Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 607 – 612

49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (CIRP-CMS 2016)

Impact analyses of lean production systems

U. Dombrowski, D. Ebentreich*, P. Krenkel
Institute for Advanced Industrial Management
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 531 391 2722; fax: +49 531 391 8237. E-mail address: d.ebentreich@tu-bs.de

Abstract

Today's business conditions are characterized by increased competition. Therefore, enterprises have to cope with shorter product life
cycles, higher product complexity and more product variants. The reaction of many enterprises is to implement lean production
systems. In the past, methods of Lean Production Systems (LPS) have been used to identify waste in production and product
development processes. Lean offers an approach to eliminate waste and increase customer value in all processes.
The selection of the methods contained in LPS can be individually adapted to the respective requirements and conditions of the
corresponding enterprise. Therefore, the identification of the necessary methods is an individual decision for each LPS. The
consideration of the methods effects within the socio-technical system of a LPS is crucial because the effects of the different LPS
methods provide important information for decision support. Thus, the paper describes the identification of interdependencies and
effects in the LPS using System Dynamics. For this purpose, the modeling process of the method SMED is considered as an example. As
a result, the interdependencies of the methods are identified and the methods with the amount of connections can be determined.

© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (CIRP-CMS 2016).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems

Keywords: Lean Production Systems; System Dynamics, SMED

1. Introduction modification if needed. It is now known, that the isolated

Exposed to the global competitive pressure of
continuously changing market conditions, more and more
enterprises face the challenge to lower the costs of
production processes. At the same time, an increase of
requirements concerning flexibility, variant diversity,
complexity of logistics, transparency and short delivery
time along with a customer focus of the organization of
production occurs. [1] Enterprises increasingly encounter
these challenges by designing and introducing individual,
so called lean production system (LPS), which extension
started in the automotive industry. On the basis of the
Toyota Production System, LPS is a specific, methodic
system of rules for an individual, extensive, and
comprehensive formation of business processes. [2] LPS
has an open structure which enables an individual
selection and alignment of methods according to the needs
and circumstances within the specific enterprise. The use
of methods needs a continuous review of efficiency and a
use of methods, which was practiced in the early
beginning of adaption of TPS methods, does not lead to the
desired increase in efficiency [3] and therefore it is
necessary to include technical, organizational, and human
aspects. Specifically, cultural components, like philosophy
are important for the success of LPS. The precise proof of
success and with that the value of LPS could until now
only be given by several practical examples. A detailed
consideration of interdependencies of single methods in a
complex and dynamic system of an enterprise can be
modeled and simulated with system dynamics. For this
purpose, the application of system dynamics for a
qualitative and quantitative analysis of interdependencies
of the method Single-Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) [3]
in the field of LPS will be used for an example in the
following.

