JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2010, ISSN 2151-9617

HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 68

Selection of optimal assembly method using

Multi-Dimensions Decision-Making model
B. Vijaya Ramnath, Dr. R. Kesavan and C. Elanchezhian

Abstract— With globalization, broadening of the market place and increasing competition, customers are placing greater
demands on manufacturers to increase quality, flexibility, on time delivery of product and less cost. So, companies must develop
and maintain a high degree of coherence among competitive priorities, order winning criteria and improvement activity. Thus,
the manufacturing managers are making an attempt to transform their organization by adopting familiar and beneficial
management philosophies like Lean Manufacturing, Total Quality Management, Agile Manufacturing, Cellular Manufacturing and
Just in Time manufacturing. The main objective of this paper is to propose a suitable assembly method for a leading automotive
industry. Presently they are following Traditional Assembly Method (TAM). It consumes more production lead time, more Work in
Process inventory, less over all equipment effectiveness, less utilization of man power. In order to reduce the above mentioned
wastes, Lean Kitting assembly Method (LKM) is suggested by some production managers. Another group of managers
suggested Just in Time assembly Method (JTM) production system. Hence, a Multi-Dimensions Decision-Making model namely
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied to select the optimal assembly method suitable for the alternator assembly line.

Index Terms— Traditional Assembly Method, Lean Kitting assembly Method, Just in Time assembly Method, Multi-Dimensions
Decision-Making models, Analytical Hierarchy Process.

——————————  ——————————

1 INTRODUCTION

I N today’s competitive world, the success of an industry

is contingent upon the management of its delivery time
of product and with quality. In recent years, organiza-
ganization. In this paper Analytical Hierarch process
(AHP) is applied to select optimal assembly method.

