Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management

The use of SMED to eliminate small stops in a manufacturing firm

Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin, Uthiyakumar Murugaiah, M. Srikamaladevi Marathamuthu,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin, Uthiyakumar Murugaiah, M. Srikamaladevi Marathamuthu, (2013) "The
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

use of SMED to eliminate small stops in a manufacturing firm", Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 24 Issue: 5, pp.792-807, https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381311328016
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381311328016
Downloaded on: 05 October 2017, At: 10:04 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 48 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1656 times since 2013*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2009),"SMED: for quick changeovers in foundry SMEs", International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 59 Iss 1 pp. 98-116 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/17410401011006130">https://doi.org/10.1108/17410401011006130</a>
(2001),"Prerequisites for the implementation of the SMED methodology: A study in a textile processing
environment", International Journal of Quality &amp; Reliability Management, Vol. 18 Iss 4 pp. 404-414 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710110386798">https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710110386798</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:564243 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

JMTM
24,5 The use of SMED to eliminate
small stops in a
manufacturing firm
792
Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin
Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia
Received 20 January 2011
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

Revised 2 July 11 Uthiyakumar Murugaiah

3 November 2011
23 April 2012
OpEx Engineering Consultancy, Selangor, Malaysia, and
Accepted 7 May 12 M. Srikamaladevi Marathamuthu
Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, Cyberjaya, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The paper seeks to reduce or eliminate the small stop time loss using SMED in a lean
manufacturing environment.
Design/methodology/approach – The study uses the lean manufacturing single minute exchange
of dies (SMED) technique to reduce or eliminate the small stop time loss. The overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE) is measured before and after the improvements are implemented.
Findings – The application of the single minute exchange of dies (SMED) technique in a
manufacturing industry (XYZ Corporation) completely eliminated the small stop time loss. The SMED
technique which has been only widely used to improve the changeover loss has been proven to be an
effective approach to also tackle the small stop, a loss which has been regarded as one of the most
difficult losses to be reduced among all the six big OEE losses. The elimination of the small stop has
resulted in a valuable 2.08 percent improvement of XYZ’s OEE.
Practical implications – The finding from this study is expected to benefit lean organizations in
pursuit of tackling their small stops losses.
Originality/value – Although the SMED technique’s impact and contribution to reduce or eliminate
setup and changeover time loss is undeniable, the authors have extended the successful application of
this technique to another key area of OEE’s big loss, i.e. small stop.
Keywords Small stop time loss, Single minute exchange of dies (SMED) technique,
Overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), Time measurement, Manufacturing industries
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management
Vol. 24 No. 5, 2013
pp. 792-807
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/17410381311328016
1. Introduction
The single minute exchange of dies (SMED) technique (Shingo, 1985) which refers to the
practice of simplifying and improving operational setup activities (Moxham and
Greatbanks, 2001; Marchwinski and Shook, 2003) has been the preferred approach to
improve or even eliminate the downtime losses of setup and changeover in the
production process. The revolutionary technique of SMED has been extensively studied
and implemented in various industries (Sekine and Arai, 1992; Mileham et al., 1999;
Gilmore and Smith, 1996; Leschke, 1997; Trovinger and Bohn, 2005; Patel et al., 2001;
Levinson, 2002; Feld, 2000). Although the SMED technique’s impact and contribution to
reduce or eliminate setup and changeover time loss is undeniable, the possible
application of this technique to tackle other wastages or non-value adding activities in
the production process is largely unexplored. Criticism has also been leveled at SMED
 that it restricts its use to press systems involving the exchange of dies (McIntosh et al., Small stops in
1996) and it is less suited to be used without auxiliary support from information manufacturing
technology for certain industries like the electronics industry (Trovinger and Bohn,
2005). Researchers have also recognized that SMED is a concept which could be adapted
to solve other losses in the production process. However, to date, almost no attempt to
apply the SMED technique to other areas except its core function of reducing or
eliminating setup and changeover time loss has been reported. 793
This study attempts to demonstrate the successful application of the SMED
technique to the other areas of losses in the production process in a lean manufacturing
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

