Access to this full-text is provided by SAGE Publications Inc.
Content available from International Journal of Engineering Business Management
This content is subject to copyright.
International Journal of Engineering Business Management
Special Issue on Innovations in Fashion Industry
Layout Design for a Low Capacity
Manufacturing Line: A Case Study
Regular Paper
Filippo De Carlo1,*, Maria Antonietta Arleo2, Orlando Borgia1 and Mario Tucci1
1 University of Florence - Department of Industrial Engineering
2 Politecnico di Milano - Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering
* Corresponding author E-mail: filippo.decarlo@unifi.it
Received 1 June 2013; Accepted 15 July 2013
DOI: 10.5772/56883
© 2013 De Carlo et al.; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
AbstractThelayoutre‐arrangementoffashionproduction
linesrealizingmanysmallbatchesisrarelydeployed
accordingtowell‐knownengineeringprocedures.Infact,it
wouldoftenappeartoocomplextocallaplantengineerfor
theproperlayoutdesignofsuchsmallproductionlines.
Rather,itispreferredtoapplyempiricalmethodologies
whenconsidering,generally,factoryknow‐how,general
businessneeds,safetyrequirements,andsoon.Inthe
presentwork,theresultsofafashionmanufacturingline
re‐layoutwerecomparedbyanalysingthecurrentsituation
withthesolutionsprovidedbya ʺhomemadeʺ company
design,boththroughasystematiclayoutplanning
approachandabroaderleanreengineeringactivity.
Inordertoevaluatetheeffectivenessofeachsolution,the
differentalternativeswerecomparedwiththehelpofa
discreteeventsimulator,analysingproductivity,
transportationtimesandcosts.Theresultofthecase
studyshowedaslightadvantagewiththeleanapproach
inconsideringsuchefficiencyindicators.Inaddition,the
leanproductionmethodsallowedthedesignersto
identifysomeinefficienciesthatotherapproachescould
notsee,sincethelatterdidnotfocusonproductionina
holisticway.
KeywordsLayoutDesign,SystematicLayoutPlanning,
LeanProduction
1.Introduction
Oneofthemaingoalsofamanufacturingsystemisthe
maximizationofitsproductivity.Thisdependsupon
severalfactors,suchasthekindandthecomplexityofthe
productmade,thequalityoftherawmaterials,the
complexityofthemanufacturingprocessandthe
arrangementoftheworkstationsconstitutingthe
productionprocess.Someoftheseparametersare
determinedbytheproductand,forthisreason,are
unchangeable;others,however,arevariableandthus
improvable.Thechallengeofdeterminingthebest
arrangementoftheworkstationsisoneoftheelements
thathasagreatimpactonsystemperformance.Itis
knownasthe“facilitylayoutproblem”[1],namelythe
problemofthearrangementofeverythingthatis
requiredfortheproductionprocess.Afacility,infact,is
anyelementthatsimplifiesanactivity’sexecution,such
asamachinetool,aworkcentre,adivision,a
manufacturingunit,andsoon[2].Theliteraturegivesa
Filippo De Carlo, Maria Antonietta Arleo, Orlando Borgia and Mario Tucci:
Layout Design for a Low Capacity Manufacturing Line: A Case Study
1
www.intechopen.com
ARTICLE
www.intechopen.com Int. j. eng. bus. manag., 2013, Vol. 5,
Special Issue Innovations in Fashion Industry, 35:2013
lotofdefinitionsofvariouslayoutproblems:oneofthe
firstdatesbackto1957,whenitwasdefinedasan
ordinaryindustrialproblemwiththeaimofminimizing
thecostoftransportingmaterialsbetweenthedifferent
workstations[3][4].Transportation,asamatteroffact,
isthekeyfactorinthefacilitylayoutproblem.Awell‐
knownstudyofthe1970s[5],infact,hashighlighted
thatfrom20%to50%oftotaloperatingmanufacturing
costsarerelatedtothematerialhandlingactivitiesand
thatthesecostscouldbereducedby10%to30%
annuallywithefficientfacilityplanning.Inadditionto
thedirecttargetofminimizingmaterialhandlingcosts,
effectivefacilitylayoutplanningalsohasindirect
advantages:forexample,itcanhelptodecreasethe
workinprocess(WIP)andthethroughputtimes(TT)
[6],oritcansimplyfacilitatethecontrolofinformation
andmaterialflows[7].
Amorerecentdescription[8]definesthefacilitylayout
problemasanoptimizationproblemthattriestoimprove
layoutefficiency,consideringalltheinteractionsbetween
facilitiesandmaterialhandlingsystemswhiledesigning
layouts.Duringthisoptimizationphase,therearealotof
elementstobeconsidered:safety,flexibilityforfuture
designchanges,noiseandaestheticsareexamplesof
basicqualitativefactorsinthefacilitylayoutplanning
process[5][9].
Theindustrialsignificanceofthefacilitylayoutproblem
isattestedalsotobythenumerousreferencesinthe
literature:sometextsofferanexpositionoftheplant
layoutprinciples[10][11][12]orareviewofallthe
differentapproachestothefacilitylayoutproblem[9]
[13];otherspresentcasestudieswithpossibleoptimal
solutionstotheproblem[14].
Thechoiceofthebestfacilitylayoutconfigurationis
clearlyadecisiontobemadeduringtheearlyplant
designphase,evenifitcouldbemodifiedduringa
redesignphasedue,forexample,toaplantextension.