tions are facing stiff competition in both domestic and

international market due to the impact of drastic devel-
opment in engineering and technology. To have a better
advantage over other firms, manufacturing managers
attempt to transform their organization by implementing
some familiar and beneficial management philosophies
like ‘Just In Time’ (JIT),’Lean Manufacturing’, ‘Concurrent
manufacturing’, ‘Agile Manufacturing’, and ‘Total Quali-
ty Management’ etc.
In this paper an attempt has been made to suggest an
optimal assembly method among traditional assembly
method(line side), Lean kitting assembly, and, Just in
Time assembly (Kanban) Method.
While implementing new method, managers have the
difficult task of making a decision to choose an appropri-
ate suitable management philosophy. To help in this
process, managers try to apply Multi Dimensions Deci-
sion Making (MDDM) models like Analytical Network
Process, Performance Value Analysis (PVA), Fuzzy Logic,
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Goal Program-
ming to analyse and select the alternative and suitable
production method based on important factors of the or-
————————————————
 B. Vijaya Ramnath is Research Scholar, Department of Production Tech-
nology, M.I.T.Campus, Anna University, Chrompet, Chennai-600 044, In- cient even for large-scale problems encountered in the
dia.
 C. Elanchezhian is Research Scholar, Department of Production Technolo-
gy, M.I.T.Campus, Anna University, Chrompet, Chennai-600 044, India.
 Dr. R. Kesavan is Asst. Professor, Department of Production Technology,
M.I.T.Campus, Anna University, Chrompet, Chennai-600 044, India.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Bozer and McGinnis (1992) define a kit as “a specific col-
lection of components and/or sub assemblies together
and combine with other kits to support one or more as-
sembly operations for a given product”. They developed
a descriptive model which can be used to quantify the
trade off in material handling, space requirement and
work in process between kitting and line stocking for an
assembly of stationary fitness cycle.
Brynzor and Johansson (1995) focus on the design of
kitting system in terms of location of the order picking
activity, work organization, picking method, information
systems and equipment. Some of the design aspects and
performances from some case studies are discussed. In
the kitting system, results show that picking efficiency
and accuracy can be improved by making better use of
the product structure.
Gunther et al. (1996) were concerned about the alloca-
tion of components, among various identical assembly
stations by taking production time and component maga-
zine capacity as constraints. The main objective is to mi-
nimize the total operator time, as change over from one
kit to another requires considerable setup time. Here, a
heuristic solution procedure is developed, which is effi-
industry.
Ahlstrom (1998) has examined whether any sequence
of manufacturing improvement initiates to improve man-
ufacturing performance. This finding, groups the prin-
ciples of lean production into four different categories,
depending on when the management devotes effort and
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2010, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG
resources to the principles.
Chrisrmansson and Medbo (2002) have discussed a
material kitting case study using alternative methods like
picker – to – material principle and material – to – picker
approach. The material kitting was video recorded and
pickers physical exposure were assessed. The material
kitting shows improved productivity as compared with
other kitting methods.
Medbo (2003) has reported on materials kit functionali-
ty, usefulness of the materials kit in respect of operator’s
handling of materials and cognition during assembly
work. His analysis comprises video recordings of nine
plants of Valvo automobiles. By using signal component
methodology, his results showed that the assembly work
proved to be almost identical when there were no tech-
nical differences between the layouts.
Akhavi and Hayes (2003) have compared the benefits
of Multi-criteria Rank Ordering (MRO) and Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP). They compared students appli-
cation files and found the applicants who are the most
qualified for admission to graduate school. The results
showed that although AHP required more time than
MRO, it results in less variance among the conclusions
made by different decision makers. They concluded that
AHP may be used for high criticality domains.
Abdulmaleh and Rajagopal (2006) have described a
case where lean principles were adopted for the process
sector for application in a large integrated steel mill. Val-
ue Stream Mapping (VSM) is the main tool used to identi-
fy the opportunity for various lean techniques. A simula-
tion model was developed to contrast “before” and “af-
ter” scenarios in detail.
Houshmand and Jamshidnehhad (2006) have pre-
sented an axiomatic modeling of lean production systems
design, using process variables. Here an attempt is made
to introduce PVs in production system design. In a pro-
duction system, the authors interpret PVs as the tools,
methods and resources required for implementing a lean
production system.
Sullivan et. al (2007) has illustrated a road map of how
the Value Stream Mapping can be an important tool to
define, analyze, and quantify waste such as excess WIP
and defects. Visualizing sources of waste in the current
state as well as the potential benefits that can be realized
in implementing a future state for a product value stream
can help the manager more easily and more objectively
conduct equipment replacement analysis as they consider
and pursue the adoption of lean manufacturing.
Kull and Srinivasa Tallurai (2008) has proposed a
combination of Analytic Hierarchy Process and goal pro-
gramming as a decision tool for supplier selection in the
presence of risk measures and product life cycle consider-
ations. The efficiency of the model is tested at a mid-
sized, second-tier automotive supplier. They found that,
the model provide a feasible and meaningful method for
determining strategic supplier allocations while consider-
ing multiple dimensional issues.
Rathje et al. (2009) have identified the major criteria
and conditions that led to either lean success or failure.
They found the sources for failure, like the lack of senior
69
management commitment, lack of interest and low accep-
tability of workers for changes. The sources of successes
are employee autonomy to make decisions, information
transparency, etc.
3. PRESENT SYSTEM
At present, the case organization producing twelve types
of alternators of engines. The company adopting Tradi-
tional assembly methods, in which the materials required
for manufacturing processes are kept along carriages and
containers of the machines. It consumes more floor and
material space, high work in process inventory and more
chances for wasting the raw materials. Also, it has re-
duced flexibility and poor shop floor control.
4 MULTI CRITERIA DECISION MAKING MODELS
FOR SELECTING OPTIMAL ASSEMBLY METHOD
There are lot of assembly methods are available like Tra-
ditional Assembly Method, Lean Kitting assembly Me-
thod, and Just in Time assembly Method. But the selec-
tion of a suitable and optimal assembly method requires
detailed analysis from multiple perspectives so as to justi-
fy the selected system. The use of Multi Dimensions Deci-
sion Making (MDDM) model for the selection of suitable
assembly method supports the decision making process.
So, in this paper MDDM models have been used to select
optimal assembly method.
5 ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) AND
ITS APPLICATIONS
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of Multi Dimen-
sional Decision Making method that was originally de-
veloped by Prof. Thomas L. Saaty. Analytical Hierarchy
Process (AHP) is a methodology for multi- criteria analy-
sis and decision making which can enable decision mak-
ers to represent the interaction of multiple factors in com-
plex situations. AHP was originally developed by Saaty
(1990). AHP is a problem solving framework based on the
innate human ability to make sound judgment for small
problems. AHP can be used as a decision making tool in
supplier selection process Kull et al. (2008) and in other
applications Akhavi et al. (2003). In this work, Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) is applied to select suitable as-
sembly method for an assembly line considering the fol-
lowing factors 1) Operator distance travelled, 2) Floor
space required, 3) WIP inventory and 4) Operator walk-
ing time.
5.1 Applications of AHP
As a method of measuring intangible factors, the AHP has
many areas of application. Among them are:
1. Environmental applications
2. General resource allocation and optimization
3. Human resources
4. Marketing decisions
5. Medical decision making
6. Military applications
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2010, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 70
7. Vendor selection process LK LS KA