environment. The domain of lean manufacturing and total productive maintenance

(TPM) entail the use of the concept of overall equipment effectiveness (OEE). OEE is
largely used as the key tool to provide a consistent way to measure the effectiveness of
lean manufacturing and (TPM) initiatives ( Jonsson and Lesshammar, 1999; Jeong and
Phillips, 2001; Huang et al., 2003; Kanthi et al., 2008; Vorne Industries, 2002-2008; Paul,
2006). The six big losses of OEE are categorized into three broad areas or factors,
i.e. availability, performance and quality (Munchiri and Pintelon, 2008). Availability
comprises the break down and setup and adjustments loss, performance comprises the
small stops and reduced speed loss while quality comprises startup rejects and
production rejects loss. The six big losses of OEE (Nakajima, 1988; Babicz, 2000;
Chan et al., 2005; Van der Wal and Lynn, 2002; Edwards and Starr, 2010) are shown in
Table I.
As mentioned earlier, the SMED technique has so far been primarily used to overcome
the OEE downtime loss of setup and changeover loss. The term setup and changeover
has been used interchangeably in the literature of OEE. Both setup and changeover has
been defined as the process of switching from the production of one product or part
number to another in a machine or a series of machines linked by changing parts, dies,
moulds or fixtures. Changeover time is measured as elapsed time between the last piece
in the run just completed until the first good piece from the process after changeover
(Marchwinski and Shook, 2003). Setup or changeover happens when certain tasks need
to be carried out at the end of a production run for a particular product or part number
while the machine is stopped before the next production could resume. Examples of such
activities are removing or attaching dies, changing colour specifications, changing
material specifications, etc. Another form of setup or changeover is known as external
setup which refers to tasks carried out while the machine is still running and does not
contribute to OEE loss, for example preparing a die to be used for the next run
(Rubrich and Watson, 2004; Patel et al., 2001; Trovinger and Bohn, 2005).
Apart from the downtime loss of setup and changeover of the “six big losses” of OEE,
small stops is another important loss. A small stop is defined as stops that are under
5 min and that do not require maintenance (Vorne Industries, 2002-2008). It refers to idle
and minor stoppages losses which occur when production is interrupted by a temporary
breakdown or machine is idling (Tsarouhas, 2007). A small stop is distinct from
downtime loss of setup and changeover as the latter does not relate to interruption due to
product change or part number change. Small stops happen while the same product or
product number is being produced and total stoppage time is within 5 min. A small stop
does not require maintenance work and normally constitutes one of the steps of the
production process of a same product or part number of a particular production run. It
does not fall into the scope of the downtime setup or changeover loss as it occurs during
 JMTM
OEE factor Six big losses category OEE loss category Event examples
24,5
Availability Breakdowns Downtime loss Tooling failures
Unplanned maintenance
General breakdown
Equipment failure
794 Setup and adjustments Downtime loss Setup/changeover
Material shortages
Operator shortages
Major adjustments
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

Warm-up time
Performance Small stops Speed loss Obstructed product flow
Component jams
Misfeeds
Sensor blocked
Lubricant top-up
Delivery blocked
Cleaning/checking
Reduced speed Speed loss Rough running
Under nameplate capacity
Equipment wear
Tool wear
Operator inefficiency
Quality Startup rejects Quality loss Scrap
Rework
In-process damage
In-process expiration
Incorrect assembly
Production rejects Quality loss Scrap
Rework
In-process damage
In-process expiration
Table I. Incorrect assembly
The six big losses
and OEE loss Source: Adopted from Vorne Industries (2002-2008) and www.oee.com

a production and it does not happen during product or part number change. In contrast,
downtime setup or changeover loss occurs at the end each product or part number
production run and last more than 5 min (Michels, 2007; Patel et al., 2001). Tsarouhas
(2007) defines setup and changeover as time losses from the end of the production of the
previous item, through product-change adjustment to the point where production of the
new item is completely satisfactory. Achieving a goal of zero small stops is the goal of
OEE (Tsarouhas, 2007). Common techniques used to study and improve small stops are
cycle time analysis and root cause problem solving (RCPS) (Habib and Wang, 2008).
The OEE loss of small stop is distinct from its cousin-category of reduced speed,
where both are placed under the common category of speed loss in OEE literature. In
Table I, it can be seen that actually the OEE loss literature identifies two types of losses
under the category of speed loss. One is the small stops and the other is the reduced
speed. A small stop differs from the reduced speed in that although both losses are
responsible for reducing the speed of the production process, small stops are brief
stoppages due to insignificant problems while reduced speed occurs when the
 production machines operates below the designed standard speed (De Villiers, 2005). An Small stops in
analogy of a “small stop” is when a car racing in a Formula One championship is stopped manufacturing
to refill fuel and “reduced speed” is when the same car is not reaching a maximum of
speed of say 300 kilometers per hour although the accelerator has been pressed in full
due to impending servicing of the engine. “Small stops” and “reduced speed” are the
most difficult of the six big losses to monitor and record (Paul, 2006). In fact, reducing or
eliminating the setup and changeover loss and other “bigger” losses of the six big loss 795
like downtime loss is akin to plucking low hanging fruits from a tree. However, trying to
reduce or eliminate the small stops is akin to plucking fruits from the higher end of a tree
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

which is definitely more difficult to achieve and challenging in nature. Small stops have
often been accepted as an unavoidable waste and has never been attempted to be
reduced or eliminated using the SMED technique.
This study aims to demonstrate the applicability of SMED to reduce or even
eliminate OEE losses of small stops and such an attempt have never been reported
before. In order to illustrate the SMED technique’s applicability to solve small stop
loss, the fundamentals of the SMED technique will be discussed here.