Accordingtothedifferentpropertiesofamanufacturing
process–mainly,theproductivecapacityandthevariety
ofproducts‐theworkstationsshouldbeorganized
appropriately.Itispossibletorefertoaschematic
classification,representedinFigure1[15],thathighlights
thepresenceoffourkindsoflayout.
Fixedposition:thisisusedfortherealizationofvery
bigproducts,suchasships,aircraftsandheavy
machinery[16].
Job‐shop:thisistheproductionareaisdividedinto
differentdepartments,eachofwhichisspecialized
inaparticulartechnology[17].
Cellularlayout:thisischaracterizedbycells
(namely,groupsofdifferentworkstations)andused
toproducesimilarproductsoffewdifferent
families.Itissuitablewhentheproductionvolume
doesnotsupportthechoiceofmassproduction[18].
Flowline:thisisusedfortherealizationofone
productinhighquantitythroughaseriesofclosely
connectedworkstations.
TheclassificationofFigure1isonlyaninitialstepin
identifyingthepossiblefacilitylayoutconfigurationsfor
aspecificmanufacturingplan.Thedevelopmentofthe
bestandmoresuitableplantlayoutconfiguration,infact,
isusuallymadewithsomespecifictechniqueinwhich
manyotherparametersareconsidered,suchasthe
relationshipsbetweenthedifferentworkstations,
problemsintheirproximity,etc.
AccordingtoFigure1,theoptimallayoutforthe
productionofafewpartswithhighvarietyisthecellular
layout.The‘grouptechnology’or‘cellularlayout’is
effectivelyproposedforsmallbatchproduction[19].It
givesmanyadvantagesrelatedtoimprovingproductivity
andcostreductions[20].
Figure1.Variety‐quantityproductionrelationship.Inthepictureis
shownthebestlayoutforseveralcombinationsofquantityand
variety.Generallyspeaking,ifthelayoutisdifferentfromtheone
proposed,higheropportunitycostsorlowerefficienciesarefaced.
Formanylow‐volumebatchproductionlines–as,for
instance,inthefashionindustry‐thechoiceofplant
layouttypeisessentialinordertoensurenotonlyhigh
productivityandcostcontrolbutalsoahighlevelof
flexibility.Thisstronglydependsuponthefacilitylayout:
thepossibilityofchangingtheproductiontypeeasilyand
quickly,infact,isstrictlyrelatedtotheworkstations’
disposition.
Increasedinternationalcompetitionanditsgrowing
economicimportancehavecaused,inrecentyears,a
growingattentiononthepartofresearcherstothe
fashionfield,whereproblemsandsolutionsaremoving
closerandclosertothoseofmorematureindustries.The
topicsdealtwithbyresearcherscomprehendmethodsto
enhancelogisticsinnovationandintegration[21][22],
Int. j. eng. bus. manag., 2013, Vol. 5,
Special Issue Innovations in Fashion Industry, 35:2013
2www.intechopen.com
toolsinperformingeffectiveperformancemeasurement
[23],properlayoutselection[24],theappraisalofthe
brandequity[25]andsuitableadaptationsofforecasting
techniques[26][27].
Animportantelementtobeconsideredinchoosingthe
properlayoutconfigurationforsmallbatchfashion
productionlinesisthelevelofthesimilarityofthe
productsinthemanufacturingprocesses.Ifanitem
differsalittlefromtheothers(forexample,onlyinterms
ofcolour,size,etc.)andthemanufacturingsequenceof
operationsremainsunchanged,theoptimumlayoutmay
besomewhatdifferentfromtheclassicalcellularlayout.
Inthiscase,itisnecessarytoadoptoneormoreofthe
specificlayoutmodelscurrentlyavailable.
Theaimofthepresentstudyistomakeacomparisonof
thedifferentlayoutdesignmethodsforlow‐volumebatch
fashionmanufacturinglines.Inparticular,acasestudy
wasinvestigatedanalysingamanufacturinglineoffelt
hats.Theresultsshowthatthebestapproachtobe
adopted–i.e.,togainanappropriatelayoutarrangement
‐ isthefacilitylayoutcomingfromawider“lean
production”analysisandreengineeringprocess.This
resultwasachievedthroughadiscreteeventssimulation
analysis,whichpermittedustocomparethecostsand
productivityperformanceofeachsolutioninvestigated.
Theremainderofthepresentpaperisorganizedas
follows:insection2theprincipallayoutdesignmethods
arepresented;section3givesthecasestudyanalysisand
thedescriptionofitsmanufacturingprocess;theresultsof
theanalysisareexplainedinsection4,whilethefifth
sectionprovidesadiscussionoftheresultsandpresents
someconclusions.
2.Methods
Todesignorre‐designthefacilitylayoutofa
manufacturingprocess,itispossibletoapplymany
differentmethods.Eachoneisbasedonaspecificidea
andgoaltobeachieved.Sinceamethodusuallygivesan
optimallayoutconfigurationdifferentfromtheothers,it
isimportanttohaveaperformancemeasurementtoolin
ordertogainhintsaboutthebestmethodtoadopt.This
comparisoncouldbemadethroughascore,suchasthe
totalclosenessratingindex[28],orasimulationanalysis
highlightingtheresultsofthemainproductionprocess
parameters,suchascosts,times,thethroughputrate,the
WIPorthelineavailability[29][30][31].