2212-8271 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.105
608
2. Lean Production Systems
According to VDI 2870, a LPS is structured into the
hierarchic elements goals, business processes, formal
principles, methods and tools. Goals represent the highest
level and are usually divided into the dimensions quality,
costs, and time within the considered process of order
transaction. They describe the default for all business
processes that are supposed to be structured process-
oriented. Underneath, the formal principles form the
thematic frame for the methods and tools, which
represent the executing part of the production process. [2]
Based on this basic structure of all LPS the methods and
tools will be customized enterprise-specific with regard to
the content. [1] The classification of methods and tools
follows VDI 2870 and leads to the eight principles shown
in figure 1.
The eight principles of LPS
according to the VDI 2870
1 2 3 4
zero defects principle
standardisation
flow principle
pull principle
8 Sobczyk et al. have developed the approach of Value
avoidance of waste
Fig. 1. LPS Principles [2]
3. Individual approaches
The interdependencies between methods in a LPS have
been examined by various authors in individual approaches.
These approaches and their respective priorities are displayed
in Table 1. They can be divided into the categories of
qualitative, quantitative, simulation-based and graphical
approaches.
Qualitative approaches
Karlsson et al. has developed a model to assess the change,
which is caused by the implementation of lean methods. For
this, key figures such as, productivity, quality, lead time or
costs are examined. The effects are measured based on
defined factors. For each considered index a positive or
negative change is defined. [4]
Based on the model of Karlsson et al. a checklist was
developed by Sanchez et al. which also examines the change
through the implementation of lean methods. The total of 36
indicators of the checklist are clustered in the six groups non-
value added activities, continuous improvement,
multifunctional teams, JIT production and supply, supplier
integration and flexible information systems. The result of the
checklist expresses the changes of the respective indicators in
a positive or negative direction. [5]
U. Dombrowski et al. / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 607 – 612
5 6
management by objectives
employee orientation and
continuous improvement
process
Zäh et al. work is based on a literature research by working
out the interrelationships and interdependencies of lean
methods by Ohno, Shingo and Takeda. Based on this, they
have created a system dynamics model for deriving efficient
implementation strategies for lean methods. [6], [7]
Manotas DUQUE ET AL. have developed another
approach built on the previous two, which illustrates the
relationship between lean methods and the result, which
follows out of them. The corporate objectives with respect to
the lean methods are clustered similar to the approach of
Sanchez and Perez, in the five categories avoidance of waste,
continuous improvement, continuous flow after the pull
principle, multifunctional teams and information systems.
Each category is further described by metrics. For example
the continuous flow after the pull principle is described by the
metrics of the lot size or the lead time. The presentation of the
effects of lean methods to the metrics takes place in a positive
or negative notation. [8]
Quantitative approaches
The approach of Lean accounting under Maskell et al. tries
7 to describe the change in accounting with a view to present a
lean company caused through the introduction of LPS
visual management
methods. Because of the difficulty measuring the short term
financial success the tool "Box Score" was developed. The
tool is based on a model which includes actual and financial
effects. With the comparison of the actual with the future
(after the introduction of the Lean method) and the long-term
targets, it is possible to clarify the degree of target
achievement. [9]
Stream Cost Map. The basic idea is to extend the method of
Value Stream Mapping (Value Stream Map) by selected
modules which describes explicit ongoing the state of the
production system. The performance is evaluated on the
financial impact of changes. The module balance sheet- and
inventory valuation and resources are complemented by a
fifth module which leaves scope for more individual metrics.
All types of costs, which can be assigned to the single or
multiple value streams (except material costs), must be
regarded as period costs. The module of the balance sheet-
and inventory valuation contains statements about the value of
the inventory, income, cost of sales, the total cost and the
proceeds. The module resources includes beside the use of
company resources, the use of labour measured in units of
time and is also divided into the six components production,
overproduction, set-up, stop, failure and inactivity. Based on
this data, combined with the module costs, a statement about
the cost of waste can be made. [10]
The method of Lean cost management, which was
developed at the Lean Management Institute in Aachen is
presented by Feldmann. It is a method that tries to make
potentials and successes of implementing lean methods visible
by complementing the usual cost allocation sheet by two
tools. At first the values of settlement that divides the costs
into overcapacity, inefficiency and necessary wastage.
Secondly, the value cockpit gets visible, which makes non-
monetary effects and successes, such as delivery capability or
lead time transparent. The consequences of the use of lean
 U. Dombrowski et al. / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 607 – 612 609