2. Literature review
2.1 Single minute exchange of dies
Shigeo Shingo, Japan’s pre-eminent industrial engineer and consultant to hundreds of
companies introduced the SMED system for reducing changeover times. Shingo’s technique
refers to both the theory, and the practice of simplifying and improving operational setup
activities to fewer than 10 min’ in total duration (Moxham and Greatbanks, 2001). The
requirement for SMED stems from the many difficulties encountered by manufacturing
companies, for example, the increased number of machinery setups required to produce a
variety of goods in small batch sizes. The SMED technique (Shingo, 1985, p. 33) states that,
even if the frequency of the setups cannot be reduced, the actual downtime caused by
machinery specification changes can be greatly reduced, thus providing an increase in
available production capacity. The five principles for doing quick changeovers are as
follows:
(1) Differentiate internal setup elements from external setup elements. The total time
required for carrying out setup and changeover activities are measured in this
step (Robinson, 1990). Internal setup refers to setup and changeover activities
that are performed while a machine is stopped while external setup relates to
activities that can be conducted while a machine is in operation (Moxham and
Greatbanks, 2001). Getting tools from the changeover tool cart prior to machine
completing the last piece of the batch, for example, is an external element because
production need not be stopped. It is not easy, however, to attach a new die while
producing products. The actual attachment or removal of dies would be classified
as an internal element. This step of the SMED technique requires a detail view of
the production floor and videotaping of the entire setup and changeover.
(2) Separate the internal elements from the external elements. In this step the set
operations are divided into internal and external setups.
(3) Convert as many internal elements as possible to external elements. In the third
step, technical modifications are made to convert some of the internal elements
to external elements (Van Goubergen and Van Landeghem, 2002).
 JMTM While separating externals would reveal possible areas for improvement,
24,5 SMED (under 10 min) will not be achieved without converting some internals to
externals. The goal of this step in the SMED process is to identify whether any
changeover activities that are classified as internal element can be performed
while the machine is running, which in turn leads to a direct reduction in the
amount of time machine need to be stopped during changeover (Michels, 2007).
796 Examples of conversion from internals to externals are shown in Table II.
(4) Streamline the remaining internal elements. This step of the SMED technique
requires exploration of alternate ways to reduce the time of the remaining internal
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

elements so that the setup and changeover consumes less time (Conner, 2001).
Examples of measures to streamline internal elements are to utilize quick release
tools to reduce part exchange, implement positive stops to reduce positioning,
design standard parts to eliminate part exchange and to relocate parts and materials
to reduce walking, searching and gathering time. The following is the example of
possible existing internal activities and the improved method of streamlining them
(Table III).
(5) Streamline the external elements. The external activities are streamlined to
make them faster and more efficient. Reducing the time taken to perform
external activities does not directly reduce the downtime or improve OEE but
free operators for other activities (Trovinger and Bohn, 2005).

Internal activities External activities

1 Retrieve die from die storage area
2 Heat die to operating temperature after
installing in machine
3 Gather tools, bolts, connectors, etc.
4 Clean die from last run before removal
Table II. 5 Do paperwork for last run
Example of conversion of 6 Contact changeover personnel when
internal activities to production finished and wait for them
external activities to arrive
Stage die at press before changeover begins
Preheat mold before changeover begins
Pre-stage all materials necessary ahead of time
Clean die in die shop between runs
Wait until run begins to complete paperwork
Perform changeovers to a planned schedule and contact
personnel before production stops, or train operators to
perform their own changeovers

Activities (old method) Activities (improved method)

Fastening
Loosen attachment bolts Use fewer or shorter bolts
Use manual tools (wrench, screwdriver, etc.) Use air tools
Use bolts and nuts Use quick fasteners
Positioning
Adjust to center manually Use center pins and guides
Adjust front-to-back position manually Use center pins and guides
Use different die heights in same press Standardize die heights
Table III. Adjustments
Example of streamlining Manually adjust temperature and speed (using Set temperature and speed at pre-determined
of internal activities to trial and error) standard
reduce downtime Manually set programs for automated equipment Pre-load programs
 2.2 Overall equipment effectiveness Small stops in
While SMED is the predominant technique that has been employed to deal with the manufacturing
downtime losses of setup and changeover, the concept of OEE is the overarching
fundamental method and driver for improving performance of business by focusing on
quality, productivity and equipment availability to reduce any non-value activities in a
lean manufacturing environment (Raja and Kannan, 2007). Originally part of the total
productive paradigm (TPM) (Nakajima, 1988), OEE has been extensively used outside 797
the paradigm of preventive maintenance and it has since been used as an operational
measure and indicator of improvement activities within a lean manufacturing
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

environment. Given the critical role of OEE towards a firm’s success, the pertinent next
question is whether OEE can be further improved (Zuashkiani et al., 2011). One of the
major objectives of OEE is to reduce or eliminate the “six big losses”. Table I enlists the
six big losses and its sub categories of OEE losses. A small stop, which is the main
subject of this study, is one of the six big losses.
The OEE metric is a function of availability, performance and quality. The OEE is
simply calculated by multiplication of availability, performance and quality (Raja and
Kannan, 2007). Availability is a function of operating time and downtime loss.
Performance is a function of net operating time and speed loss. Quality is a function of
fully operative time and quality loss. The formulas for OEE and its individual
components of availability, performance and quality are as follow (Paul, 2006):
OEE ¼ Availability £ Performance £ Quality
Availability ¼ Operating time=Planned Production time
Performance ¼ Net Operating Time=Operating Time
Quality ¼ Fully Productive Time=Net Operating Time
In this study, the OEE before and after the implementation of the improvement
using SMED would be measured. The World Class OEE is set at 85 percent (availability –
90 percent, performance – 95 percent, quality – 99.9 percent) in general for all industries
(Paul, 2006; Zuashkiani et al., 2011).

