Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586
DOI 10.1007/s00170-015-7805-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A value stream mapping and simulation hybrid approach:
application to glass industry
Anas M. Atieh 1 & Hazem Kaylani 1 & Ahmad Almuhtady 2 & Omar Al-Tamimi 1
Received: 14 July 2015 / Accepted: 2 September 2015 / Published online: 19 September 2015
# Springer-Verlag London 2015
Abstract This paper introduces a condensed version of
lean manufacturing implementation toward improving
manufacturing processes in a small to midsize glass fab-
rication company in Jordan. While the company suffers
from long manufacturing lead times and unbalanced pro-
duction line, it is almost impossible to convince the tradi-
tional administration of this small to midsize manufactur-
ing plant to adopt the completely revolutionizing, costly,
and risky (at such level) lean manufacturing approach.
Therefore, a much lower cost and verified scheme of en-
hancement is provided. The scheme starts with value
stream mapping (VSM) to visualize the process flow as
well as identify production status and any potential alerts.
Then, the scheme employs a discrete event simulation
model to accurately estimate the impact of these potential
alerts. The results of the simulation is then used to iden-
tify all the possible primary and secondary bottlenecks
using multiple approaches such as utilization method,
waiting time method, and scenario-based method. An im-
proving algorithm is then utilized to systematically sug-
gest changes aiming to relieve the system and produce a
better manufacturing lead time and/or increase its
throughput taking into consideration feasibility. These
changes are evaluated each time using a modified
* Anas M. Atieh
anas.atieh@gju.edu.jo
1
School of Applied Technical Sciences, Industrial Engineering
Department, German Jordanian University, Amman Madaba Street,
Amman, Jordan
2
School of Applied Technical Sciences, Mechanical and Maintenance
Engineering, German Jordanian University, Amman Madaba Street,
Amman, Jordan
simulation model. Not only did the implementation of
the prescribed scheme in the glass fabrication company
revealed a hidden bottleneck, but also the suggested
changes reduced the manufacturing lead time by 6 %
and increased the performance of the primary bottleneck
by 32 %. Finally, the computerized relative allocation of
facilities technique (CRAFT) was used to identify the op-
timal layout of the expanded system.
Keywords Value stream map . Simulation . Process
flowchart . Bottleneck detection . Glass fabrication case study
1 Introduction
Surrounded by energy-rich countries and located in a country
that adopts near open market policy, Jordanian industries suf-
fers severe competition and thus are asked to rise over it through
improved and sustainable manufacturing plants. In order to be
sustainable and competitive, companies are required to identify
every potential area of improvement. Minimizing waste and
increasing efficiency is the only way for a company to move
forward. However, identifying sources of waste in companies
built on traditional systems is not a trivial task. Lean thinking
concepts have gained a lot of attention in terms of identifying
and removing waste. Researchers’ interest in lean manufactur-
ing has even grown in the last two decades [1–3].
Lean manufacturing is a revolutionizing philosophy that
defines every non-value adding activity as waste and ultimate-
ly aims to eliminate such activities from all processes [4].
Many tools have been used to achieve lean manufacturing,
such as cellular manufacturing [5], just-in-time [6], total pro-
ductive maintenance (TPM) [7], and 5S [8]. Despite their ef-
fectiveness, the implementation of such tools usually requires
making drastic changes to current setups, which proves costly.
1574
Therefore, convincing management to commit to lean thinking
concepts proves to be a major roadblock. To provide enough
evidence for management to commit to changes, we take into
account using tools that are capable of monitoring and quanti-
fying potential gains once changes are implemented.
In this paper, we approach a glass manufacturing company
in Jordan that suffers from long manufacturing lead times and
constant delays in customer orders delivery. To analyze the
operations, we infuse value stream mapping (VSM) with sim-
ulation. Value stream mapping gives a process-oriented view
of the company that can help evaluate the current situation and
identify areas of improvement. In addition, we use a simula-
tion model and bottleneck detection methods to further en-
hance our view of the company’s processes. Building on the
findings of the VSM and simulation model, we suggest chang-
es to improve the productivity of the plant. Using the simula-
tion model, we can evaluate the potential gains of the sug-
gested changes. Afterwards, we build a future state as an extra
evaluation of the changes suggested to the system.
1.1 Value stream mapping overview
