Proceedings of the 2009 Industrial Engineering Research Conference

An Integrated Change Framework for Setup Reduction

Dirk Van Goubergen Department of Industrial Management Ghent University, B-9052 Zwijnaarde, Belgium

Abstract
Most publications on setup reduction are limited to describing the different 'technical' steps of the method with limited attention to implementation aspects. A broader approach is needed including a focus on change management. In this paper we will propose a framework that ties these different elements together in a concise and coherent approach that is broader than what currently can be found in the literature. A practical application will be shown.

Keywords
Change Management, TransMeth, Changeover reduction methodology

1. Introduction
As the output capacity of machines has been improved over the last decades due to technological improvements machines have become larger and faster - , the required volume of each product separately is in most cases lower than this available capacity. Hence, machines are used to produce different product types or different product variants within one product family. Every time the production of a series of products A is stopped, there will be some activities that need to be carried out in order to change the configuration or the settings of the machine to be able to produce a series of another product B. This is called a set-up or a changeover. The need for short set-up times is certainly not a recent phenomenon. During a set-up no parts are being produced so this downtime is regarded as non value-added. Traditionally the way set-ups were performed, did not receive a lot of attention. Set-ups were considered as a given, a necessary evil with which you had to learn to live [1]. This resulted in the production of large batch sizes to minimize the share of the set-up cost in the total direct production cost [2,3]. The total annual set-up cost was typically minimized by reducing the number of set-ups [4]. Since the publication of [5] almost 20 years ago, there has been a shift in thinking. Shingo proved that set-up times can be reduced drastically. Since then set-up times are no longer considered as fixed [6].

2. The need for a broader framework

2.1 Set-Up Reduction implies a change A set-up is defined as all the activities that are needed to switch from producing a product A to another product B. The quality of a set-up, being how fast and how good is the set-up performed, is determined by three key elements [7]: technical aspects related to the design of the equipment and tools, the organization of the work (who does what when) and the method used (how). Many people that are confronted with long set-up times, initially focus only on the technical aspects. However, proper attention needs also to be given to the method and organization aspect. Although some researchers state that design solutions are better on the long term [8], we have seen machines that have a very set-up friendly design and that are technically sound in several situations in industry, but where the improvement had to be looked for in the work method and work organisation (which are mostly also quite cheap solutions). Upton [9] confirms that design solutions are not enough to solve the problem. All three key elements have to be optimized. The final necessary condition for having a good quality set-up is the motivation of the people performing the set-up. These usually are production operators or sometimes machine setters from the technical/maintenance department. Even with a perfectly-designed machine, made to enable fast set-ups, and the most efficient method and organization of work, described in a set-up instruction, there will be no good set-up if the people who have to perform the work do not see the importance of a short set-up or are not motivated or trained to obtain short set-up

times. This motivation is also determined by the appropriate training. This all implies not only technical but even more important cultural changes. 2.2 Discussion of existing methodologies in the literature SMED, which stands for Single Minute Exchange of Die, is the first methodology for set-up reduction that has been published [5]. This process itself consists of 4 phases and 3 steps Some authors propose an approach for set-up reduction that is broader than just applying Shingos different principles and steps for improvement. Most of them propose only initial steps or prerequisites before SMED is applied: The Bath overall methodology, described in [10], consists of 3 steps and a continuous improvement feedback loop between the last two phases: - Phase 1: strategic phase: review business policy, financial benefit analysis; set targets, etc. - Phase 2: Preparatory phase: conduct operation audit, develop operational strategy; set local targets - Phase 3: Implementation phase: implement and monitor. Basically, the SMED steps are encompassed in phase 2 and 3. In [11] Hay proposes 6 steps in his approach: - Initial planning and getting started: choose the equipment to be worked on, the project teamleader, members of the team, set targets and milestones - Preparing the workforce: explain to the entire workforce the importance of setup reduction, the reason for videotaping, the role of the employees - Videotape the setup: - Analysing the setup - Training the setup team - Meeting teams to generate ideas and implement improvements A framework for prerequisite requirements, called SMED-ZERO is discussed in [12]. Four important areas are covered: Teamwork approach to communication, performance measurement, visual factory control and finally kaizen with a view to simplifying both assessment and measurement. The importance of some elements of these areas is also acknowledged by other authors. 1) Use of teamwork approach to communication: several aspects are identified: - Management commitment: This is an essential element for all change processes, so also for set-up reduction and must be disseminated throughout the workforce. If you want that everyone takes the matter seriously, set-up reduction must be viewed as an important issue[13]. It can certainly not be a flavor of the month issue, but it needs to be a part of a broader, overall manufacturing strategy [14]. - Employee role: the expertise and opinions of the employees form the key to a SMED project. Involving the workforce is indeed a constant element in many publications (among which [2,15]). The operators play a key role, since they are the experts by virtue of their intimate familiarity with all the practical day-to-day details of the situation [13] Ultimately they also have to implement the improved method, hence involving these people will increase the level of acceptance of the new way of doing set-ups. According to [16] there are also indirect benefits from involving these people: based upon an action research case study the author noticed that by involving employees, the staff became aware of the competitive environment and the problems and pressures that their industry was facing; they understood the greater value of systematic enquiry as part of a problem solving process. This way passive and subjugated people became valuable contributors for ideas and implementation. A team approach is most commonly suggested [17]. - Employee meetings: need to be held on a regular basis. Although involving people from different shifts can be a challenge from an organizational point of view, it is very beneficial to the improvement process, as is shown in [12] Our practical experience in several projects acknowledges this. Only this way solutions that are accepted across all shifts can be obtained; and this is the final goal: an improved and standardized set-up reduction method. - Dedicated meeting place 2) Performance measurement: Management must set realistic targets in order to define what needs to be achieved. Our experience shows that during the improvement process it is important to communicate this target in order to be able to decide on improvement initiatives using cost/benefit analysis. 3) Visual Factory Control: Relying to much on verbal communication, i.e., regarding production schedules, causes problems of relaying information between individuals (it can be time consuming,