Beforeinvestigatingthebestfacilitylayoutdesign
method,wepresentinthissectionsomeoftheirmajor
features,especiallythoseofthesystematiclayout
planning(SLP)technique[32]andthelayoutsuggested
bythewideractivityof“lean”redesign,throughthe
valuestreammappingtool.
2.1SLP
SLP,developedin1973byRichardMurther,isoneofthe
mostfrequentlyusedmethodsinthedesignorredesign
ofafacilitieslayout.
SLPincludesthreespecificphases[32],namely:
Datacollectionandanalysis;
Searchingamongthepossiblelayoutsolutions;
Evaluatingalternativesandthechoiceofthebest
layout.
TheoutputofthefirststepofSLPistherelationshipchart,or
‘buffdiagram’.Itderivesfrominformationsuchastheflow
ofmaterialsbetweenthedifferentworkstations[2],their
adjacencyrequirementsandthecorrespondingreasons.Ina
relationshipchart,wecanseethedifferentoperations ‐on
therightside ‐ andaspecificlettercodewithanumber,
correspondingtoeachdepartmentpair.Eachlettercode
representsaspecificclassofadjacency,inparticular:
A:absolutelynecessary.
E:especiallyimportant.
I:important.
O:ordinary.
U:unimportant.
X:undesirable.
Alternatively,thenumberisrelatedtothereasonwhythe
relationshipcodeisappointed,suchintermsofsafety,
easeofsupervision,etc.
Thenextstepistheconstructionoftherelationship
diagram.Thisrepresentstheactivitiesofthebuffdiagram
withtheASMEnotation,connectedwithlines.The
numberoflineslinkingtwoactivitiesderivesfromthe
levelofdesirednearness:fourlinesfortheAclassof
adjacency,threefortheEclass,andsoon.
Therelationshipdiagram,whichderivesfromthe
relationshipchart,allowstheconsiderationofalternative
layoutconfigurations.Amongthemwewillfindthebest
solution,chosenconsideringmorethanjustfactorsof
economy,suchastheimprovementofmaterialflowand
wastereduction,etc.
2.2Leanfacilitylayoutsystem
LeanmanufacturingisaproductionsystemborninJapan,
basedontheToyotaProductionSystem.Thiswasfounded
oncertaincentralideas:themostsignificantaretotalquality
management,totalproductivemaintenanceandthe‘justin
time’.Thefirstisrelatedtothequalityoftheproduct,ofthe
processitselfandofeachelementrelatedtotheproduction
process.Thesecondreferstothestrategicroleof
maintenanceactivities,whilethelastreferstothe
optimizationofthelogisticflowsoastodecreasestock
levels.Thecentralideaofleanmanufacturingiswaste
elimination[33][34],whichisessentialtoincrease
Filippo De Carlo, Maria Antonietta Arleo, Orlando Borgia and Mario Tucci:
Layout Design for a Low Capacity Manufacturing Line: A Case Study
3
www.intechopen.com
profitability.Theeliminationorreductionofwaste,infact,is
orientedtowardsbothefficiencyandquality.
Thepresenceofwasteinamanufacturingframeworkis
intrinsictothenatureofthemanufacturingsystemitself.To
makeaproduct ‐ asisknown‐alotofprocessesand
operationsareneeded.Someoftheseaddvaluetothe
production,whileothersarenotvalue‐addingand,
therefore,maybeconsideredtowasteful.Inparticular,three
differentkindsofoperationshavebeenidentified[35]:
Non‐valueadding:theseoperationsarepurewaste
andshouldberemoved[36].
Necessarybutnon‐valueadding:sincetheyare
necessarytoexistingoperatingpractices,theycould
beeliminatedbyrevisingtheoperationprocedures
suchas,forexample,redesigningthefacilitylayout.
Valueadding:theseoperationsgivevalueaddedto
theprocess’stransformationofrawmaterialsto
finalproducts.
TaiichiOhno[37],Toyota’sChiefEngineer,identified
seventypesof“muda”(viz.,theJapanesewordfor
‘waste’),namely:
Overproduction;
Waiting;
Transporting;
Inappropriateprocessing;
Unnecessaryinventory;
Unnecessarymotion;
Defects.
Inrecentyears,theunderutilizationofemployeeshas
beenaddedtothesevenoriginalcategoriesofwaste.
Thespecificfeaturesofleanmanufacturingareusedto
designfacilitylayoutstoo.Thisactivity,fromtheinitial
layout,givesafinalleanfacilitylayoutscheme[38].Itis
basedonfourphases:
Identificationoftheprocess’svaluestreamandthe
definitionofthecurrentstatemapping[39]:theaim
ofthisphaserepresentsthe“asis”stateofthe
studiedsystemthroughamapthatrepresentsallthe
actionsrequiredtomakeaspecificproduct.The
valuestreamisthesetofalltheseactions,namely
aredesignandmanufacturingactivities.
Wasteeliminationandtheidentificationof
alternativesolutions:theseleanmanufacturing
techniquesareusefultoremoveorreduceall
elementsofthemuda.
Representationofthefuturestatemap[39].
Thedesignofthenewfacilitylayout,basedonthe
changesandimprovementsidentifiedinthe
previousphases.