methods are illustrated by the cost reduction by avoiding
waste. [11]
Simulation-Based Approaches
An approach for simulation-based benefits determining of
the use of Lean methods in the assembly has been developed
by Detty et al. It is based on a discrete event-driven
simulation that compares the status quo of the system with the
system, in which a lean method is used. Through the
possibilities of simulation, a direct comparison of the systems
can be realized, which is not possible under real conditions. It
also contains the influence of warehousing, inventory
management, transportation and production control. By the
simulation key indicators of the systems, such as the average
lead time, inventory quantity, the utilization ratio and other
can be determined. The comparison of these key indicators
delivers a statement about the success of the lean methods.
[12]
Abdulmalek et al. tracks a similar goal with the simulation-
based comparison of the simulation-based models before and
after the implementation of a lean method. For this purpose
they first created a value stream analysis, which displays the
waist by showing optimization needs. On this basis, a
selection of appropriate Lean methods is made. Out of this a
value stream map of the new potential production system is
created. Based on these data a simulation model can be
created, which also includes uncertain and dynamic aspects of
the production system. A quantification of the success shows
up by comparing the models before and after the introduction.
[13]
Peter describes a simulation-based method to evaluate and
optimize the effects of lean methods on the basis of quantified
interdependencies in small series production. In the first step a
realistic simulation is created. With the aid of a qualitative
made, which measures changes in optimal impact on Lean
metrics. [15]
Jondral developed a methodology for simulation-based
optimization and economic evaluation of the efficiency
improvement of production with lean methods. The
methodology is divided into three phases. In the first phase,
all data are collected for the specification of the production
system and are selected by a Lean check appropriate method.
In the second phase the simulation and optimization model is
build. The model delivers a comparison of key factors for a
monetary valuation of the LPS methods. This provides
decision makers the opportunity to analyze the realization of
methods and there achievable effects to minimize the business
risk. [16]
Graphical Approaches
Rivera introduces the approach of creating a cost-time
profile to show the effects of lean methods. For this, the
temporal data about the production process with all the
activities, delays, material approvals and the relevant costs
have to be present. Based on this data basis, the cost can be
determined per unit of time and there accumulated history can
be presented graphically. The area under the curve represents
the cost-time-investment. This combines the evaluation
criteria of time and costs and highlights a reduction lead time
with constant total costs. The smaller the area, the smaller the
cost-time investment. The direct comparison of the situation
before and after the introduction of Lean methods in a chart,
delivers a statement about the advantages of the used method.
[17]
Table 1. Overview about the previous approaches for creating efficiency
evidence
criteria

Both positive and negative

Consideration of methods
Use of System dynamics

Comparison of complete

representation of the interdependencies of the individual lean

Justification of relations

Consideration of LPS-
relationships between
Consideration of the

individual elements

methods, the methods are selected and integrated into the

impact relations
concepts
model, which are conducive for the corporate goals. Through