3. Research methodology
3.1 Study setting
This study was undertaken using the hugely popular action research methodology
(Gill and Johnson, 1991; Easterby-Smith et al., 1991; Dal et al., 2000). Within this context
the longitudinal case study approach was adopted for data collection purposes,
consistent with Dal et al. (2000) and was undertaken over a two month period. The action
research processes of planning, observing and reflecting (Collis and Hussey, 2003) are
originally designed for use within the information systems field of operations
management research (Gibbons and Burgess, 2010). Nevertheless, the suitability of this
approach is evident in other lean conceptual research (Hines and Rich, 1997; Hines et al.,
2004, 2002; Womack and Jones, 2005a, b). A number of data collection techniques were
adopted including participant observation, document analysis, semi-structured
interviews and video-taping.
The study setting involves a metal barrel manufacturing company supplying its
products to various industries in oil and gas, cosmetic, chemical, etc. XYZ (not its real name),
 JMTM is one of the biggest barrel manufacturing industries in the ASEAN region. The barrel
24,5 making industry have adopted the World Class OEE target as their “best in class” target.
The success factor of XYZ has been attributed to the ability of the operation team to work on
continuous improvement projects based on lean manufacturing methodology. XYZ’s
operation team practices various lean manufacturing tools such as RCPS, SMED, failure
modes and effects analysis (FMEA), etc. In barrel making industry, eliminating losses to
798 achieve OEE of up to a level of 70 percent is within easy target. However, any improvement
beyond the 70 percent mark requires extensive analysis of the three big losses category
of OEE, i.e. availability, productivity and quality. At this stage, each improvement of
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

1 percent of OEE is considered significant and a daunting task to achieve. As how the
Vilfredo Pareto’s (1842-1923), 80:20 rule would reveal that 80 percent of all problems
identified could be easily tackled but not the remaining 20 percent of problems, which is
difficult to tackle, so is the problem of reducing or eliminating small stops. From a Pareto
80:20 perspective, small stops invariably represent the 20 percent of the remaining losses
among all the losses of OEE’s six big losses and could not be easily reduced or eliminated.
One of the biggest challenges for XYZ in the current competitive manufacturing
environment is to maintain and further reduce its manufacturing cost. Some of the
areas that were being focused are scrap loss, process changeover time-loss, small stop
loss and machine breakdown time-loss. It was at this juncture the authors worked
together with the operation team to reduce/eliminate the small stops time loss at the
seaming process of the firm. The objective of this study was to:
. reduce/eliminate the small stop time loss of the seaming process; and
.
improve the OEE.

In order to proceed to the next step of reducing or eliminating small stops at the
seaming process, one must first have an overview of the seaming process of the barrel
making production process. Seaming refers a process where machines mechanically
attach component ends (barrel body circle at both upper top and lower top) to barrel
body in a reliable hermetic manner, i.e. air and liquid tight to prevent leakage and
spoilage, thus preserving the product contained inside the barrel.

3.2 Overview of the large barrel production seaming process

Company XYZ’s barrel production scenario is as follows (before improvement):
.
Barrel main line production has two seaming stations, named Seamers 1 and 2.
.
A specified amount of lacquer is sprayed from a pressurized pot onto the seaming
rollers at predetermined intervals. The lacquer functions as lubrication for the
seaming rollers at both stations during the seaming process. This is to reduce wear
and tear of the seaming rollers and also to reduce the risk of barrels having sharp
edges.
.
Lacquer is stored in pots of 5 liters in size each at both Seamer 1 and Seamer 2
stations.
.
Production is stopped when the lacquer in the pot is emptied or finished.
The stoppage of production here occurs while the same product or product
number is being produced. Additionally this stop is also considered a small stop
as the total time taken for the entire stoppage are under 5 min and that does
not require maintenance. Thus, this stop constitutes a small stop. This stop does
 not occur due to setup and changeover activities required to prepare the Small stops in
production line for the next product or part number production run.
manufacturing
.
Operator is required to top up lacquer into the pot and resume production.
First stage of SMED – observe and measure the total time loss. In accordance with step
one of the SMED methodology, the total time of small stop at seaming station to top up
lacquer in the pot is observed and measured. The data collected was used to create the small 799
stop observation chart. Table IV and Figure 1 detail the observation of this small stop.
Based on the observation chart, the small stop time loss for every top-up of lacquer
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

into the pot is 5 min. The OEE of the barrel making process at the current state of
affairs is calculated here.
The barrel producing line is operating at line rate of 600 barrels/hour and operates
30 days in a month and is scheduled to stop on every weekend for maintenance. The total
product changeover per day is 20 times with each changeover averaging 6 min. A total of
500 barrels are scrapped every month due to various quality defects. The OEE of barrel
producing line with the time loss of toping up lacquer is computed as following:
OEE ¼ Availability £ Performance £ Quality
whereby:
Availability ¼ Operating Time=Planned Production Time
Performance ¼ Net Operating Time=Operating Time
Quality ¼ Fully Productive Time=Net Operating Time
Plant Operating Time ¼ 30 days