often duplicated and subject to forgetfulness [12]). A visual control board can be used to trigger the next order. 4) Kaizen: based upon a problem solving training which must be given to the operators, dedicated storyboards for employees outside the team and continued management support. We want to stress the importance of the preparatory work: Set-up reduction is not a goal in itself; it is a means to an end. We need to identify the specific change triggers and potential benefits in every situation in order to decide that set-up reduction is the right way to solve a problem and in order to set sound set-up reduction targets. A last aspect that is lacking in the current approaches is a detailed and structured focus on implementation. Most attention is paid to the way how to design a new set-up method, implementation aspects are not discussed, or only in a very limited way. [15] states that in the implementation phase the new set-up procedure must be documented in order to hold the gains. Only [18] provides detailed implementation steps.

3. TSR TransMeth for Set-Up Reduction

In this section we will propose a broader methodology that ties these different elements together in a concise and coherent approach, in which of course the set-up reduction method itself (SMED) , is a key element. For this purpose we will adapt the overall transformation methodology TransMeth or Transformation Methodology that was developed at the Enterprise Engineering and Research Laboratory (EERL) of the Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Virginia Tech (Blacksburg, VA, USA). More details on this methodology and applications can be found in [19-21] Figure 1 provides an overview of the different steps of TransMeth. Although these steps are depicted in a discrete way, activities can span several steps at the same time and one can iterate back and forth between steps if needed in order to make refinements [19-20].

Understanding Need for Change Analyzing Current Situation Creating Infrastructure for Change Setting Direction for Change Defining Improvement Initiatives Deploying & Implementing Initiatives Reviewing Progress and Results

Figure 1: Transformation Methodology [19] 1. Understanding the need for change: Why do we need to change? The first step consists of identifying the overall problem. The organizational members need to define the reasons why change is needed in the current situation. Is the market (customers or competitors) forcing the organization to achieve a better performance in the area of flexibility, quality, cost or delivery performance? Are there any problems with long lead times, high inventories, lost orders, direct production cost, etc. ? Is there a capacity shortage on a specific machine or machine line? These are change triggers that form an immediate threat to the existence of an organization. Other reasons for change can be more future oriented. The organization is performing well according to the current market situation, but there is a need for continuous improvement in order to hold the current market position and stay ahead of competition in the future. This is typically a task that needs to be executed by Management, as they set the strategy and have access to all the necessary data to identify the reasons for change. It is advisable to illustrate these change triggers with figures. This way it will be easier to communicate the importance of the problem to the different stakeholders in a next step. 2. Analyzing the current situation: Where are we now? In this step we need to identify if the problems that are stated in step 1 are indeed related to long set-ups. This does not necessarily have to be the case; but if so, we can identify which set-ups on which machines or machine lines are a root