Value stream mapping became popular since the publication
of the book Learning to See—Value Stream Mapping to
Create Value and Eliminate Muda [9]. It was initially devel-
oped with an underlying rationale for the collection and use of
the suite of tools as being “to help researchers or practitioners
to identify waste in individual value streams and, hence, find
an appropriate route to its removal” [10]. It was used primarily
in several industries, including automotive [11], pharmaceuti-
cal [12], healthcare [13], and service industries [14].
The traditional supply chain refers only to the specific parts of
the firm that added value to the product or service under consid-
eration while the value stream includes the complete activities of
all companies involved [15]. VSM provides a very effective
method for visualization, analysis, and redesign of the production
and supply chain processes [16, 17]. The result is a single-page
map that graphically documents the processes in the current state.
The map contains data such as cycle time, changeover time,
work-in-process (WIP) levels, and equipment reliability data.
After analyzing the current state map and identifying its sources
of waste, the process of constructing the future state map starts.
The goal is to build a chain of production where the individual
processes are linked to their customer(s) either by continuous
flow or by pull, and each process gets as close as possible to
producing only what its customer(s) need when they need it [9].
This is achieved by answering a set of questions to further un-
derstand the processes and construct a system that minimizes
WIP inventory and consequently, manufacturing lead time.
Value stream mapping is an excellent tool for any enter-
prise to become lean [18]. It provides a method for analysis
and design of production processes which will address these
rapid changes [19]. It can serve as a guide to standardize
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586
processes [20]. By visualizing the flow of materials and infor-
mation, it provides companies with a “blueprint” for strategic
planning to facilitate companies’ transformation into lean en-
terprises [21]. It has proved very effective in identifying and
eliminating waste [22]. Moreover, it can reduce the inventory
pipeline and lead to reduction in throughput time [23]. In
addition, VSM can be applied practically in any business ac-
tivity and expanded upstream or downstream [24].
1.2 Simulation supporting VSM overview
One of VSM’s fundamental limitations is its manual nature,
which produces a static model that makes the observation and
evaluation processes of the map difficult [9]. Therefore, it
cannot be used—being a static tool—to study a dynamic prob-
lem [25]. It also suffers from only being capable on analyzing
one product or product family image [26]. In addition, lean
manufacturing often requires making dramatic changes to the
organization [27]. Therefore, evaluation of the changes sug-
gested by VSM is essential before implementation. This leads
to the need of a complementary tool with VSM to quantify
gains during the early planning and assessment phase [28]. A
complementary tool is also required alongside VSM to handle
uncertainty and model the dynamics between system compo-
nents for different future state maps [29].
Researchers have been trying to overcome its limitations
and enrich it using additional tools and techniques. For exam-
ple, Gurumurthy and Kodali [30] used benchmarking to aid the
VSM. However, many researchers used simulation to enhance
VSM. Solding and Gullander [26] pointed out that using a
simulation-based VSM can overcome the limitation of analyz-
ing one product and can provide a real-time view of the system
instead of a snapshot. Lian and Van Landheghem [31] trans-
formed data obtained from simulation results into current and
future state maps in order to make VSM dynamic. Braglia et al.
[32] built simulation models for current and future states as an
evaluation for VSM. Swallmeh et al. [33] integrated simulation
with VSM to improve an emergency department. Parthanadee
and Buddhakulsomsiri [34] used VSM and simulation to im-
prove batch production in the coffee industry.
Simulation is capable of enhancing VSM by providing in-
formation about the nature of the production process, thus,
overcoming its static nature [35]. Using simulation would
provide a way to explore the various opportunities of process
improvement and the impact of the proposed changes before
implementation [36]. Using recent simulation software can
improve the quality of solutions in a relatively short period
[37–40]. Simulation is not just capable of assessing the rela-
tive difference between the process in its current form and the
suggested form but it can also confirm and strengthen our
view of all areas that need improvement. This occurs due to
being able to obtain information that VSM simply cannot
provide, such as resources utilization and queuing times.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586 1575