8. Maintenance management. LK  1 5 7
A  LS  0.2 1 3
 
5.2 AHP procedure 
KA 0.14 0.33 1
In this paper Excel based software is developed to execute
sum 1.34 6.33 11
the AHP procedure. The following tables shows the result of
AHP calculations for alternator assembly. Then we divide each element of the matrix with the
The step by step procedure to carryout AHP is given sum of its column, we have normalized relative weight.
below: The sum of each column is 1.
Step 1: Setting up hierarchy The normalized principal Eigen vector can be obtained
The hierarchy structure is shown in the Figure 1. Level by averaging across the rows
0 is the goal of MCDM model and level 1 is the factors  0.746  0.789  0.636 0.7235
W   0.149  0.158  0.273  0.1932  
consider for the analysis. Level 2 is the alternative assem- 1 
bly methods. 3
Step 2: Comparison of characteristics   0.105  0.053  0.091 0.0833
In this example AHP is applied for alternator assembly  Step 4: Comparison of alternatives
by considering the factor operator distance travelled.  The normalized principal Eigen vector is also called
LK LS KA priority  vector.  Since it is normalized, the sum of all ele-
LK 1 5 7 ments in priority vector is 1. In this example, priority vec-
A  LS  1 3    tor for Lean kitting assembly is 72.35%, traditional as-
sembly is 19.32% and JIT assembly is 8.33%. So, the most
KA  1 
preferable assembly method is lean kitting followed by
The initial value is assigned for the upper triangle ma‐ Traditional and JIT assembly.
trix by collecting data from industry and discussing with  To check for consistency of the result, we need to find 
senior people.  principal  eigen  value.  Principal  eigen  value  is  obtained 
To fill the lower triangular matrix, we use the reciproc- from the summation of products between each element of 
eigen  vector  and  the  sum  of  columns  of  the  reciprocal 
matrix. 
max = 1.34 (0.7235) + 6.33 (0.1932) + 11 (0.0833) = 3.11 
Now, Consistency Index (CI) need to be found; 
 max  n
  CI   
n 1
Here max = 3.111 and the size of comparison matrix n
= 3, thus the consistency index is
  n 3.111  3
CI  max   0.5557  5.57%  
n 1 2
Fig. 1. Hierarchical tree of the AHP for the assembly processes After knowing the Consistency Index, we have to cal-
culate Consistency Ratio (CR), which is a comparison be-
tween consistency index and Random Consistency Index
al values of the upper diagonal. If aij is the element of row
(RI).
i column j of the matrix, then the lower diagonal is filled
CI
using this formula CR   
1 RI
a ji    The Random Consistency Index (RI) is given in the fol‐
a ij lowing Table 7. 
Thus now we have complete comparison matrix   TABLE 1
LK LS KA RANDOM CONSISTENCY INDEX GIVEN BY SATTY (1990)
LK  1 5 7 Size of

