and customers?
1.1.2. Are your senior managers measured and remunerated on a set of value chain measures?
1.1.3. Do you know where your value chain performance rates against competition?
2. Process
2.1. Process Goals:
The process goals are the facet of value chain strategy that cascades organization goals to your value
chain network and processes. The value chain network refers to the physical movement of goods from
your suppliers’ suppliers to your company to ultimately your customers’ customer. The value chain
process refers to the plan, outsource, make, and deliver processes. Factors considered in setting
network goals include service level, order fulfillment cycle time, flexibility, Cost of Goods Sold
(COGS), and inventory turnover. Factors considered in setting process goals include transactional
productivity for sales orders, purchase orders, work orders, and forecasts.
2.1.1. Do your organizational goals cascade to network goals for service level, order fulfillment cycle
time, flexibility, COGS, and inventory turnover?
2.1.2. Do your organizational goals cascade to transactional productivity goals for sales orders,
purchase orders, work orders, and forecasts?
2.1.3. Have you segmented your network and transactional “cost to serve” for each of your suppliers?
2.1.4. Are your middle managers measured and remunerated on a network and transactional
productivity measures?
2.1.5. Are your network and transactional productivity goals aligned with your suppliers and retailers’
goals and contractual obligations?
2.2. Process Design:
3. Technology
3.1. Technology goals:
The technology goals are the facet of value chain strategy that defines value chain system
requirements to enable planning and execution of your value chain processes. The factors involved in
defining technology requirements include process flows and definitions, transactional productivity
targets, data warehouse and archiving needs, master data requirements, and system architecture
constraints.
3.1.1. Do you have appropriate technology, i.e. functionality, which supports how you plan,
outsource, make, and deliver?
3.1.2. Did you define your To Be processes based on striking a balance between system functionality
and industry best practice?
3.1.3. Do you have goals set for master data integrity?
3.1.4. Are your technology managers measured and promoted on transactional productivity measures?
3.1.5. Do you have a collaboration technology plan with suppliers and retailers?
4. People
4.1. People – Job Goals:
The job goals are the facet of value chain strategy that defines the type of job requirements and goals
necessary to execute value chain processes and to manage value chain technology.
4.1.1. Have appropriate job sub goals been set linked to the plan, outsource, make, and deliver
processes?
4.1.2. Are job goals cascaded from the organization and process levels?
AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY
Salah A.M. Elmoselhy holds MS in mechanical design and production engineering that he
received from Cairo University. He holds as well MBA in international manufacturing business
that he received from Maastricht School of Management (MSM). He has ten years of industrial
experience in CAD/CAM and robotised manufacturing systems. He has been recently a
researcher at the Engineering Department and Fitzwilliam College of Cambridge University
from which he received a Diploma of postgraduate studies in engineering design. He is
currently a PhD Candidate in mechanical engineering working with the International Islamic
University Malaysia (IIUM) and the Center for Sustainable Mobility at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University (Virginia Tech).