principles

and tools
systems

a sensitivity analysis the effect of each method is quantified to

the targets. Through these potentials of the current system Qualitative approaches
production system can be identified. Finally, by using 1. Karlsson; Ählström, 1996 [4]
2.Sanchez; Perez, 2001 [5]
optimization software the effect of the combinations of 3.Zäh; Aull, 2006 [6]
various lean methods can be examined and evaluated with 4.Aull, 2013 [7]
5. Manotas; Rivera, 2007 [8]
respect to the target function. [14] Quantitative approaches
6. Maskell; Baggaley, 2004 [9]
One approach for simulation-based development and 7. Sobczyk; Koch, 2008 [10]
evaluation of production systems by using Lean metrics is 8. Feldmann, 2009 [11]
Simulation-Based Approaches
introduced by Al-Aomar. Lean metrics such as productivity, 9. Detty; Yingling, 2000 [12]
lead time or circulating stocks are helping the description of 10. Abdulmale; Rajgopal, 2007
[13]
the production system and are forming the basis for the 11. Peter, 2011 [14]
12. Al-Aomar, 2010 [15]
decision of this approach. In consideration of the influence of 13. Jondral, 2013 [16]
dynamic and stochastic structures, the target production Graphical Approaches
14. Rivera, 2006 [17]
system is modeled under the use of discrete event-driven
legend: 2 contemplation 0 partly contemplation
simulation. Building on this basis, the use of various lean
Previous approaches to create efficiency evidence appear
methods can be performed to identify the specific Lean
that only the method System Dynamics by Hardy and Aull
metrics. Based on defined target functions as a minimum
has been used. It shows that the methodology is
circulating stocks or a profit function, which also includes
fundamentally suitable for the modeling of methods and tools
inventory costs in addition to the revenues, the simulated
of lean production systems. Further, many of the approaches
annealing method is used. Through the interactive cooperation
carry out the comparison of entire systems without examining
with the simulation model it is possible to search for the
the impact of lean methods among themselves. Therefore,
optimal balance of lean metrics. Finally, a statement can be
only a few reasons for the effects between different methods
610
are presented. Here again, only Zäh and Aull identified some
influences by literature review and expert interviews. These
are exclusively positive because they only are described with
one another supportive influences. Specific mathematical
relationships that would be necessary in the quantitative
modeling of LPS, have not been established yet. A necessary
data base for the development of mathematical relationships is
missing.
4. System Dynamics
Originally developed as a control cycle-based model of
behavior of social structure, system dynamics now
represents a method to simulate and analyze different
systems. [18] The control cycle as basic element of the
method describes a loop of cause and effect, in which
decisions are connected to actions, systems status and
conditions and where information about the system status
is reported back to the point of decision. [19] Through the
use of the method, influences of business strategy and
time lag of decisions can be overviewed as a whole. The
information network, that connects the single activities,
generates the dynamic system behavior. [18] Because of
the structural conditions of the system behavior, system
dynamics examines the interdependence between
different components of the model. The aim is the analysis
of the relationship between system structure and system
behavior of complex systems through simulation. [18]
The process of modeling by Sterman views the
procedure as a 5 step circle of iteration (figure 2). The
circle commences with the identification of the problem
(step 1), which includes the description of the problem
and of the purpose of modeling to define the system
boundaries and key variables. [21]
1. Identification of the
problem
5. Using the model for
decision support
2. Model
2 M
hypothesis
4. Validation
l ti
3. Simulation
model
Possible relations of iterations
Fig. 2. Modeling process by Sterman [20]
Because of the complexity, it is preferred to model
multiple small sub models for each sub problem, rather
than one big model. The whole model can then be
constructed through the connection of all the sub models.
[20] In the second step a model of hypothesis for each
identified problem is constructed (Step 2). The system´s
basic structure will be analyzed to identify the relevant
cause and effect relations. The visualization then follows
by a causal diagram, in which the relations are illustrated
by arrows. [21] The type of correlation is defined
according to the following rule:
U. Dombrowski et al. / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 607 – 612
For rectified (+) relationships apply [22]:
x If X increases, then Y rises above a value, that Y would
accept without modification of X.
x If X decreases, then falls below a Y value, that Y would
accept without modification of X.
For opposite (-) relationships apply [22]:
x If X increases, then decreases Y below a value, that Y
would accept without modification of X.
x If X decreases, then Y rises above a value, that Y would
accept without modification of X.
By formalizing the single interdependences by the basis
of a system of equations, which is intended to reflect the
dynamic system behavior as realistically as possible, a
simulation model is created (Step 3). This step includes
the preparation of equations and the definition of
parameters and initial conditions. [20] On the basis of the
verification the system of equations is checked for a
function without errors. The validation of the simulation
model ensures that the results are sufficiently accurate to
describe the real system behavior (step 4). [23] Finally,
the verified and validated model can be used as a tool for
decision support (step 5). Because of the simulation
character the model provides a fast, economical and safe
way to evaluate alternative. [24]
5. Modeling the LPS
The aim of using the method System Dynamics in the
environment of LPS is to analyze the influence of selected
parameters and elements on defined command variables.
Because of the individual combination of the methods
every LPS is different and adopted to the enterprise.
Therefore, it is the best way to develop individual models
which can be modular combined. In a second step, these
of
models can be grouped together by their mutual
interdependence. The method modeling is described
below by using the LPS-method Single-Minute Exchange of
Die (SMED). SMED is a method of lean production systems,
with the goal to reduce the set-up time by optimizing the
set-up process. Therefore, the internal set-up times are
converted into external set-up times. In addition, a
continuous optimization of both set-up process types is
striven to reduce the overall set-up time. [3]
If the problem identification describes a high existing
set-up time, the influencing factors on the reduction of set-
up time need to be identified by the SMED method.
Therefore, the model must include elements, which
present the number of SMED applications and about the
internal, external and overall set-up time. Important
influencing factors on the reduction of set-up times is the
conversion of internal to external set-up time and the
number of optimizations and their effectiveness. Based on
these considerations, a causal graph can be developed, in
which the respective relationships between the elements
are displayed. The effects of any relationship are to
 U. Dombrowski et al. / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 607 – 612 611