A  LS  0.2 1 3   comparison 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
matrix (n)
KA 0.14 0.33 1 
Random
Notice that all the element in the comparison matrix
Consistency 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
are positive, or aij > 0
Index (RI)
Step 3: Establish priority vector
Here, we have 3 by 3 reciprocal matrix from paired After calculating consistency ratio, if the value of con‐
comparison. sistency ratio is smaller or equal to 10%, the inconsistency 
We sum each column of the reciprocal matrix to get   is acceptable. If the consistency ratio is greater than 10%, 
we need to revise the subjective judgment. 
In  this  example,  CI  =  0.0557  and  RI  for  n  =  3  is  0.58, 
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2010, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 71

then  we  have  CR  CI  0.0557  9.61%  10% .  Thus,  Traditional  0.111 0.118  0.200 0.429 14.29%
RI 0.58
JIT 0.111 0.059  0.100 0.270 9.00%
selection of lean kitting is consistent. 
Step 5: Calculate priority vector for alternatives  Sum 1.000 1.000  1.000 3.000 100.0%
Similarly the steps 2, 3 and 4 are performed for remain‐ max  3.101    
ing factors. 
Step 6: Obtain the overall priority vector.  Consistency Index (CI)  5.04% n =  3 
In this work the Microsoft Excel based software is de‐ Consistency Ratio (CR)  8.70%    
veloped for executing the AHP calculation. Here, AHP is 
applied  to  alternator  assembly  of  the  case  industry  by  TABLE 4
considering all the four factors like operator distance tra‐ ENGINE ALTERNATOR ASSEMBLY – FACTOR OPERATOR
WALKING TIME
velled,  floor  space  required,  operator  walking  time  and 
WIP inventory.  Reciprocal Matrix
TABLE 2 Assembly me- Lean Traditional JIT
ENGINE ALTERNATOR ASSEMBLY – thods Kitting
FACTOR DISTANCE TRAVELLED Lean Kitting 1.00 6.00 7.00
Reciprocal Matrix  Traditional 0.14 1.00 2.00
Assembly me‐ Lean  JIT 0.14 0.50 1.00
Traditional  JIT     
thods  Kitting  Sum 1.29 8.50 10.00
Lean Kitting  1.00  5.00  7.00     Normalized Matrix
Traditional   0.20  1.00  3.00     Priority
SUM
Vector
JIT  0.14  0.33  1.00    
Lean Kitting 0.778 0.824 0.700 2.301 75.45%
Sum  1.34  6.33  11.00    
Traditional 0.111 0.118 0.200 0.429 15.35%
Normalized Matrix  JIT 0.111 0.059 0.100 0.270 9.19%
        Priority  Sum 1.000 1.000 1.000 3.000 100.0%
SUM
Vector  max 3.059
Lean Kitting  0.745  0.789  0.636  2.171 72.35% Consistency Index (CI) 2.94% n= 3
Traditional   0.149  0.158  0.273  0.580 19.32% Consistency Ratio (CR) 5.07%

JIT  0.106  0.053  0.091  0.250 8.33% TABLE 5

ENGINE ALTERNATOR ASSEMBLY – FACTOR WIP INVENTORY
Sum  1.000  1.000  1.000  3.000 100.0%
Reciprocal Matrix
max  3.111     Assembly  Lean  Traditional   JIT 
Consistency Index (CI) 5.57% n =  3  methods Kitting
Lean  Kit‐
Consistency Ratio (CR) 9.61%    
ting 1.00 2.00  6.00 
TABLE 3 Traditional  0.50 1.00  2.00 
ENGINE ALTERNATOR ASSEMBLY – FACTOR FLOOR
SPACE REQUIRED JIT 0.17 0.50  1.00 
Sum 1.67 3.50  9.00 
Reciprocal Matrix 
Normalized Matrix
Assembly  me‐ Lean  Traditional   JIT     
  Priority 
thods  Kitting  SUM 
Vector
Lean Kitting  1.00  7.00  7.00      Lean  Kit‐
Traditional   0.14  1.00  2.00      ting 0.600 0.571  0.667  1.838 61.27%