Simulation is also capable of assessing more than one product

family at the same time, a feature that VSM cannot achieve
[26]. Another advantage of using simulation is the ability of
evaluating different scenarios and measuring the improve-
ments in each one under different circumstances. This gives
it the edge over using VSM only because VSM is a static tool
in nature.
In this paper, we will use a simulation model to identify the
bottleneck(s) in the production line. Then, using both findings
from the simulation model and VSM, we will suggest changes
that can balance processes and decrease the manufacturing
lead time. At the end, we use the simulation model to evaluate
the changes and build a future state map to quantify the gains.

1.3 Problem solving approach

The problem solving approach is illustrated in Fig. 1. The

VSM will help visualize process flow for a product or family
of products as well as identify production status and any po-
tential alerts (Andons) that might be causing problems to the
production system. These Andons might include potential bot-
tleneck resources, cycle time problems, capacity limitations,
inability to meet schedule, etc.
A simulation model that represents the as-is situation is
created using the discrete event simulation software
(ARENA-Rockwell Automation© Wexford, PA, USA); the
simulation model will provide more accurate estimation of
the impact of these Andons on the production system. In ad-
dition to other performance measures, the simulation model
will mainly evaluate bottlenecks in the production. Three bot-
tleneck detection methods are used in this paper: utilization
method, waiting time method, and scenario-based method.
Based on the initial results obtained from the model, a number
of scenarios will be tested. The algorithm starts with the re-
source that is maximally utilized and considers improving
them by reducing process time and/or adding more resources.
Then, the next highest utilization resource will be considered
and new scenarios will be created accordingly. All resources
identified as Andons in the VSM will be considered in a sim-
ilar manner. Each scenario will be run on the simulation model Fig. 1 Problem solving approach diagram
and the overall system performance will be evaluated.
Performance measures including resources utilization, prod-
uct cycle time, and ability to meet deadline, are used to eval- processes different glass grades and mirrors into several
uate system performance. Based on the results obtained, a products based on a highly customizable customer order.
proposed solution will be provided to decision makers. The It serves the industrial, commercial, and residential mar-
last stage would be to examine the impact of the proposed kets in Jordan and the Middle East. It carries its oper-
solutions on the facility plan, to generate a new layout with ations across two plants that share most of the processes
improved flow, and finally, to create VSM future state. with a few processes only carried out in one plant and
not the other. The raw materials used are flat
1.4 Company and its processes untampered glass panels. They come from several sup-
pliers in several dimensions where the most common
Mansour is one of the oldest glass fabrication plants in dimensions are 3.66 m ×2.44 m. Currently, the company
Jordan. It was established in 1944. The company is only capable of addressing 56 % of the potential
1576
demand. Following is a summary of the processes car-
ried out at the company:
1. Cutting. This process is required for all orders to achieve
the dimensions requested by the customer. It is done using a
CNC glass cutting table; however, loading and unloading are
almost done manually. The process starts by accumulating
orders to enter them into queuing software that aims toward
reducing waste material.
2. Edging. This process is also required by all orders. The
aim of edging is to machine the edges of glass for functional
purposes, like preparing it for installation, and/or esthetic pur-
poses if the edges will be visible when installed. The process is
achieved using glass straight line edging machines that work
on one side at a time. Workers load each cut piece into the
cutter four times to finish the job on all edges. Different edging
types results in different times. For example, arising and flat
edging have a relatively short setup time (5–15 min). Pencil
edging incorporates a change in the die according to the di-
ameter of the edge required; a cumbersome task that can take
up to 90 min.
3. Drilling. This process is done based on customer orders. It
includes drilling holes or removing certain parts to achieve
functional purposes (e.g., glass doors).
4. Tempering. Heat treatment of glass to enhance its charac-
teristics such as strength and brittleness. The latter is important
for safety in case the glass is broken. Customers do not always
request it but an overwhelming majority of orders goes
through it.
5. Silk screening. This process draws shapes or drawings
required by the customer on top of glass. It is an esthetic
process and is only done by customer request.
6. Manual painting. An alternative to the automated silk
screening; this process uses paint sprays that are operated
manually to paint the glass. This process, while time demand-
ing, is requested in a low number of orders.
7. Lamination. This process produces another type of
safety glass. Two or more panels of glass are pressed
together with an interlayer that would hold the glass in
case it breaks.
8. Double glazing. This process produces glass that is later
installed in aluminum frames for windows. Two panels of
glass are attached together and optionally with heat-
insulating material between them.
9. Assembly. This process is very customizable and manual.
The output is a 3D shape of glass that requires attaching mul-
tiple glass parts together.
10. Sand blasting. This process is done for esthetic purposes.
Glass panels are sprayed with sand to achieve a distorted look
that eliminates its transparency.
A flowchart of all processes in the company is shown in
Fig. 2. It shows all operations discussed earlier, in addition to
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586
the procurement process and production plant selection. In the
analysis below, we only consider one plant.
2 VSM: current state map
The first step of constructing a current state map is to identify a
product or a product group. However, since the products are
highly customizable, we end up with a large amount of poten-
tial products. Therefore, we analyzed the products in terms of
processes required to produce them and chose a subset of the
processes that were most demanded. Any waste identified in
the selected processes will affect the majority of the products,
if not all of them, which pinpoints toward the scope of the
study. After analyzing the company’s production, the follow-
ing processes were chosen:
1. Cutting, since it is required for all orders.
2. Edging, since it is required for all orders.
3. Drilling, since 82 % of orders require at least one drilling
job.
4. Tempering, since 94 % of orders require tempering.
Next step in constructing the map was data collection. First,
management provided the average of supplier shipments per
month and customer orders per day. They also provided infor-
mation about how information is handled between the suppli-
er, customer, and the company. For lack of historical data on
the setup and processing times, estimates were collected from
experienced operators in every workstation starting from cut-
ting and ending with tempering. To validate these estimates,
the collected approximations were compared with average
times calculated based on the company’s average production
rate per day at each workstation over the last 4 months.
Next, work in progress (WIP) before each workstation was
obtained as a snapshot from a typical day at the company. For
consistency across the map, WIP and orders per day were
expressed in terms of surface area units (m2). Reliability data
was extracted from a maintenance log kept by management.
Figure 3 shows the current state map that was constructed.
The top part of the map shows a high-level view of the inter-
action between the customers, the company, and the supplier.
Each box under the operations management represents a pro-
cess. The number inside each box is the number of workers.
The information table beneath each process box provides key
information such as the cycle time, changeover time, reliabil-
ity expressed as uptime percentage, and availability. Triangles
before each process represents WIP inventory. Note that be-
fore the edging process, there are two inventory triangles. This
is due to having three types of edging at the company. Flat and
pencil edging are with monitored inventory levels contrary to
arising edging, as no inventory exists for it mainly because it is
a much faster process with lower demand. The timelines at the
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586 1577