characterize as either positive or negative. Based on the The internal set-up time (ܷܵܶ௜௡ ) added to the external
causal diagram, all variables are classified by their set-up time per procedure gives the set-up time (ܷܵܶ).
characters into state variables, flow size or auxiliary The control loop closes with the change of the set-up time.
variables. This flow chart is shown in Figure 3.
ܷܵܶ ൌ ܷܵܶ௘௫ ൅ ܷܵܶ௜௡ (4)

The verification of the created model is based on the

review of the stored equation system. Therefore, the
number of
optimizations
(external) effectiveness of optimization factor
the optimization
(external)
(external)
set-up time
relationships between the individual system elements are
verified on their units to their logical connection. The
external set-up
time per week
external
set-up time
review of the present system of equations leads to the
conclusion that there are no incorrect combinations.
Optimization
of the external
target set-up time
The validation of the model is based on an analysis of
number of set-up
the system behaviour with different parameters.
conversion factor
conversion from processes
internal/external
internal to external

Therefore, the parameter number of optimizations

set-up time
realized SMED number of
SMED Workshops optimizations

(external), the number of optimizations (internal), the

Workshops (internal)

internal set-up internal

optimization
time per week set-up time
optimization factor (external) and the optimization factor
(internal) were increased by 20 % and decreased by 20 %
of the internal
set-up time

as compared to the initial situation (trend scenario). The

effectiveness of
the optimization
(internal)
Fig. 3. Model of the SMED method
optimization factor
(internal)
results for the average set-up time and the number of
realized SMED workshops are illustrated in Fig. 4.
a b

In the following step, the model was quantified by a

Minutes/Set-up process Set-up time Realized SMED Workshops
Workshops
200 11

formal description of all effect relationships. The resulting

180 10
160 9
140 8

system of equations should depict the dynamic system 120

100
7
6

behavior of a real system as closely as possible. An

5
80
4
60 3

exemplary formalization of relations effect is described by

40 2
20 1
0 0

the red marked loop in Figure 3. The rate variable SMED 0 1 2

Trend scenario
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Week
12 0 1 2
Trend scenario
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Week
12