JIT  0.14  0.50  1.00      Traditional  0.300 0.286  0.222  0.808 26.93%
JIT 0.100 0.143  0.111  0.354 11.80%
Sum  1.29  8.50  10.00     
Sum 1.000 1.000  1.000  3.000 100.0%
Normalized Matrix 
max  3.026 
        Priority 
SUM Consistency Index (CI)  1.28%  n = 3
Vector 
Consistency Ratio (CR)  2.21% 
Lean Kitting  0.778  0.824  0.700  2.301 76.71%
 JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2010, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 72
Lean kitting assembly method.
TABLE 6
ENGINE ALTERNATOR ASSEMBLY – OVERALL PRIORITY REFERENCES
Distance Floor WIP Operator [1] Fawaz A. Abdulmalek, and Jayant Rajagopal, ‘Analyzing the
Priority Overall Benefits of Lean Manufacturing and Value Stream Mapping via Si-
travelled space / day walking
Vector Priority mulation: A Process Case study’, Int. Journal Production Econom-
required time
ics, Vol. 107, pp.223-236, 2006.
Lean Kit- [2] Par Ahlstrom, ‘Sequences in the Implementation of Lean Produc-
ting 0.7235 0.7671 0.6127 0.7545 0.4516 0.7200 tion’, European Management Journal, Vol.16, No.3, pp.327-334,
Traditional 0.1932 0.1429 0.2693 0.1535 0.3426 0.1800 1998.
[3] Ashish Agarwal, Ravi Shankar, and Tiwari, H.K., ‘Modeling the
JIT 0.0833 0.09 0.118 0.0919 0.1108 0.1000
Metrics of lean, agile and leagile supply chain: An ANP- based ap-
0.096 1.0000 proach’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.173,
Figure 2 shows the overall priority vector for lean  kitting  pp.221-225, 2006
assembly  is  higher  than  other  two  assembly  systems.  So,  [4] Akhavi.F. and Hayes. C., ‘A comparison of Two multi-criteria
lean  kitting  is  selected  among  traditional  and  JIT           decision making Techniques’, 3IEEE, 2003.
assembly for the Engine alternator assembly.  [5] Askin .G. and Goldberg .B, ‘Design and Analysis of Lean Produc-
tion Systems’, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pvt. Ltd., Singapore,
2003.
6. CONCLUSION [6] Ben Naylor, Nair, M. and Denny Berry, ‘Integrating the lean and
Since all the manufacturing industries want to reduce agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain’, Int. Jour-
the wastages and idle time associated in their produc- nal of production economics, Vol. 62, pp. 107-118, 1999.
tion processes, this paper initially suggests a suitable [7] Brynzor, H. and Johansson, M.I., ‘Design and performance of kit-
ting and order picking system’, Int.Jr. Production Economics,
assembly method for a leading auto industry. Present-
Vol.4, pp.115- 125, 1995.
ly the company follows Traditional assembly method. [8] Charu Chandra, and Janis Grabis, ‘Inventory Management with
As it has lot of drawbacks like more production lead Variable Lead-Time dependent Procurement Cost’, Management
time, more WIP inventory, less over all equipment ef- Science, Int. Journal, Vol.36, pp. 877-887, 2008.
fectiveness, the top management decided to adopt a [9] Chrisrmansson, M. and Medbo, L., ‘A case study of principally
new assembly methods like Lean kitting and JIT as- new way of materials kitting an evaluation of time consumption and
sembly method. This leads to the question as to how physical work load’, Int.Jr.of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol.30,
pp.49-65, 2002.
the managers and engineers of the case organization
[10] Gunther, H.O., Gronalt, M. and Piller, F., ‘Compact kitting in
can make the decision to select a optimal assembly me-
semi-automated printed circuit board assembly’, Int. Jr. Production
thod and also to justify the same. In order to take a Economics, Vol.43, pp. 213-226, 1996.
correct decision, Multi Dimension Decision Making [11] Houshmand. M. and Jamshidnezhad. B., ‘An Extended Model of
(MDDM) models namely Analytical Hierarchy Process design process of lean production systems by means of process va-
(AHP) is applied for analysing the alternative assem- riables’, Robotics and computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol.
bly method. The result of AHP shows that Overall 22, 2006, 1-16, 2006.
[12] Jing-Yuan.G., Jia.L. and Li.Q, ‘Research on supply chain perfor-
Priority vector of Lean kitting assembly is as high as
mance Evaluation based on DEA/AHP model’, Proceedings of the
compared to other two assembly methods viz., Tradi-
2006 IEEE Asia-Pacific conference on services computing, 2006.
tional assembly method andJIT assembly method. [13] Kinya Tamaki, and Nof, Y., ‘Design method of robot kitting system
Hence, the alternator assembly line is suggested with for flexible assembly’, Robotics and autonomous systems, Vol.8,
pp. 255 – 273, 1991.
[14] C. Karlsson,C. and Ahlstrom, P., ‘A lean and global smaller firm?’
1 International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
0.8 Vol. 17, pp.940–952, 1997.
Priority Vector11