Steps Description of steps Time start Time stop Total time

1 Stop machine 0:00:00 0:00:05 0:00:05

2 Opening lacquer pot cover 0:00:05 0:01:10 0:01:05
3 Top up lacquer into the pot 0:01:10 0:04:00 0:02:50
4 Close back the lacquer pot cover 0:04:00 0:04:50 0:00:50 Table IV.
5 Resume production 0:04:50 0:05:00 0:00:10 Small stop (lacquer
Total time of existing step 0:05:00 top-up) observation chart

Figure 1.
Presentation of small stop
observation in
diagrammatic format
 JMTM Planned Shutdown for Scheduled Maintenance ¼ 8 days
24,5 Planned Production Time ¼ ð30 days 2 8 daysÞ £ 24 hours
¼ 528 hours=month
Operating Time ¼ 528 hours=month with 20 product changeovers of 6 minutes
800 each for every 24 hours and a total 75 hours of machine breakdown hours
per month ¼ 528 2 ½ð20 £ ð528=24Þ £ ð6=60Þ
2 75 hours ¼ 409 hours
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

Small stops due to top – up lacquer ¼ 5 minutes at interval of every 4 hours

¼ ð528=4Þ £ ð5=60Þ ¼ 11 hours
Net Operating Time ¼ Operating Time 2 Time loss due to Small stops
¼ 409 2 11 ¼ 398 hours
Total barrel scrapped per month ¼ 500 barrels
Time to produce 500 barrels ¼ 500 barrels £ ð1=600 barrels=hourÞ ¼ 0:69 hours

Fully Productive Time ¼ 398 2 0:69 hours ¼ 397:17 hours

As such:
Availability ¼ Operating Time=Planned Production Time ¼ 77:46%
Performance ¼ Net Operating Time=Operating Time ¼ 97:31%
Quality ¼ Fully Productive Time=Net Operating Time ¼ 99:79%
So:
OEE ¼ Performance £ Availability £ Quality ¼ 77:46% £ 97:31% £ 99:79% ¼ 75:22%

3.3 Proposed improvements to reduce and eliminate small stops due to top-up lacquer
The second step of SMED is to separate the internal process from the external process.
The data for the observation chart above shows that all the activities during the small
stop are considered to be internal process because all the activity are performed while the
machines are stopped. Therefore, the next step of SMED was pursued, i.e. converting
the internal activities to the external activities. It was envisaged at this stage that the
entire internal process could possibly be converted to external process, thus completely
eliminating the small stop time loss. It should be noted at this juncture that lean
manufacturing philosophy emphasizes simple, uncomplicated and little or zero
investment approaches to eliminate waste. The appropriate solution to convert the
internal activities to external activities requires deep thought and thorough
consideration of all the possible solutions. The stage of converting the internal
activities to external activities is the most difficult process in the entire SMED technique
and it is a sheer test of skills and knowledge of a lean manufacturing practitioner. In
practice a team is usually gathered to brain-storm on the possible solutions to the
problem at hand (Dave, 2003) and this has been similarly done at XYZ. The Fishbone
diagram (Ishikawa, 1982) was drawn up to outline all the possible solutions from the four
perspectives of man, machine, material and method (4M). The major options that
 emerged from these brain-storming activities to convert the internal activities Small stops in
mentioned above to external activities are shown in the Fishbone diagram (Figure 2). manufacturing
Option A above revolves around the solution to the problem at hand by allocating
additional operators stationed at the seaming station so that the tasks of topping up
lacquer could be performed faster and hence reduce the small stop time loss. Option B
is a suggestion to reduce the time loss during the lacquer top time by reducing the
quantity of lacquer sprayed during each small stop and by doing this the number of 801
times the production runs has to be stopped for top-up could be reduced thus reducing
total small stop time loss. Option C is a suggestion to acquire and operate a huge tank,
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