Workshops (ܹܵௌொ஽ ) describes the temporal variation of

- 20% - 20%
+ 20% + 20%

the number of SMED applications. It results from the

comparison of the set-up time (SUT) with the target time Fig. 4. Simulation results (a) Set-up time (b) Realized SMED Workshops
(TT). A positive difference results in the need for action to
carry out a SMED workshop: An increase of the parameter values number of
optimizations of internal and external set-up procedures
ͳǣܷܵܶ െ ܶܶ ൐ Ͳ as well as the external and internal optimization factors
ܹܵௌொ஽ ቄ (1)
Ͳǣܷܵܶ െ ܶܶ ൑ Ͳ shows in the results, that the simulated system behaviour
decreases the average set-up time (+ 20 %) compared to
The optimization of the external set-up time (ୣ୶ ) is
the initial situation (trend scenario). The third curve (- 20
also a rate variable. The conversion from internal to
%) shows a slowly declining average setup time reduction
external set-up time ( ୗ୙୘೔೙ିௌ௎்೐ೣ ) counteracts the
in the mentioned parameters. This change of system
reduction in the external set-up time by the product of
behavior corresponds to the expectations of the real
number of optimizations (ܱ௘௫ ) and the effectiveness of
system behavior because the four varied parameters have
optimizations (‫ܧ‬௘௫ ). The change of the external set-up
a significantly influence on the effectiveness of the
time arises in the present model out of the context:
implementation of an SMED method. In addition, the
number of SMED workshops is displayed over time in Fig.
ܱܷܵܶ௘௫ ൌ ܹܵௌொ஽ ൈ ሺௌ௎்೔೙ିௌ௎்೐ೣ െ ܱ௘௫ ൈ ‫ܧ‬௘௫ ሻ (2)
4. These results also describe the expected course by
changing the parameters. Increasing the parameter
The Division of the external set-up time per week describes an increase in effectiveness, because of the
(ܷܹܵܶ௘௫ ) with the number of set-up procedures (ܷܵܲ) smaller number of SMED workshops to reach the same
gives the external set-up time per procedure (ܷܵܶ௘௫ ). goals (+ 20 %). In the opposite the necessary number of
ܷܵܶ௘௫ ൌ
ௌ௎்ௐ೐ೣ
(3) SMED workshops increases with a decrease in the
ௌ௎௉ parameter (- 20 %) compared to the trend scenario.
612 U. Dombrowski et al. / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 607 – 612
Table 2. Development of the set-up time
Average set –up time [min/set-up process]
Time[Weeks]
-20% Trend scenario
0 180,00 180,00
1 130,08 102,00
2 92,34 58,80
3 64,65 34,32
4 44,76 20,21
5 30,72 11,97
6 20,92 7,12
7 14,16 4,25
8 9,53 4,25
9 6,38 4,25
10 4,26 4,25
11 4,26 4,25
12 4,26 4,25
Table 2 shows, how the average set-up time of the
model is reduced regardless of the change in each of the
four parameters from 180min to a value from 3.04 to 4.26.
These values are close to 2.5 % of the initial time (4,5min),
which are described in the literature as a possible
potential for improvement. [3] Hence, the results of the
model can display a real system behavior.
With this result the generated model can be considered
as validated and verified, because it works with regard to
the examined behavior and produces realistic results. An
empirical analysis of the model and an extension to a
whole lean production system is still pending. Based on a
secured data base, a dynamic system model like that can
help by analyzing and comparing different alternatives for
decision support, the fifth step of the modeling process.
6. Conclusion
The article describes the modeling of individual
methods of lean production systems by using System
Dynamics in a five-step modeling loop. After the system is
demarcated and defined on the basis of the problem
identification, the individual effect relationship can be
determined between the elements and characterized
according to their mode of action as the same or opposite
directed in a causal diagram. On this basis, a quantification
of the model is possible. This is done through the
formalization of single effect relationships based on an
individual database collection. After a sufficient
verification and validation of the model, it can be used as a
tool for decision support. This method provides a fast,
cost-effective and low-risk opportunity to influence