Thefacilitylayoutobtainedaccordingtothisprocesshas
propertiesandgoalssimilartotheleanmanufacturing
ideas:itwillbeorientedtowardsareductionofeachkind
ofwaste,suchastransportingtime,spaceand
unnecessaryworkstations.
3.CaseStudy
Thispaperreferstoafelthatsproductionlinewitha
throughputtimeofabout50daysforeverybatch.Each
batchiscomposedofabout10hats.Theproduction
processisdescribedinwhatfollows.
Furistherawmaterialforthefeltproduction,especially
rabbitandharefur.Thefirstprocessingphaseis
“blowing”,inwhichhairismixedandblownina
particularmachinecalled,properly,a“blower”.Next,
withthe“bastingandpre‐fulling”phase,thehairis
compactedaroundaconewithajetofhotwater.This
operationcreatesabell‐shapedproduct,calleda“cloche”,
thatiscarefullycheckedforanydefect.Afterthecloche
inspection,itundergoes“steeping”treatment,which
graduallyshrinksitssize.Thenextphasesare“drying”
and“dying”,followingwhichthebellisshrunkfurther
untilitreachesthedesiredsize.Thehoodisthentreated
withcertainnaturalsubstances(lac)inthe“stiffening”
phase:thelacmakestheclochebrightandresistant.Next,
thereisthefirst“blocking”step,whichgivestheright
shapeandsizerequiredbycompressiononspecific
aluminiummoulds.Thefinalformandsizeare
completedafterthesecondandlastblockingstep,
occurredafterthe“pumicing”phasewhichsandsthefelt
outside.Theproductionprocessendswiththe“finishing”
phase,whichincludestheapplicationoffinalstandard
accessories(lining,leatherbands,etc.)andthoserequired
bycustomers.Thehatisthenreadyforfurtherpackaging
activities.
Tosummarize,thereare11activitiestobeaccomplished
and9workstationsneededintheline:
A. Blowing;
B. Bastingandpre‐fulling;
C. Steeping;
D. Drying;
E. Dying;
F. Stiffening;
G. Blocking;
H. Pumicing;
I. Finishing.
Figure2:Productiondiagram.Thefigureshowstheproduction
phasesrequiredtoproduceafelthat.Thephasesare:Blowing
(A),Bastingandpre‐fulling(B),Steeping(C),Drying(D),Dying
(E),Stiffening(F),Blocking(G),Pumicing(H)andFinishing(I).
NoticethattheCandGphasesmustbeperformedtwice.
Int. j. eng. bus. manag., 2013, Vol. 5,
Special Issue Innovations in Fashion Industry, 35:2013
4www.intechopen.com
Figure2highlightsthedescribedsequenceofactivities
requiredtoproducefelthats.
However,alinearconfigurationofworkstationsis
difficultobserveinrealcases.Steeping,infact,isusually
madeonauniquemachineandthesameissofor
blocking;sincetheseoperationsoccurtwice,theflow
materialisnotlinearbutratherbecomesinterlaced
(Figure3).
Figure3.Usualprocessdiagramforfelthatproduction.The
materialflowisnotlinearbutinsteadinterlaced.
Moreover,inrecentyears,themanufacturingprocess
analysedhasexhibitedsignificantefficiency
degenerationforanumberofreasons,suchasworkin
progressgrowth,alossofcontrolofmanufacturing
activitiesandahighvarianceofcycletime.Taking
advantageofacorporatereorganizationopportunity,
itwasdecidedtoredesigntheproductionarealayout.
So,thefirststepwastheidentificationofthebest
designmethodtoadopt:woulditbebettertodesign
thefacilitylayoutbasedonlyontheproductioncrew’s
experiences,orshoulditadoptamoreskilled
engineeringapproach,suchasananalysisbasedon
SLP?
Theactualproductionareaconstitutedaunique,huge
space,wheretherewerealsooffices,packagingareas,
rawmaterialsandfinalproductstoragespace.
Therefore,theseparationoftheproductionactivities
fromalltheotherauxiliaryoneswasthefirst
requirementexpressedforthenewlayout.Referringto
theactualstaterepresentedinFigure4,the
manufacturingactivitiesfromtheinitialblowing(A)to
thepumicing(H)arerepresentedbythe“production”
area,whichisabout470m
2
,whilethefinishingactivity
(I)isrepresentedbya“finishingoperation”areaof210
m
2
.
The“production”and“finishing”operationsarethe
areasthatneedaredesignandtowhichanewbuilding
ofabout1300m
2
willbeassigned.Inparticular,the
productionworkstationswillbereorganizedaccording
tocertainfactoryrequirements(seebelow).Theother
activitieswillbere‐arrangedinthealreadyexisting
plant.Figure4highlightstheoriginalconfigurationon
theleftsideandthedesiredoneontheright.
Figure4.Planofthefelthatfacility.Ontheleftsideistheactual
configurationofthemaindepartments,whileontherightisthe
newbuildingmadeavailablefortheproductionandfinishing
operations.
There‐designstudypresentedinthispaperisonly
concernedwiththenewbuildinginFigure4,which
comprisestwodifferentareas,asshowninFigure5.