probably the size of 50 liters, which contains the lacquer needed for the seaming
process. This huge tank could last for one week before top-up is required. Option D is a
suggestion to replace the existing seaming machine from one which needs lubrication
to one which is more advanced in technology and does not need lubrication. Finally,
Option E is a suggestion to install a second lacquer pot and connecting it using a
T-valve with the first pot to ensure continuous flow of lubricant.
While all of the options above could result in improvement to the current small stop
problem, each of these options was further analyzed as to their ease of implementation
and investment outlay required. Options A-E above was therefore plotted onto an
investment cost vs ease of implantation matrix to arrive at the most feasible solution to
the problem at hand (Figure 3).
Option A could reduce the small top time to less than the 5 min currently experienced
but the downside of this option is XYZ would might need to increase one more operator.
Allocating one more extra operator to perform this function will result in extra cost being
incurred in perpetuity and thus is placed in the quadrant of “highly easy to implement” but
result in “high cost impact” in the long run. Option B will result in no extra investment cost
but in fact reduced lacquer cost but. However, choosing this option would cause negative
outcomes because reducing the quantity of lacquer sprayed could result in more frequent
occurrence of breakdown of the seaming machine and possible compromise of product
quality. Option C is not very difficult to implement but the investment to replace a huge
tank which could accommodate 50 liters of lacquer compared the current 5 liter pot would
cause XYZ a significant amount of funds. Option D would certainly represent the highest
investment cost option. Installing a completely new seaming machine is not an easy task
and would require considerable resources and time before it is fully operational. Options
A-D above, although possible, were not the best choice from a lean perspective because it

Machine Man
E Use 2 pots and joining A Perform changeover
it using T-valve faster by having more
operators to assist in the
D Change to a machine top-up of lacquer
that does not need lubricant

C Change to a bigger pot which Figure 2.

could accommodate 50 litres Fishbone diagram of
possible solutions to
B Use less lacquer the “lacquer top-up”
small stop
Method Material
 JMTM

High
24,5
No priority Low priority

Investment Required
D A
C
802
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

Low priority High priority

B E
Low

Figure 3.
Investment cost vs ease of
implantation matrix on the Low High
possible solutions
Ease of Implementation

involved substantial amount of investment or pose serious implementation issues for

XYZ. Option E thus emerged as the best option to pursue as it is not only easy to
implement and require low investment cost but could also permanently eliminate the small
stop problem. The solution is detailed below:
.
Install a second 5 liter lacquer pot in addition to the existing 5 liter pot for each
seaming station.
.
Connect the second lacquer pot with the existing 5 liter lacquer pot using a
T-valve.
.
When lacquer is finished in the first pot, the second pot will be turned on
automatically.
.
The empty first pot will than be topped up with lacquer while the machine is still
operating. Thus, the entire internal activities are converted to external activities
resulting in no occurrence of time loss.

4. Results and findings

The SMED steps applied above has resulted in the conversion of the entire internal
activities involved in the small stop to activities. The post implementation results are
illustrated in Table V.
All the five steps of SMED performed during the small stop such as “stop machine”,
“open lacquer pot cover”, “top up lacquer into the pot”, “close back the lacquer pot cover”
and “resume production” were all converted to external activities. These have saved a
total of 5 min time loss at every interval of 4 h. All the action carried out during the small
stop previously are internal actions as these actions could only be done when the
production line is stopped and now is converted to external activities.
The OEE of the barrel making line is calculated again after the elimination of small
stop. In the OEE calculation all other variables of OEE is assumed to remain constant
except performance:
Availability ¼ Operating Time=Planned Production Time ¼ 77:46%
 Small stops in
Time of Time reduced
Time Time existing (minutes) Convert manufacturing
Step Description of start stop step Make to Perform
no. existing steps (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) Eliminate faster external parallely

1 Stop machine 00:00.0 00:05.0 00:05.0 X

2 Open lacquer 00:05.0 01:10.0 01:05.0 X 803
pot cover
3 Top up lacquer 01:10.0 04:00.0 02:50.0 X
compound
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

4 Close back 04:00.0 04:50.0 00:50.0 X

lacquer pot
cover
5 Resume 04:50.0 05:00.0 00:10.0 X
production
Total time of 05:00.0 0:00 0:00 05:00.0 0:00
existing step
Total time 05:00.0 Table V.
reduced Small stop time saved
New change 0:00 upon implementation of
over time improvements

Performance ¼ Net Operating Time=Operating Time

¼ 100% as there is no more small stops

Quality ¼ Fully Productive Time=Net Operating Time ¼ 99:79%

So:

OEE ¼ Performance £ Availability £ Quality ¼ 77:46% £ 100% £ 99:79% ¼ 77:30%

The previous OEE recorded was 75.22%.

The total OEE improvement upon the removal of the small stop
is ¼ 77.30% 2 75.22% ¼ 2.08%.
The production line has been running more smoothly after the installation of the second
pot. No stoppage for lacquer top-up has been reported after that and the line thus does not
stop for the lacquer top-up anymore. The OEE improvement of 2.08 percent is a significant
achievement for XYZ in moving towards achieving the best in class of 85 percent OEE. As
mentioned earlier, improvement beyond the 70 percent mark requires extensive analysis
and is considered a significant and daunting task to achieve. XYZ is fully aware of the
great challenges ahead in improving the OEE further and constantly embarks on various
improvement projects to achieve the “best in class” target. Based on the success of the use
of the SMED technique in eliminating the small stop at the seaming process, the next
course of action in XYZ would be to attempt tackling all other small stops in the production
using SMED.