cause and hence need to be reduced. In order to set the current baseline we need to know the current set-up times on the resources that were identified before. In some cases this data is available but not visualized. If not, we should start measuring the downtimes due to set-ups according to our definition. 3. Setting the direction for change: Where do we want to go? Based on the change triggers identified in the first step and the relationship with the set-up times in the second step, a target for the set-up reduction can be set. This target can be twofold and can consist of a target for the downtime and a target for the start-up performance. Setting the target is an important step since it will be used when performing the cost/benefit analysis of the different improvement proposals later on. 4. Defining improvement initiatives: How will we get there? After identifying the need for set-up reduction on a specific machine of machine line and setting the target we can proceed with SMED. As stated before, all steps of TransMeth do not need to be followed consecutively: going back and forth for certain actions is allowed. For example, we do not have to wait with the implementation of the results of SMED step 1 until the whole SMED analysis is finished. So, while some actions related to the implementation of the improved set-up method after step 1 are taken (and that resort under the next step), there are still actions performed in this step according to the proposed set-up method. 5. Deploying and implementing initiatives: How can we successfully implement? The results of performing SMED step 1 in the set-up reduction effort can be implemented right away. Results of SMED step 2-3 will be known later in the process and will likely have a more technical nature. An implementation plan needs to be made since all technical modifications will most likely not be executed at the same time and the implementation can take some time. Depending on the complexity of the proposals, different steps and phases need to be identified. Determining milestones and assigning problem owners to every specific action item on the implementation plan is a necessary condition for obtaining a sound implementation. 6. Reviewing progress and results: How will we know if we are getting there? The implementation of all improvements must be carried out according to the Plan-Do-Check-Act philosophy. After every implementation the improvement needs to be checked to see if the planned reduction is actually obtained. If not, an update of the improvement initiative must be made. Additional actions need to be taken to examine why the target was not achieved and to solve the problems. It is a good idea to agree on scheduling regular review meetings where these issues are discussed. Very important during this stage is the visualization of the set-up times and their evolution. Set-up times have to be measured and portrayed in a graph. All reductions will not be obtained immediately after the implementation of a proposal due to the effect of the learning curve, but the trend towards the target has to be visible. If measured set-up times show an unexpected trend, action needs to be taken. Additionally, lessons learned can be captured that can increase the effectiveness of a future, similar set-up reduction improvement initiative on another machine. A second review process can be performed on the overall improvement effort and the way how TSR itself was deployed: what has worked and what needs to be adjusted and can be improved. This will truly create a learning effect on how to conduct set-up reduction efforts. Finally, a last element of this step is the rewarding of success. Creating infrastructure for change This step is portrayed in the center of Figure 1 since the corresponding actions will be executed at different points in time throughout the whole transformation process as they are needed. The outputs of this step will support and interface with all other steps in order to guide, direct and support the overall transformation effort. In this case: - Stakeholder management and alignment: Communication of the change triggers and improvement initiatives to the different persons that are involved (upper management, operators across different shifts, team leaders, technical department, planning department, quality department, sales department, etc.). This can happen on regular basis to report the status of the improvement initiative. Additional comments and suggestions of the stakeholders can be shared and discussed. This way we can create an overall commitment and involvement across all stakeholders. - Design of a visible performance measurement system portraying set-up time data: in order to visualize the setup time base line that was determined in the step Analyzing the current situation and track the effects of the implementation of the different improvement initiatives in the step Reviewing progress and performance. - Design of the improvement team: project leader, team members that will perform the set-up reduction project in the step defining improvement initiatives. Roles can be defined. - Creating a team charter for the improvement initiative: this will state a clear definition of the initiative, scope/boundaries, roles, milestones, measures for success.

Education of the improvement team on the set-up reduction method and additional IE tools for the step Defining improvement initiatives. Training all operators in order to learn the improved set-up method. This will support the step Deploying and implementing initiatives.

TSR (TransMeth for Set-Up Reduction) remedies the lack of a consistent and complete approach that was identified in the current literature.

4. TSR Case study application

TSR has been successfully used in several set-up reduction projects. One case study in a food processing plant in Belgium, producing a snack food product on a single production line, is chosen as an illustration of TSR. Table 1: TSR Application - Summary Case Study The company was facing an increasing demand for the snack product. Plans were studied to build a second production line in order to have additional production capacity. A second change trigger was the need for flexibility. In the current situation the product was produced in 6 flavours, once every week. However, the marketing plan stated an increase to 11 flavours, produced every week. An analysis showed clearly that a substantial part of the available capacity was lost due to set-ups. The current set-up took about 2.5 hours and was conducted by 13 persons. The cost of lost production and the cost of the downtime were calculated (about 2000k /year). Also for the second change trigger a shorter set-up was needed. After introduction of the new flavours (with the given set-up times) the cost of lost capacity and downtime would increase to about 3800k/year An improvement team was established composed of operators of the three shifts, technical people, an industrial engineer, the production area manager and an external set-up reduction specialist. Engineering people were involved during the improvement process when needed. The plant management did not set a specific target for this set-up reduction effort. The more the downtime could to be reduced, the better. It is obvious that there still would be a cost/benefit analysis on the proposed improvements. After SMED step 1 the downtime was reduced with 60%, resulting in about 60 minutes with only 11 people. After SMED step 2-3 the set-up time was further reduced to 30 minutes with 7 people. The new method after applying SMED step 1 was immediately implemented. For the technical proposals, an implementation plan was developed. The set-up times were tracked. A trial run after SMED step 1 confirmed the anticipated result. However the need for the second machine line became more urgent. Besides the second line, additional equipment was added to the first line. Despite the change of the overall layout, the technical proposals were all implemented. Extra parts were bought as well as an extra coating machine. The set-up methods were analyzed again to incorporate the extra activities due to the layout changes. Firstly the downtime became 30 minutes with 9 persons. After a second complete analysis one year later, finally the change-over downtime went even more down to about 20 minutes with 7 persons. This project also clearly illustrates the fact that a review with a PDCA approach is necessary for the follow-up of the implementation. For example, although the fact that the target for exchanging the coating unit was set to 5 minutes and that this target was communicated to the engineering people, after implementation the exchange took more than 10 minutes. Once this problem was identified, corrective action was taken.