Figure5.Newbuildingarea.Theworkstationsforthefelthat
production(Blowing,Basting&Pre‐Fulling,Steeping,Drying,
Dying,Stiffening,Blocking,PumicingandFinishing)willbe
reorganizedintothisnewplantinordertoeliminateallthe
waste
Themaingoalofthelayoutredesignistheeliminationor
‐ atleast‐thereductionoftheprincipalproblems
highlightedintheactualorganization.Themain
criticalitiesaresummarizedbelow:
Excessivedistancebetweenworkstations:this
configurationcausesanincreaseinmovingtimes
andenhancesthecomplexityofthevisualcontrols
oftherawmaterialflows.Inaddition,thefinishing
processisdividedintotwo,neardifferent
workstations.Withthisarrangement,theoperators
havetomovetodothesameoperation,causing
timeinefficiencies.
Logicalsubdivisionamongworkstations:atthe
present,thereisnoseparationamongthedifferent
kindsofworkstations,thoughitwouldbedesirable
thatsimilaroperationswouldbearrangednextto
eachother.Conversely,conflictingonesshouldbe
separated.Blowing,bastingandpre‐fulling,and
Filippo De Carlo, Maria Antonietta Arleo, Orlando Borgia and Mario Tucci:
Layout Design for a Low Capacity Manufacturing Line: A Case Study
5
www.intechopen.com
pumicing,infact,are“dirty”operationsbecausethey
producepollutionduringthefurprocessing.Dyingis
anotheroperationthatisclassifiableas“dirty”
becauseoftheuseofchemicalsubstances.Byclosely
positioningtheseoperations,itmightbepossibleto
haveauniqueairvacuumandpurificationsystem.
Ontheotherhand,steepinganddryingarestrictly
relatedfortechnologicalreasons.Thehat’sfinal
quality,infact,alsodependsuponthetimepassing
betweentheseoperations:infact,itmustnotbetoo
long.Moreover,forstiffeningandfinishingthereis
anorganizationalconstraint.Theseoperationsare
directlyrelatedtothevisualqualityofthehatanduse
similarmachinesforfinalqualitycontrol.Forthis
reason,theyshouldbeplacedclosetogether.
Rawmaterials’availability:rawmaterialsand
accessoryelementsarestoredinthreedifferentareas,
twoofwhichareveryfarfromtheblowingstation.
Disorganizationoftoolarrangements:allthe
accessoryelementsusedintheproductionphases
haveamessyarrangement.
4.Results
Themanufacturingprocessre‐designwasmadethrough
threedifferentmethodologies.Thefirstoneisan
empiricalmethodwhiletheothersareengineering
techniques.Inthefollowingsections,theresultsofeach
methodwillbesummarized.
4.1Empiricalapproach
Thefirstlayoutwasidentifiedempirically.Accordingtothe
problemsrecognizedandthegoalssought,variousdifferent
solutionshavebeensuggestedinanattempttoplacesimilar
operationsoractivitieswithspecificneedsclosetogether.
Figure6.Empiricalapproachlayout.Eightoperationsoutofthe
elevenareorganizedsequentially,whileforfouroperations
morecomplexmovesarenecessary.
Amongthealternativesolutions,themostimpressive
layoutwaschosen.Theselectiontechniquewasthefactor
analysismethod,whichidentifiestheprincipaldesirable
features(factors)forthenewlayout.Themainfactors
consideredwere:workerflow;processflow;flow
visualization;possibleexpansion;interactionamong
departments;groupingofequipment;flexibility.Each
factorhasaweightrepresentingitsimportance.Ascore
wasassignedtoallthelayoutsidentifiedforeachfactor.
Next,itwasmultipliedfortheweightoftherespective
factors.Finally,eachsolutionreceiveditstotalscore:the
layoutwiththebesttotalvaluewasthepreferredlayout.
Figure6showstheselectedempiricallayout.
Thisresultcombinesproductandprocesslayoutfeatures.
Theworkstations,infact,haveaU‐shapedconfiguration
thatfollowsthesequenceofthemanufacturingprocess
activities.However,machineswithsimilarfeaturesarein
thesamezone.Thenewlayoutpartiallyfollowsthemain
workstations’unificationrequirements,accordingtothe
reasonspresentedinsection3:steepinganddryingare
nearby,andstiffeningandfinishingareneighboursinthe
samearea.
Theempiricallayoutalsofacilitatesareductionofthe
distancebetweenthefinalphases(stiffeningand
finishing)andtheotherworkstations.Atthesametime,
thetoolarrangementwasreorganizedinauniquearea.
Thisfirstnewlayoutthusseemstoprovideimportant
improvementstotheproductionsystem.
4.2SLP
ThefirststepofalayoutredesignwithSLPisthe
constructionofarelationshipchart.Thebuffdiagram
Figure7.Relationshipchart.Thebuffdiagramhighlightsthe
relationshipsbetweenpairsofprocessoperations.The
intersectionoftwodivisionlinesshowsaletterspecifyingthe
importanceoftheirproximity.
Int. j. eng. bus. manag., 2013, Vol. 5,
Special Issue Innovations in Fashion Industry, 35:2013
6www.intechopen.com
allowsthedefinitionofanoptimaloperationssequence
withacorrespondingblocklayout.Thiswillneedtobe
successivelyadaptedtothesizeandshapeofthe
allowablefunctionalarea.
Figure7representstherelationshipchartfortheprocess
activitiesofthefelthatmanufacturingprocess.