5. Conclusion
A number of pertinent observations can be drawn from this paper. First, while the use of
SMED in tackling the OEE downtime loss of setup and changeover procedures in the
 JMTM production process has been widely accepted in the literature and in practice, little or no
24,5 attempt has been made to date to expand the use of this technique beyond this purpose.
In this study, we have demonstrated how the use of SMED is extended to tackle another
loss categorized under the “six big losses” of OEE;, i.e. the small stops loss. In particular,
we have shown how SMED can be used to actually eliminate the OEE’s small stop time
loss. The SMED technique has been proven to be an effective approach to tackle the
804 small stop, a loss which has been regarded as one of the most difficult losses to be
reduced among all the six big losses. The elimination of the small stop has resulted in a
valuable 2.08 percent improvement of XYZ’s OEE. Although SMED was originally
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

designed to reduce setup and changeover time loss, we have shown evidence that the use
of SMED can be extended to other areas of the six big losses of OEE, namely small stops
instead of only setup and adjustments. Lean organizations could learn to use SMED to
reduce their small stop losses.
In addition to noteworthy contributions mentioned above, we have illustrated how
firms, in employing the SMED technique to tackle their OEE losses, could move a step
forward by considering to eliminate a particular loss (e.g. small stops) altogether instead
of analyzing which internal elements performed within a small stop could be converted
to external activities. Such a change of mindset from working within the conventional
guidelines on the employment of the SMED technique to tackle a loss to attempting to
eliminate a particular loss entirely could result in firms achieving significant
improvements to their OEE and costs savings efforts. Next, within the manufacturing
and operations literature there are very few account of the detailed use and development
of OEE. In this study, we have provided an in-depth account on the deployment of OEE
in a manufacturing environment. Detailed account on how an OEE loss is initially
recognized and eliminated with the aid of SMED and other auxiliary tools like Fishbone
diagram and investment cost vs ease of implantation matrix and finally account of the
OEE computations in determining the extent of improvement to the OEE as a result of
the implemented solutions has been demonstrated. The outcome of our study have also
opened possibility of widening the horizon of SMED’s use beyond its original intended
objective and could in the future be applicable to solve other losses of OEE and non-value
activities of lean philosophy in general.

References
Babicz, G. (2000), “Teach operators maintenance”, Quality, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 72-73.
Chan, F.T.S., Lau, H.C.W., Ip, R.W.L., Chan, H.K. and Kong, S. (2005), “Implementation of total
productive maintenance: a case study”, International Journal of Production Economic,
Vol. 95, pp. 71-94.
Conner, G. (2001), Lean Manufacturing for the Small Shop, Society of Manufacturing Engineers,
Dearborn, MI.
Dal, B., Tugwell, P. and Greatbanks, R. (2000), “Overall equipment effectiveness as a measure of
operational improvement: a practical analysis”, International Journal of Operations and
Productions Management, Vol. 20, pp. 1488-1502.
Dave, N. (2003), “To find the root cause, that’s why”, Quality Progress, Vol. 36 No. 9, p. 104.
De Villiers, F. (2005), The Illustrated Lean, Agile and World Class Manufacturing Cookbook,
available at: www.docstoc.com/docs/1084889/The-Lean-Agile-and-World-Class-
Manufacturing-Cookbook (accessed January 2010).
 Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1991), Management Research: An Introduction, Small stops in
Sage, London.
Feld, W.M. (2000), Lean Manufacturing Tools, Techniques and How to Use Them, St Lucie Press,
manufacturing
Boca Raton, FL.
Gibbons, P.M. and Burgess, S. (2010), “Introducing OEE as a measure of lean six sigma
capability”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 134-156.
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (1991), Research Methods for Managers, Paul Chapman Publishing, 805
London.
Gilmore, M. and Smith, D.J. (1996), “Set-up reduction in pharmaceutical manufacturing: and
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