Fig. 2 Operations flowchart

1578
bottom expresses production-waiting time at the top (non-
value adding) and processing time at the bottom. The upper
timeline shows times when inventory is insufficient and the
lower one shows the average times. Waiting time is calculated
according to Little’s law, which asserts that the average num-
ber of entities in a queue, L, is equal to the rate at which
customers arrive and enter the system, λ, multiplied by the
average time an entity spends in the system, ω. Therefore,
waiting time was calculated by dividing the WIP inventory
by daily production rate. For example, 348 m2 before pencil
edging divided by 170 m2 (daily production) equates to 2 days
of waiting time. The bottom part of the timeline expresses
processing time of each process. In this case, we have
32.9 days of waiting time when inventory is insufficient and
10.9 days on average while the processing time is 612 s in
both cases per 1 m2. The difference is noticeably big, which
suggests many activities carried out at the company are con-
sidered as waste according to the lean concepts. It should be
noted that the data on the map is only for orders that was sent
to production. The company has more orders that entered the
system and are yet to commence production, which would
increase the effect of increasing the production rate of the
plant.
The map highlights the inventory control at the start to be a
big factor in increasing the manufacturing lead time. On the
manufacturing level, the tempering process is causing the lon-
gest waiting time. In the next section, we build a simulation
model to further investigate the causes of waiting time and
either confirm or deny the findings of the VSM.
3 Simulation model
In order to evaluate different alternatives and to further inves-
tigate the system, we built a simulation model. A simulation
model would provide a dynamic picture of all processes in-
volved and allow evaluating the performance of each process
based on historical data. The model supports the VSM as it
would assess its output and confirm the potential sources of
waste. It would be used later on to identify bottlenecks in the
system and test changes and proposed solutions.
The model was built using discrete event simulation, where
events occur at discrete points of time on the simulation clock.
The flowchart built earlier (Fig. 1) was used as an input with
the historical data collected at the company. For simplification
reasons, we assumed the raw material entering the system is of
one size only (3.66 m×2.44 m). The assumption was backed
by the fact that over 75 % of the used materials are of the
selected dimensions, in addition to the other variants being
very similar in dimensions. The input to the system was set
to a constant flow of 30 panels per day.
Using the data collected about the setup and processing
time in each process, a range was set to each one as shown
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586
in Table 1. Since some processes deal with surface area as a
metric in contrast to others dealing with length (e.g., edging)
or number of drills in drilling, we used the number of panels as
a metric throughout the system. This is done in a straightfor-
ward manner in processes that work on the surface area.
However, and for processes like edging and drilling, there
was a need to estimate a relation between area and edges
length or number of drills. This was achieved using averages
calculated from historical data. Example of these can be found
in the last column in Table 1.
The simulation model starts with the order dispatch (cur-
rently at 30 glass panels on a daily basis). The glass is loaded
onto the cutting machine by workers, the cutting then starts
and once finished, the workers unload the glass. All glass is
then routed to the edging station. The edging station includes
the three types of edging described earlier; flat, pencil, and
arising. The glass is split between the three types by a separate
module that sends 45 % of glass to flat edging, 50 % to pencil
edging, and the last 5 % are sent to arising. The percentages
were decided based on the average output from historical data.
As soon as a glass panel departs a station, it enters a separate
module that decides if a panel is sent to either drilling or
washing. The percentage was also decided based on the aver-
age output. Panels sent for drilling are set up by workers and
then enter the drilling process. Afterwards, all panels enter a
separate module that sends 1 % of panels for a rework in the
workshop to amend scratches. All of the panels are then sent
to the washing station. After washing, panels enter a series of
separate modules to decide which processes are done to which
panels, as shown in Fig. 3.
All separate modules are governed by percentages extract-
ed from the average output of each process. After each panel is
sent to its respective process, the process is performed and
then panels are transferred to the delivery station and leave
the system. Note that glass panels that exit the tempering pro-
cess could go to the lamination station before moving to de-
livery and exiting the system.
After checking that the logic of material flow in the
simulation model matches the actual flow in the company,
the system must be validated such that the simulation
model mimics real-life performance. To achieve that, a
comparison was made for the output of the model per
day to the average output of the company over the last
4 months. Table 2 shows the results in terms of panel out
per day for each process. Although the model does not
mimic the real system perfectly, the difference is relative-
ly small, specially in relation to the popular processes.
However, the error should be taken into consideration
when applying changes on the real system after testing
on the simulation model. For further evidence, the tem-
pering furnace, which was observed to be utilized almost
100 % of available time, was shown to be utilized 98 % of
the time in the simulation model.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586 1579