Fromthebuffdiagram,therelationshipchartofFigure8
wasacquired.Thevariousrelationshipsofproximityfor
theworkstationsaddtothecomplexitythediagram,as
itisdifficulttosatisfyalltherequirementsatthesame
time.
Figure8.Relationshipdiagram.Inimage,alltheworkstations
areshown;theyareconnectedbylines,thethicknessandcolour
ofwhicharedependentuponthestrengthofthedesired
relationship.
Figure9showstheoptimumlayoutobtainedwiththe
SLPmethod.
Figure9.LayoutobtainedwiththeSLPmethod:eightoperations
outofthetotalofelevenareorganizedsequentially,whiletwoof
theoperationshaveawovenpath.
Asisclearlyvisible,thislayouthasaworkstation
configurationwithamorecomplexmaterialflowthanthe
empiricallayout.TheU‐shapedconfigurationisavailable
onlyforafewoperations,inasimilarfashiontothe
empiricallayoutcase.Asfortheempiricallayout,theSLP
givesamoreefficientorganizationoftheauxiliaryelements
andgeneratesareductionofthedistancesbetweenthefinal
phasesandtheotherworkstations.Finally,themain
requirementofkeepingsimilaroperationsclosetoone
anotherisonlyrespectedtoalimitedextent.
4.3Leanapproach
Thelayoutderivedfromtheapplicationofawiderlean
Manufacturingapproach,wasobtainedaccordingtothe
fourprogressivephasespresentedinthemethodssection.
Inparticular,thevaluestreammapwasperformedsoas
tobetterunderstandtheactualconfigurationofthe
processproductionandtoidentifyandeliminatewaste.
Figure10.Valuestreammapofthe“as‐is”state.Inthepictureis
showntheproductionprocesswiththedurationofeachactivity
andthewaitingtimebetweenworkstations.
Figure11.Futurevaluestreammap.Themaintimereductions
arerelatedtotherawmaterials’processingtimesandthefinal
transportationandwaitingactivities.
Filippo De Carlo, Maria Antonietta Arleo, Orlando Borgia and Mario Tucci:
Layout Design for a Low Capacity Manufacturing Line: A Case Study
7
www.intechopen.com
Figure10showsthevaluestreammapofthe“asis”state,
fromwhichthefutureanddesiredlayoutwasobtained.
ThefuturevaluestreammapisshowninFigure11.Itis
possibletonotethatthemainchangesconcernthereduction
ofwaitingtimesbetweenthefinaloperationsandthe
reductionoftheprocessingtimefortherawmaterial.Inthe
desiredconfiguration,thereisalsoanewstorageareafor
semi‐finishedproductsbetweenthetwofinalworkstations.
Thelayoutobtainedthroughthisleanapproachisshown
infigure12.Asisclearlyvisible,thisnewlayoutoffers
manybenefits,sinceitderivesfromanoverallredesignof
thefelthatmanufacturingprocess.Oneofthemost
representativeelementsisthepresenceofcells:thethree
operationsofsteeping,dryinganddyingaregrouped
intoacelland,therefore,theoperatoroftheseactivities
canworkinasmaller,moreergonomicareathanbefore.
Thiscausesasignificantreductionofthetransportationof
waste,whichisano‐valueaddedtime.Furthermore,this
newlayoutenablesforeasierblockingandpumicing,
sincetheyaregroupedandorganizedintotwoparallel
lines.Forthislayout,andsimilartothepreviousresults,
theworkstationsareorganizedsequentiallyaccordingto
themanufacturingprocessflow.Theadvantagesofthe
previouslayoutsareprovedhereagain.
Figure12.Layoutobtainedthroughthemainideasofthelean
production.Itispossibletonotethatsomeactivitieshavebeen
matchedandthattheoperationsareorganizedinacompletely
sequentialmanner.
5.DiscussionandConclusions
Thethreelayoutconfigurationsobtainedwiththethree
differentmethodologicalapproachespresentedare,at
firstglance,verysimilar.Themeregraphical
representationandempiricalconclusionsofeachlayout,
however,arenotsufficienttocomparethemefficiently.
Throughput
time
[%]
Workers
moving
time[%]
Orders
fulfilled
peryear
[#/y]
Yearly
revenue
[€/y]
Empirical ‐2.95%+8% ‐0.25 ‐500
SLP ‐3.9% ‐15%+1.8+3,600
Lean ‐4.15% ‐24%+3+6,000
Table1.Thelayouts’productionperformance.Thetableshows
theproductionefficiencyperformanceofeachlayouttestedin
comparisontotheactuallayout’sperformance.
Toexaminetheproductiveperformanceofeverylayout,
adiscreteeventsimulationwasperformed.The
simulationmodelallowedustoanalysetheefficiencyof
eachlayoutthroughitsquantitativeresults.Foreach
layoutconfiguration,acorrespondingsimulationmodel
wasrealized,generatingmanyimportantproductive
parameterssuchas:theproductiontime,theoperator
waitingtime,theratiobetweenthroughputtimeandvalue
addedtime,thenumberofannualorders,andsoon.
Table1summarizesthesimulationresultsofsomeof
theseparameters.
Table1highlightsthefollowingelements:
Theproductiontime(thesumofallthetimes
necessarytomakeafelthat,fromthefirstoperation
ontherawmaterialtothelastpackagingphase)is
barelyconditionedbythechosenlayout.Thetransfer
operationtimes,whichareadirectconsequenceof
thelayoutconfigurationareinfactverylowwhen
comparedtotheproductiontime.Theleanlayout
ensuresthebestproductiontimereduction,because
itbetterrespectstheoperationsequence.