action research study”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,

Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 4-17.
Habib, S. and Wang, K. (2008), “Implementation of total productive maintenance on Haldex
assembly line”, Master thesis, Department of Production Engineering, Royal Institute of
Technology, Sweeden.
Hines, P. and Rich, N. (1997), “The seven value stream mapping tools”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 46-64.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean
thinking”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1011.
Hines, P., Silvi, R. and Bartolini, M. (2002), “Demand chain management: an integrated approach
in automotive retailing”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 707-728.
Huang, S.H., Dismukes, J.P., Mousalam, A., Razzak, R.B. and Robinson, D.E. (2003),
“Manufacturing productivity improvement using effectiveness metrics and simulation
analysis”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41, pp. 513-527.
Ishikawa, K. (1982), Guide to Quality Control, 2nd rev. ed., Asian Productivity Organization,
Tokyo.
Jeong, K.Y. and Phillips, D.T. (2001), “Operational efficiency and effectiveness measurement”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 11,
pp. 1404-1416.
Jonsson, P. and Lesshammar, M. (1999), “Evaluation and improvement of manufacturing
performance measurement systems – the role of OEE”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 55-78.
Kanthi, M.N., Samuel, H.H. and Sangeetha, M. (2008), “Automation of factory performance
diagnostics using overall throughput effectiveness (OTE) metric”, Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 36, pp. 811-824.
Leschke, J.P. (1997), “The setup-reduction process: part 1”, Production & Inventory Management
Journal, Vol. 38 No. 1, p. 1.
Levinson, W.A. (2002), Henry Ford’s Lean Vision: Enduring Principles from the First Ford Motor
Plant, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
McIntosh, R.I., Culley, S.J., Gest, G., Mileham, T. and Owen, G. (1996), “An assessment of the role
of design in the improvement of changeover performance”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 9.
Marchwinski, C. and Shook, J. (2003), Lean Lexicon: A Graphical Glossary for Lean Thinkers,
Lean Enterprise Institute, Brookline, MA.
Michels, B.T. (2007), Application of Shingo’s Single Minute Exchange of Dies (SMED)
Methodology to Punch Press Changeover Times at Krueger International, 5th ed.,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
 JMTM Mileham, A.R., Culley, S.J., Owen, G.W. and McIntosh, R.I. (1999), “Rapid changeover – a
pre-requisite for responsive manufacture”, International Journal of Operations
24,5 & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 785-796.
Moxham, C. and Greatbanks, R. (2001), “Prerequisites for the implementation of the SMED
methodology: a study in a textile processing environment”, The International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 404-414.
806 Munchiri, P. and Pintelon, L. (2008), “Performance measurement using overall equipment
effectiveness (OEE): literature review and practical application discussion”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 13, pp. 3517-3535.
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

Nakajima, S. (1988), Introduction to Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), Productivity Press,

Cambridge, MA (translated into English from the original text published by the Japan
Institute for Plant Maintenance, Tokyo, 1984).
Patel, S., Shaw, P. and Dale, B.G. (2001), “Set-up time reduction and mistake proofing methods:
a study of application in a small company”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 65-75.
Paul, D. (2006), A Review of OEE Consideration, Shire Systems Limited, available at: www.oee.com
Raja, P.N. and Kannan, S.M. (2007), “Evolutionary programming to improve yield and overall
equipment effectiveness of casting industry”, Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
Vol. 2 No. 12, pp. 1735-1742.
Robinson, A. (1990), Modern Approaches to Manufacturing Improvement: The Shingo System,
Productivity Press, Portland, OR.
Rubrich, L. and Watson, M. (2004), Implementing World Class Manufacturing, WCM Associates,
Fort Wayne, IN.
Sekine, K. and Arai, K. (1992), Kaizen for Quick Changeover: Going Beyond SMED, Productivity
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Shingo, S. (1985), A Revolution in Manufacturing: The SMED System, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Trovinger, S.C. and Bohn, R.E. (2005), “Setup time reduction for electronics assembly: combining
simple (SMED) and IT-based methods”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 14
No. 2, pp. 205-217.
Tsarouhas, P. (2007), “Reviews and case studies implementation of total productive maintenance
in food industry: a case study”, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 13
No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Van der Wal, R.W.E. and Lynn, D. (2002), “Total productive maintenance in South African pulp
& paper company: a case study”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 359-366.
Van Goubergen, D. and Van Landeghem, H. (2002), “Rules for integrating fast changeover
capabilities into new equipment design”, Robotics and Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 18, pp. 205-214.
Vorne Industries (2002-2008), The Fast Guide to OEE, Specialists in Visual Factory and
Production Monitoring Systems, available at: www.vorne.com
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2005a), “Lean consumption”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83
No. 3, pp. 58-69.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (2005b), Lean Solutions: How Companies and Customers Can
Create Value and Wealth Together, Simon Schuster, London.
Zuashkiani, A., Rahmandad, H. and Jardine, A.K.S. (2011), “Mapping the dynamics of overall
equipment effectiveness to enhance asset management practices”, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 74-92.
 Further reading Small stops in
Cavinato, J. (1991), “Logistics tools: lowering set-up costs”, Distribution, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 52-53. manufacturing
Daniels, R.C. and Burns, N.D. (1997), “A framework for proactive performance measurement
system introduction”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 100-116.
Hallgren, M. (2009), “Lean and agile manufacturing: external and internal drivers and
performance outcomes”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 807
Vol. 29 No. 10, pp. 976-999.
McIntosh, R.I., Culley, S.J., Mileham, A.R. and Owen, G.W. (2000), “A critical evaluation of
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)

Shingo’s ‘SMED’ (single minute exchange of die) methodology”, International Journal of

Production Research, Vol. 38 No. 11, pp. 2377-2395.

Corresponding author
Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin can be contacted at: samuel@mmu.edu.my

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Samuel Jebaraj Benjamin, M. Srikamaladevi Marathamuthu, Uthiyakumar Murugaiah. 2015. The use
of 5-WHYs technique to eliminate OEE’s speed loss in a manufacturing firm. Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering 21:4, 419-435. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Rosley Anholon, Alex Toshio Sano. 2015. Analysis of critical processes in the implementation of lean
manufacturing projects using project management guidelines. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology . [Crossref]
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE OCCIDENTE At 10:04 05 October 2017 (PT)