analysis of individual system elements of lean production
systems. Beyond the potential of System Dynamics
modeling the impact of interdependence of individual
methods can be examined more closely to each other. This
represents a further step towards the impact-modeling of
LPS. Therefore, a procedure is recommended, starting
with small models of methods towards linking them to one
another, to eventually map the dynamics of a LPS.
References
+20%
180,00 [1] Dombrowski, U.; Mielke, T.: Ganzheitliche Produktionssysteme. Berlin
67,68 Springer, 2015.
33,22 [2] Verein Deutscher Ingenieure: Lean production systems – basic principles,
introduction, and review. Band 1. Berlin: Beuth Verlag 2012.
17,87
[3] Shingo, S.: A Revolution in Manufacturing: The SMED System.
9,86 Cambridge: Productivity Press 1985
5,47 [4] Karlsson, C. ; Ahlström, P.: Assessing changes towards Lean Production.
3,04 Int J O& Prod Mgt. 1996; 2, p.24-41.
3,04
[5] Sanchez, A. M.; Perez, M. P.: Lean indicators and manufacturing
strategies. Int J of O & Prod Mgt. 2001; 11, p.1433-1452. MCB
3,04
University Press 2001.
3,04 [6] Zäh, M.; Aull, F.: Lean Production-Methoden und Interdependenzen. wt
3,04 Werkstattstechnik Online. 2006; 9, p.683-687.
3,04 [7] Aull, F.: Modell zur Ableitung effizienter Implementierungsstrategien für
Lean-Production-Methoden. München: Herbert Utz Verlag 2013.
3,04
[8] Manotas Duque, D. F.; Rivera Cadavid, L.: Lean manufacturing
measurement: the relationship between lean activities and lean metrics.
Estudios Gerenciales. 2007; 105, p.69-83.
[9] Maskell, B.; Baggaley, B.: Practical Lean Accounting - A Proven System
for Measuring and Managing the Lean Enterprise. New York:
Productivity Press 2004.
[10] Sobczyk, T.; Koch, T.: A Method for Measuring Operational and
Financial Per-formance of a Production Value Stream. In: Koch, T.
(Hrsg.): Lean Business Systems and Beyond. Boston: Springer 2008.
[11] Feldmann, M.: Lean cost management - Auswirkungen von
Leanmaßnahmen erfassen. http://www.industrieanzeiger.de/management/-
/article/12503/26675186/Verschwendung-wird-
greifbar/art_co_INSTANCE_ 0000/maximized/2009. Stand: 24.04.2014.
[12] Detty, R. B.; Yingling, J. C.: Quantifying benefits of conversion to lean
manufacturing with discrete event simulation - a case study. Int J of Prod
Res. 2000; 2: p. 429-445.
[13] Abdulmalek, F. A.; Rajgopal, J.: Analyzing the benefits of
leanmanufacturing and value stream mapping via simulation – A process
sector case study. Int J of Prod Eco 2007; 107: p.223-236.
[14] Peter, K.; Lanza, G.: Company-specific quantitative evaluation of lean
production methods. Prod Eng. WGP 2011; 5, p.81-87.
[15] AI-Aomar, R.: Handling multi-lean measures with simulation and
simulated annealing. J of the Franklin Inst. Elsevier B.V., 2010; 348, p.
1506/1522.
[16] Jondral, A., G.: Simulationsgestützte Optimierung und
Wirtschaftlichkeitsbewertung des Lean-Methodeneinsatzes. Aachen:
Shaker Verlag 2013.
[17] Rivera, L.: Chen, F. F.: Measuring the impact of Lean tools on the cost-
time investment of a product using cost-time profiles. Robotics and
Computer-lntegrated Manufacturing. Elsevier, 2007; 23; p. 684/689.
[18] Kurz, W.: Industrial Dynamics - Eine Einführung aus dem Bereich der
erstmaligen Installation einer elektronischen Datenverarbeitungsanlage.
Dissertation der Universität Mannheim. Mannheim: 1970.
[19] Forrester, J. W.: Principles of systems. Massachusetts: Pegasus
Communications 1968.
[20] Sterman, J.: Business Dynamics - System Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill 2000.
[21] Sandrock, J.: System Dynamics in der strategischen Planung. 1. Auflage.
Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag 2006.
[22] Richardson, G. P.: Problems with casual-loop diagrams. System
Dynamics Society, System Dynamics Review 2. (1986) 2, p.158-170.
[23] Milling, P.: Der technische Fortschritt beim Produktionsprozess - Ein
dynamisches Modell für innovative Industrieunternehmen. Wiesbaden:
Gabler Verlag 1974.
[24] Bossel, H.: Modellbildung und Simulation – Konzepte, Verfahren und
Modelle zum Verhalten dynamischer Systeme. Braunschweig: Vieweg
Verlag 1992.