Theleanlayoutenablesthefulfilmentof1,381orders
ayear,13morethanthevaluereachablewiththeold
workstationconfiguration.
Theannualturnoverincreasesby€5,722comparedwith
thevalueestimatedwiththeoldlayout.Incontrast,the
empiricallayoutcausesadecreaseofthisparameter.
Hence,thesimulationresultsprovethatthelayout
derivedfromtheleanapproachisthebestforthe
productionoffelthatsinthiscasestudy.
Leanideashavealsoallowedtheidentificationofa
potentialimprovableelementofthemanufacturing
process.Toreduceallthewasteasmuchaspossible,it
wasdeterminedtointroducearecipecontrolweighing
system(RCWS)atthebeginningoftheprocess.Itsaimis
tooptimizeandcheckthestartingphasesofthe
manufacturingprocess:therealizationofthefeltcloth.
RCWS,infact,enablesthebetteruseoftheproper
amountofrawmaterialsbyavoidingunnecessarywaste.
Moreover,RCWSmakesitpossibletoimprovethe
traceabilityofalltheinformationaboutanorderandthe
associatedrawmaterials’quantities.Finally,the
introductionofRCWSintheprocessproductionwould
Int. j. eng. bus. manag., 2013, Vol. 5,
Special Issue Innovations in Fashion Industry, 35:2013
8www.intechopen.com
improvethemanufacturingprocess’sperformance:
namelyintermsoflowertransferoperationtimes,a
reductioninthenumberofnon‐compliantitems,andan
improvementinthetraceabilityoftheproducts.Allthese
advantageswereevaluatedbyacustomfeasibilitystudy,
resultinginarevenuemark‐upof€17,300.
Assuch,wecanconcludethatwhenitisnecessaryto
redesignthelayoutofalow‐volumebatchproduction
line,thebestwaytoconfrontthisactivityistoimaginea
possiblereengineeringoftheprocesswiththeaimof
reducingwasteaccordingtoleanmanufacturing
principles.Thismethodology,infact,inadditiontothe
reductionoftransportingtimesandcosts,analysesand
helpstheredesignoftheproductivesystemwiththeaim
ofreducingallpossiblewaste.Insuchacase,the
unavoidablecostsofredesignwouldtriggeradouble
benefit:ontheonehand,theywillgeneratethenecessary
thelayoutre‐designand,ontheotherhand,theywill
hopefullydefineimprovementsthatwouldleadtobetter
systemperformance.
6.References
[1]A.KusiakandS.S.Heragu,“Thefacilitylayout
problem,”Eur.J.Oper.Res.,vol.29,no.3,pp.229–
251,1987.
[2]S.S.Heragu,Facilitiesdesign.iUniverse,2006.
[3]T.C.KoopmansandM.Beckmann,“Assignment
problemsandthelocationofeconomicactivities,”
Econ.J.Econ.Soc.,pp.53–76,1957.
[4]A.Drira,H.Pierreval,andS.Hajri‐Gabouj,“Facility
layoutproblems:Asurvey,”Annu.Rev.Control,vol.
31,no.2,pp.255–267,2007.
[5]R.L.FrancisandJ.A.White,Facilitylayoutand
location:ananalyticalapproach.Prentice‐Hall,1974.
[6]R.G.AskinandC.R.Standridge,Modelingand
analysisofmanufacturingsystems.Wiley,1993.
[7]M.C.FuandB.K.Kaku,“Minimizingwork‐in‐
processandmaterialhandlinginthefacilitieslayout
problem,”IieTrans.,vol.29,no.1,pp.29–36,1997.
[8]E.Shayan*andA.Chittilappilly,“Geneticalgorithm
forfacilitieslayoutproblemsbasedonslicingtree
structure,”Int.J.Prod.Res.,vol.42,no.19,pp.4055–
4067,2004.
[9]S.P.SinghandR.R.K.Sharma,“Areviewofdifferent
approachestothefacilitylayoutproblems,”Int.J.Adv.
Manuf.Technol.,vol.30,no.5–6,pp.425–433,2006.
[10]J.M.Apple,Plantlayoutandmaterialhandling.Wiley,
1977.
[11]M.M.D.Hassan,“Machinelayoutproblemin
modernmanufacturingfacilities,”Int.J.Prod.Res.,
vol.32,no.11,pp.2559–2584,1994.
[12]R.D.MellerandK.‐Y.Gau,“Thefacilitylayout
problem:Recentandemergingtrendsand
perspectives,”J.Manuf.Syst.,vol.15,no.5,pp.351–
366,1996.
[13]M.M.HassanandG.L.Hogg,“Areviewofgraph
theoryapplicationtothefacilitieslayoutproblem,”
Omega,vol.15,no.4,pp.291–300,1987.
[14]S.Hamamoto,“Developmentandvalidationof
geneticalgorithm‐basedfacilitylayoutacasestudy
inthepharmaceuticalindustry,”Int.J.Prod.Res.,vol.
37,no.4,pp.749–768,1999.
[15]M.P.Groover,Automation,productionsystems,and
computer‐integratedmanufacturing.PrenticeHallPress,
2007.