0.6 [15] Luis, M. Sanche, Z. and Rakesh Nagi, ‘A review of agile manufac-
turing system’, International Journal of production Research,
0.2693

0.7545
0.7235

0.7671

0.4
0.1932

0.6127

0.1535
0.1429

Vol.39. No.16, pp.3651-3600, 2001.

0.0919
0.0833

0.118
0.09

0.2
[16] Mohamoud Houshmand and Bizhan Jamshidnezhad, ‘An Ex-
0 tended Model of design process of lean production systems by means
Distance Floor space WIP/day Operator
travelled required walking time of process variables’, Robotics and computer Integrated Manufac-
Factors considered turing, Vol.22, pp.1-16, 2006
Lean Kitting assembly Traditional assembly [17] Medbo,L., ‘Assembly work execution and materials kit functionality
JIT assembly in parallel flow assembly systems’, Int. Jr. of Industrial Ergonom-
ics, Vol.31, pp.263 – 281, 2003.

Fig. 2. Priority vector comparisons of alternative assembly methods

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2010, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 73
[18] Naylor.B., Nair.M.M. & Legility.D.B., ‘Integrating the lean and
agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain’, Int. Jour-
nal of Production economics, Vol.62, pp. 107-118, 1999.
[19] Roberto Panizzolo., ‘Applying the lessons learned from 27 lean
manufacturers, the relevance of relationship management’, Int. Jour-
nal of production economics, Vol.55, pp.223-240, 1998.
[20] Sullivan, G. and McDonald, N. and EileenVan Aken, ‘Equip-
ment replacement decisions and lean manufacturing’, Robotics and
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol.18, pp. 255-265, 2007.
[21] Saaty. L., ‘How to make a decision - The Analytical Hierarchy
Process’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.48 (1),
9-26, 1990.
[22] Womack.J. and Jones.D.T., ‘Lean Thinking – Banish waste and
create wealth in your corporation’, Simor and Schuster, New York,
1990.
[23] Womack.J., Jones. D.T. and Ross.D., ‘The Machine that changed
the world’, Maxwell Macmillan International, New York, 1990.

Biographical notes: B. Vijaya Ramnath, is currently doing

his research in the area of Lean Manufacturing as Research
Scholar in the Department of Production Technology,
M.I.T. Campus, Anna University, Chennai-600 044. He is
presently working as Assistant Professor in the Depart-
ment of Mechanical Engineering, Sri Sairam Engineering
College, West Tambaram, and Chennai-600 044 since 2000.
He has presented his paper in more number of National
and International conferences in India and aboard. And
also he has published number of Journals in National and
International Level. He authored lot of books in his area of
specialization.

Dr.R. Kesavan is working as Asst.Professor in the De-

partment of Production Technology, M.I.T. Campus, Anna
University, Chennai-600 044 since 1989. He completed his
research work in the area of Ergonomics. He has pre-
sented his paper in more number of National and Interna-
tional conferences in India and aboard. And also he has
published number of Journals in National and Interna-
tional Level. He authored lot of books in his area of specia-
lization. Lot of research scholars are doing their research
under his guidance in the areas like Lean Manufacturing,
Supply Chain Management, Ergonomics and Reliability
Engineering.

C. Elanchezhian, is currently doing his research in the

area of Supply Chain Management as Research Scholar in
the Department of Production Technology, M.I.T. Cam-
pus, Anna University, Chennai-600 044. He is presently
working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Me-
chanical Engineering, Sri Sairam Engineering College,
West Tambaram, and Chennai-600 044 since 2000. He has
presented his paper in more number of National and In-
ternational conferences in India and aboard. And also he
has published number of Journals in National and Interna-
tional Level. He authored lot of books in his area of specia-
lization.