Fig. 3 Current state map

4 Bottleneck detection whole workstation is active because both need to be free for
throughput to be affected.
After the simulation model was built and validated, the output The results shown in Table 3 suggest that the tempering
data can be used to identify the bottleneck in the system. First, workstation is the primary bottleneck and the pencil edging
we define a bottleneck to be the machine whose throughput workstation is the secondary bottleneck. Next, we use the
affects the overall system throughput. waiting time method and compare results.
According to Lemessi et al. [41], bottleneck detection
methods can be studied by numerous methods such as: (1) 4.2 Waiting time method
static-calculation method, (2) coefficient-based methods, and
(3) scenario-based methods. Using the simulation output, we This method uses the waiting time of parts in the queue before
will use two methods based on coefficients, the utilization each process to determine the bottleneck. It defines the
method, and the waiting time method. To confirm the results,
we use a scenario-based method as suggested by Roser et al.
[42]. For further validation, we used the static-calculation Table 1 Setup and processing times per panel
method. The method uses the data input into the simulation Process Setup time (min) Processing time (min) Assumptions
instead of the output data.
Cutting 2–3 0.75–1
Flat edging 0–10 15–25 17 m/panel
4.1 Utilization method Pencil edging 15–60 15–25 17 m/panel
Arising – 7–15 17 m/panel
The utilization method measures the percentage of time a ma- Drilling 5–10 6–10 5 drills/panel
chine is active and defines the machine with the highest active Silk screening 15–20 5–10
percentage as the bottleneck [43]. Tempering 5–10 20–30
The discrete event simulation is capable of providing the Double glazing 10–20 5–10
utilization of all machines as an output. It is worth noting that Lamination 5–8 5–10
utilization is taken for workstation and not individual re- Assembly – 15–90
sources (i.e., machines and workers). This assumes that when Sandblasting 5–15 5–10
a worker is active in a workstation and the machine is free, the
1580 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586

Table 2 Simulation model

validation data Process Actual output (panels) Simulation output (panels) Percentage difference (%)

Cutting 31.4 30 4
Flat edging 13 13 0
Pencil edging 17 15 12
Arising 0 2 –
Drilling 8 10 25
Silk screening 3 4.5 50
Tempering 18 19 5
Double glazing 6 5 17
Lamination 5 6 20
Assembly ** 0.4 –
Sandblasting ** 0.1 –

**No recorded data

bottleneck to be the workstation before which parts wait the
longest time [44]. We use the output of the simulation model
to assess the waiting time before all processes in the system
(Table 4).
According to this method, the pencil edging workstation is
the primary bottleneck and the tempering workstation is the
secondary bottleneck. The contrast in results between the two
methods can be attributed to the difference in processing time;
tempering is causing a bottleneck due to long processing times
while the pencil edging machine is causing a bottleneck due to
long setup times. However, we use the scenario-based method
to confirm which one is the primary bottleneck.
4.3 Scenario-based method
Previous methods returned different results; however, both
found that tempering and pencil edging are the top two bot-
tlenecks in the system. To identify which of the two is the
primary bottleneck, we use the scenario-based method. In this
method, we theoretically improve each workstation
independently and run the simulation model to analyze the
effect each improvement has on the overall system output
[45]. In this case, we improve the setup and cycle time of both
processes by 30 %. Table 5 shows the results of each improve-
ment on the overall system.
Since the improvement to both was with the same percent-
age, and tempering improved the system more, we can con-
clude that the tempering is the primary bottleneck and pencil
edging is the secondary bottleneck.
4.4 Static-calculation method
This method compares the processing time of each worksta-
tion to the takt time [43]. The takt time is the average unit
production time needed to meet customer demand. Any work-
station whose processing time exceeds takt time is considered
to limit the pace of overall production, hence, is a bottleneck.
In order to make this comparison, each workstation’s process-
ing time needs to be representative of both setup and actual
processing time. Afterwards, the takt time is calculated based

Table 3 Utilization data for all processes Table 4 Average waiting time for all processes

Process Utilization percentage (%) Process Average waiting time (min)