[16]T.C.Papadopoulou,“Applicationofleanscheduling
andproductioncontrolinnon‐repetitive
manufacturingsystemsusingintelligentagent
decisionsupport,”2013.
[17]F.DeCarlo,Impiantiindustriali:conoscereeprogettarei
sistemiproduttivi,Terzaedizione.Lulu.com,2013.
[18]G.A.B.Edwards,Readingsingrouptechnology:
cellularsystems.MachineryPub.Co.,1971.
[19]F.Huq,D.A.Hensler,andZ.M.Mohamed,“A
simulationanalysisoffactorsinfluencingtheflow
timeandthrough‐putperformanceoffunctionaland
cellularlayouts,”Integr.Manuf.Syst.,vol.12,no.4,
pp.285–295,Jul.2001.
[20]M.Hassan,“Layoutdesigningrouptechnology
manufacturing,”Int.J.Prod.Econ.,vol.38,no.2,pp.
173–188,1995.
[21]R.Iannone,A.Ingenito,G.Martino,S.Miranda,S.
Pepe,andS.Riemma,“Merchandiseand
replenishmentplanningoptimizationforfashion
retail,”Int.J.Eng.Bus.Manag.,vol.inpress,2013.
[22]M.M.SchiraldiandC.Battista,“TheLogisticMaturity
Model:ApplicationtoaFashionCompany,”Int.J.
Eng.Bus.Manag.,vol.inpress,2013.
[23]F.DeFelice,A.Petrillo,andC.Autorino,“Key
successfactorsfororganizationalinnovationinthe
fashionindustry,”Int.J.Eng.Bus.Manag.,vol.in
press,2013.
[24]F.DeCarlo,M.Tucci,andO.Borgia,“Bucketbrigades
toincreaseproductivityinaluxuryassemblyline,”
Int.J.Eng.Bus.Manag.,vol.inpress,2013.
[25]E.Battistoni,A.FronzettiColladon,andG.
Mercorelli,“Prominentdeterminantsofconsumer
basedbrandequity,”Int.J.Eng.Bus.Manag.,vol.in
press,2013.
[26]A.Fumi,A.Pepe,L.Scarabotti,andM.M.Schiraldi,
“Fourieranalysisfordemandforecastinginfashion
company,”Int.J.Eng.Bus.Manag.,vol.inpress,2013.
[27]M.E.Nenni,L.Giustiniano,andL.Pirolo,“Demand
forecastinginthefashionindustry:areview,”Int.J.
Eng.Bus.Manag.,vol.inpress,2013.
[28]R.C.Lee,“CORELAP—ComputerizedREIationship
LAyoutPlanning,”inConferenceandconvention
proceedings,1967,p.274.
[29]F.DeCarlo,“ReliabilityandMaintainabilityin
OperationsManagement,”inOperationsManagement,
1vols.,Rijeka,Croatia:Intech,2013,p.32.
Filippo De Carlo, Maria Antonietta Arleo, Orlando Borgia and Mario Tucci:
Layout Design for a Low Capacity Manufacturing Line: A Case Study
9
www.intechopen.com
[30]F.DeCarlo,O.Borgia,andM.Tucci,“Risk‐based
inspectionsenhancedwithBayesiannetworks,”Proc.
Inst.Mech.Eng.PartOJ.RiskReliab.,vol.225,no.3,
pp.375–386,2011.
[31]F.DeCarlo,O.Borgia,andM.Tucci,“Accelerated
degradationtestsforreliabilityestimationofanew
product:acasestudyforwashingmachines.,”Proc.
Inst.Mech.Eng.PartOJ.RiskReliab.,inpress.
[32]R.MutherandA.H.Mogensen,“Systematiclayout
planning,”1973.
[33]J.P.Womack,D.T.Jones,andD.Roos,TheMachine
ThatChangedtheWorld:TheStoryofLeanProduction‐‐
Toyota’sSecretWeaponintheGlobalCarWarsThatIs
NowRevolutionizingWorldIndustry.Simonand
Schuster,2007.
[34]J.P.WomackandD.T.Jones,LeanThinking:Banish
WasteandCreateWealthinYourCorporation.Simon
andSchuster,2010.
[35]Y.Monden,Toyotaproductionsystem:anintegrated
approachtojust‐in‐time.ProductivityPr,2012.
[36]P.HinesandN.Rich,“Thesevenvaluestream
mappingtools,”Int.J.Oper.Prod.Manag.,vol.17,no.
1,pp.46–64,1997.
[37]T. Ōno,Toyotaproductionsystem:beyondlarge‐scale
production.ProductivityPr,1988.
[38]X.Lu,Z.Jia,J.Yang,andH.Liu,“Designand
implementationofLeanFacilityLayoutSystemofa
ProductionLine,”Int.J.Ind.Eng.TheoryAppl.Pr.,
vol.18,no.5,2011.
[39]M.RotherandJ.Shook,LearningtoSee:Value‐Stream
MappingtoCreateValueandEliminateMuda:Version
1.3June2003.LeanEnterpriseInstitute,2003.
Int. j. eng. bus. manag., 2013, Vol. 5,
Special Issue Innovations in Fashion Industry, 35:2013
10 www.intechopen.com
Content uploaded by Filippo De Carlo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Filippo De Carlo
Content may be subject to copyright.