TSR Methodology Step (Key questions addressed) Understanding the Need for Change (Why do we need to change?) Analyzing the Current Situation (Where are we now?)

Creating the Infrastructure for Change (How will we support change?) Setting the Direction for Change (Where do we want to go?) Defining Improvement Initiatives (How will we get there?) Deploying and Implementing Initiatives Reviewing Progress and Results (How will we know if we are getting there?)

5. Summary
In this paper we discussed the lack of an overall change methodology for set-up reduction. We proposed the use of TransMeth. Adapted to set-up reduction problems, it provides an integrated, comprehensive and structured framework for transformation and improvement efforts. All different aspects of a set-up reduction initiative are covered: the linkage of the set-up reduction initiative to a higher level need for improvement the analysis of the current set-up method and the design of an improved set-up method the (staged) implementation and the review/assessment of the effectiveness of the improvement proposals and their implementation

References
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Hahn, C. K., D. J. Bragg and D.Shin (1988). "Impact of the setup variable on capacity and inventory decisions." Academy of Management Review 13(1): 91-103. Hay, E. J. (1987). Any machine set-up can be reduced by 75%. Industrial Engineering. 19: 62-67. Cavinato, J. (1991). Logistic Tools: Lowering set-up costs. Distribution. 90: 52-54. Nicholas, J. (1998). Competitive Manufacturing Management, IRWIN/McGraw-Hill Shingo, S. (1985). A revolution in Manufacturing: the SMED system. Cambridge, MA, Productivity Press. Olhager, J. and B. Rapp (1991). "Set up reduction and inventory turnover rate." International Journal of Production Research 29(1): 95-105. Van Goubergen, D. (2000). Set-up reduction as an organization-wide problem. IIE Solutions 2000, Cleveland, OH., USA, Institute of Industrial Engineers. McIntosh, R. I., S. J. Culley, G. Gest, A.R. Mileham and G.W. Owen (1996). "An assessment of the role of design in the improvement of changeover performance." International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16(9): 5-22. Upton, D. M. (1995). "What really makes factories flexible?" Harvard Business Review July-August: 7484. McIntosh, R. I. (1998). The impact of innovative design on fast tool change methodologies. Bath, UK, University of Bath. Hay, E. J. (1989). "Driving down downtime." Manufacturing Engineering 103(3): 41-44. Moxham, C. and R. Greatbanks (2001). "Prerequisites for the implementation of the SMED methodology." International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 18(4): 404-414. Johansen, P. and K. J. McGuire (1986). A lesson in SMED with Shigeo Shingo. Industrial Engineering. 18: 26-33. Robbins, R. M. (1989). "Quick changeovers - fast paybacks." Manufacturing Systems 53(3): 53-55. Claunch, J. W. and J. C. Claunch (1996). Set-up time reduction. New York, Irwin Professional. Gilmore, M. and D. J. Smith (1996). "Set-up reduction In pharmaceutical manufacturing: an action research study." International Journal of Operations and Production Management 16(3): 4-17. Robbins, R. M. (1989). "Quick changeovers - fast paybacks." Manufacturing Systems 53(3): 53-55. Shirahama (2001). Setup time reduction. Maynard's Industrial Engineering Handbook. K. B. Zandin. New York, McGraw-Hill: 4.57-4.80. Van Aken, E., A. F. Rentes, M.R. Butler and D. Mock. (1999). The role of assessment tools in organizational transformation: a manufacturing case example. XIth World Productivity Congress, Edinburgh, Scotland, CD-ROM. Sousa, G. W. L., E. Van Aken and A.F. Rentes. (2001). Using enterprise modeling to facilitate knowledge management in organizational transformation efforts. PICMET, Portland, OR (USA), CD-ROM Van Aken, E., D. Van Goubergen and G. Letens. (2003). "Integrated enterprise transformation: case application in engineering project work in the Belgian armed forces." Engineering Management Journal 15(2): 3-16.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21.