Cutting 23 Cutting 0
Flat edging 43 Flat edging 55
Pencil edging 82 Pencil edging 1030
Arising 4 Arising 2
Drilling 35 Drilling 9
Silk screening 23 Silk screening 7
Tempering 94 Tempering 160
Double glazing 17 Double glazing 24
Lamination 21 Lamination 0
Assembly 1 Assembly 0
Sandblasting 1 Sandblasting 55
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586
Table 5 System improvement in response to improving processes
Process Percentage System System System
improvement output before output after percentage
improvement improvement improvement
(%)
Pencil 30 22.5 22.9 1.78
edging
Tempering 30 22.5 23 2.23
on the average demand of 30 panels per day. The resulting takt
time was 16 min. Table 6 shows the results of the comparison.
The results show that assembly, pencil edging, and temper-
ing are the highest bottlenecks. However, due to assembly’s
low customer demand, we cannot conclude that it is a bottle-
neck. Therefore, the method confirms that tempering and pen-
cil edging are the primary and secondary bottlenecks.
Furthermore, if we consider customer demand, tempering
ends up having the highest effect on the throughput due to
its higher demand (94 %) compared to pencil edging (45 %).
5 Assessment and validation
In this section, we revisit the processes visualized in the cur-
rent state map. Each process is analyzed in a perspective of the
findings extracted from the simulation model and bottleneck
detection.
5.1 Edging
The current state map showed edging to have the least WIP
inventory compared to tempering and drilling. It also showed
that pencil edging had more than two times higher WIP than
flat edging, although processing time for both types of edging
is the same. In addition, customers’ orders are almost evenly
split between flat and pencil edging. The simulation model
confirmed the difference in waiting time before each station.
The average waiting time before the pencil edging is 17 times
more than the waiting time before flat edging. The difference
between them could be attributed to two factors. First, the
company has two machines for flat edging compared to only
one pencil edging machine. The other factor is the setup time
for pencil edging machine, which is higher than the flat edging
machine. After using bottleneck detection methods, pencil
edging was identified as a secondary bottleneck behind tem-
pering. Therefore, pencil edging is a station that requires im-
provement to achieve better production line balance and de-
crease average waiting time. It is suggested to add another
pencil edging machine to the workstation. This suggestion
will be evaluated using the simulation model and the future
state map in the following sections.
1581
5.2 Drilling
Drilling is shown in the VSM to be the second biggest bottle-
neck point. However, using the simulation model and bottle-
neck detection methods, the process was shown to not affect
the overall throughput. It has an average of 9-min waiting
time. The utilization of workers in the drilling workstation is
also relatively low (35 %).
This could be attributed to only 35 % of orders requiring a
drilling job of five or more drills according to historic data.
Furthermore, the station has five workers that are also respon-
sible for washing glass. Those two factors result in high WIP
in terms of volume; however, the queue moves relatively fast
and does not cause delay even if the demand increased two
times.
5.3 Tempering
VSM showed tempering to be the biggest necking point in the
line with the highest WIP levels. This fact was confirmed by
bottleneck detection method. The workstation was found to be
the primary bottleneck. It has a utilization of 94 % and an
average waiting time of 160 min. The high utilization can be
attributed to 94 % of customers’ orders requiring a tempering
job, in addition to having the longest processing time. Adding
another furnace is considered an expensive solution.
Therefore, we suggested increasing the availability of the fur-
nace each day with overtime to increase its output compared
to other processes. Currently, the tempering furnace operates
for 8 h a day. The increase will be done in increments until
improvement is achieved. The suggestion will be evaluated
using the simulation model and the future state map in the
following sections.
6 Potential gains evaluation
6.1 Evaluation via simulation
As discussed in the section above, it is suggested that the
following changes to the system occur in order to relieve the
bottlenecks (pencil edging and tempering):
1. Adding a second pencil edging machine.
2. Increasing availability time of the tempering furnace by
increments of 20 %.
The changes were applied to the simulation model built
before to evaluate the results of the changes while holding
all other parameters constant. Tempering availability was first
increased from 8 to 10 h. While this showed increased output
(16 %), this change increased the utilization and waiting time,
which would amplify the effect of the bottleneck on the
1582 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586

production line and increase failure probability. Therefore, an
increase of an additional 20 %, i.e., 12 h per day availability,
was tested. After increasing the availability to 12 h per day, the
waiting time and utilization decreased. Table 7 shows the out-
put of each process before and after the modifications, assum-
ing the same input. The changes caused the output of temper-
ing to increase by 32 %. Moreover, although the pencil edging
output remains almost unchanged, the waiting time before it
decreased 10 times. This decrease brought it closer to flat
edging and made the line more balanced. The decrease of
waiting time and utilization decreases the effect of the process
on the overall system output and makes it more capable of
handling higher demand. This is further confirmed in Table 8,
which shows the difference in utilization and waiting time.
6.2 Evaluation via future state map
Using the modified simulation model, we construct a future
state map as to further validate the impact of the suggested
modifications introduced to the system. We start with the cur-
rent state map as a base and then edit values based on the
changes incurred in the modified simulation model. Figure 4
shows the resulting future state map. The WIP levels were
modified based on the changes that happened to the average
waiting queues in the modified simulation model, shown in
Table 8. The daily uptime of tempering was increased to 12 h
instead of 8 h. The WIP before pencil edging decreased dra-
matically from 348 to 31.6 m2 and the WIP before tempering
has decreased from 635 to 437 m2. The changes decreased the
manufacturing lead time when inventory is insufficient to 30.8
down from 32.9 days; 6 % enhancement. Moreover, the aver-
age lead time decreased from 10.9 to 8.8; a 20 % enhance-
ment. To incorporate this finding, we modify the facility lay-
out to incorporate the added pencil edging machine.
This approach is a comparatively low-cost technique to
identify waste and start the process of achieving lean
manufacturing. The ease of implementation and quickly
achieved results gave it the edge over other more sophisticated
options in small companies that are reluctant to adopt lean
manufacturing fully with all its cost and risks. In addition,
the combination of the static VSM and the dynamic
Simulation made it a multidimensional approach that can
identify multiple sources of waste, which is a unique feature
in lean manufacturing. It could also be used as a monitoring
tool, which makes it a valuable tool in all continuously im-
proving environments.
6.3 Facility layout adjustments
To benefit the most from the added pencil edging machine sug-
gested above, we conduct a facility layout analysis. The analysis
would evaluate the facility layout if the new machine was added
next to the old pencil edging machine and look for better solu-
tions. The facility layout problem in manufacturing plants is
concerned with finding the most efficient arrangement of a spe-
cific number of departments in a specific number of locations.
As shown in Fig. 5, the facility contains 12 departments
and they are:
1. Storage 4. Pencil Edging 7. Washing 10. Double Glazing
2. Cutting 5. Arising 8. Silk screening 11. Tempering
3. Flat Edging 6. Drilling 9. Lamination 12. Bending
However, not all facilities can be moved due to large size
and integration into the building. Those departments are lam-
ination, silk screening, tempering, and bending. To solve the
problem, we used the computerized relative allocation of fa-
cilities technique (CRAFT) method developed by Buffa,
Armour, and Vollmann [46]. It calculates the centroids of all
departments and finds the Euclidean distance between each
one. It then considers all possible department switches and
chooses the switch, which results in the lowest distance trav-
eled. The method stops and reaches the final solution when no
other solutions are available. It is capable of considering the

Table 6 Comparison of
processing times to takt time Process Simplified processing time (m) Percentage of takt time (%)

Cutting 3.375 21
Flat edging 24.5 153
Pencil edging 54 338
Arising 9 56
Drilling 14.3 89
Silk screening 25 156
Tempering 32.5 203
Double glazing 22.5 141
Lamination 14 88
Assembly 55 344
Sandblasting 17.5 109
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586 1583

Table 7 Modifications effect on

simulation output Process Output before modifications Output after modifications Percentage difference (%)

Cutting 30 30.00 0
Flat edging 13 14.2 9
Pencil edging 15 14.5 −3
Arising 2 1.21 −40
Drilling 10 9.64 −4
Silk screening 4.5 3.76 −16
Tempering 19 25 32
Double glazing 5 4.43 −11
Lamination 6 8.2 37
Assembly 0.4 0.26 −35
Sandblasting 0.1 0.21 110

cost of material handling and flow between departments,
which is the primary concern in this case. It can also take into
account departments that cannot be moved; which is a major
constraint in the problem. As input, the method requires an
initial layout and flow matrix between departments.
To apply the method, an MS Excel add-in [47] was used.
The flow between each department was expressed as percent-
ages of 100 to represent the flow in the simulation model.
Although the tool is capable of considering cost, it was exclud-
ed because the company uses a forklift for transfer between all
departments, which makes cost irrelevant. Afterwards, the ini-
tial layout was expressed in spreadsheet format. After running
the tool to optimize for the lowest Euclidean distance traveled
between departments, a layout was constructed. The suggested
layout decreases distance traveled by 5 %. Figure 6 shows the
changes suggested on a blueprint.
Constructing the current state map helped identify the
major products or processes in the system. It also helped
in quantifying the performance of the company based on
the key performance indicator (KPI) of manufacturing
lead time. All other information included in the map make
a significant base that can be used for any improvement
efforts. Using simulation as a complementary tool to
VSM adds a dynamic dimension to the tool. It helped in
judging changes for a VSM on several products or pro-
duction lines instead of the one-dimensional effort VSM
focuses on. Simulation also serves as a check and evalu-
ation tool in findings extracted from a VSM, in addition
to evaluating potential improvements in different scenari-
os, i.e., incrementally modifying the tempering process
until waiting time is decreased.
The bottleneck detection methods made extra use of
information extracted from the simulation model to

7 Conclusion and future work recommendations Table 8 Modifications effect on waiting time and utilization

Process Average Average Utilization Utilization

This paper proposes a condensed version of lean manufactur- waiting time waiting time before after
ing, which combines the merits of VSM and simulation in a before after modification modification
systematic scheme aiming toward addressing small to midsize modifications modifications (%) (%)
(min) (min)
manufacturing plant problems. The condensed version targets
relieving the system from its bottlenecks in a feasibility- Cutting 0 0 23 19
conscious improving algorithm. Flat edging 55.2 56.4 43 30
The proposed scheme employing VSM, simulation, and Pencil 1030.8 93.6 82 39
bottleneck detection methods was implemented in a real case edging
study involving glass fabrication in Jordan. The plant, which Arising 2.4 2.4 4 2
is considered relatively small, suffered from traditional Drilling 9 10.8 35 28
manufacturing problems such as long lead times and unbal- Silk 7.2 4.8 23 17
anced production lines. Practical experience revealed one po- screening
Tempering 165.6 114 94 85
tential bottleneck (tempering furnace); for which the solution
Double 2.4 4.8 17 14
was too costly and risky. glazing
The implementation of the proposed scheme was able Lamination 0 0 21 20
to identify another bottleneck, and proved to be efficient Assembly 0 0 1 1
in identifying waste, in addition to evaluating and quanti- Sandblasting 0 0 1 1
fying changes to a system before implementation.
1584
Fig. 4 Future state map
accurately identify primary and secondary bottlenecks.
This paper made use of three approaches to find potential
areas of improvement in the company. Identifying bottle-
necks accurately ensures that improvement efforts are not
spent in the wrong area. This important aspect helps avoid
the wasteful use of resources. It also highlights the signif-
icance of certain departments on the output of the system.
The future state map proves to be a great tool in
Fig. 5 Current facility layout
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586
quantifying the effect of changes suggested by the use
of the manufacturing lead time KPI.
Combining the three tools, and the flowchart described
earlier, can provide a building stone for any future improve-
ment efforts. The flowchart can simplify the process. The
VSM visualize the processes and rates their performance ac-
cording to their effect on lead time. Keeping the VSM updated
would serve as a good monitoring tool for management in the
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586
Fig. 6 Suggested facility layout
future. The simulation model can serve as an evaluation tool to
any suggested improvement before actual implementation.
The current state map highlights the inventory control and
supplier management as an area that requires consideration.
The manufacturing lead time depends on the suppliers’ lead
time due to the lack of a better inventory control system.
Introducing a better scheduling system for internal processes
could help immensely in reducing setup times. This would
help in providing more accurate delivery times to the cus-
tomers. The furnace is also an area that requires future atten-
tion; it would be worth investing in optimizing the time avail-
able for the furnace.
References
1. Hodge GL et al (2011) Adapting lean manufacturing principles to
the textile industry. Prod Plan Contr 22(3):237–247
2. Melton T (2005) The benefits of lean manufacturing: what lean
thinking has to offer the process industries. Chem Eng Res Des
83(6):662–673
3. Pattanaik L, Sharma B (2009) Implementing lean manufacturing
with cellular layout: a case study. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 42(7-
8):772–779
4. Bhasin S, Burcher P (2006) Lean viewed as a philosophy. J Manuf
Technol Manag 17(1):56–72
5. Choobineh F (1988) A framework for the design of cellular
manufacturing systems. Int J Prod Res 26(7):1161–1172
6. Monden Y (2011) Toyota production system: an integrated ap-
proach to just-in-time. CRC Press
7. Nakajima S (1988) Introduction to TPM: total productive mainte-
nance. Productivity Press, Inc, Cambridge, p 129
1585
8. Osada T (1991) The 5S’s: five keys to a total quality environment.
Quality Resources
9. Rother M, Shook J (1998) Learning to see: value stream mapping to
add value and eliminate muda. Lean Enterprise Institute
10. Singh B, Sharma S (2009) Value stream mapping as a versatile tool
for lean implementation: an Indian case study of a manufacturing
firm. Meas Bus Excell 13(3):58–68
11. Schweizer W (2011) Value stream engineering—four paradigms for
process design in industrial engineering. In 21st International
Conference on Production Research, Stuttgart, Germany (CD-ROM)
12. Chowdary BV, George D (2011) Improvement of manufacturing
operations at a pharmaceutical company: a lean manufacturing ap-
proach. J Manuf Technol Manag 23(1):56–75
13. Kaale RL et al (2005) Time value stream mapping as a tool to
measure patient flow through emergency department triage. Ann
Emerg Med 46(3):108
14. Morlock F, Meier H (2015) Service value stream mapping in indus-
trial product-service system performance management. Procedia
CIRP 30:457–461
15. Hines P, Rich N (1997) The seven value stream mapping tools. Int J
Oper Prod Manage 17(1):46–64
16. Jones D, Womack J (2002) Seeing the whole. Lean Enterprise
Institute, Brookline
17. Matt D (2008) Template based production system design. J Manuf
Technol Manag 19(7):783–797
18. Russell RS, Taylor BW (1999) Operations management, 2nd edn.
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River
19. Sihn W, Pfeffer M (2013) A method for a comprehensive value
stream evaluation. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 62(1):427–430
20. Tyagi S, Vadrevu S (2015) Immersive virtual reality to vindicate the
application of value stream mapping in an US-based SME. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 1-14
21. Khalid NK, Hashim AY, Salleh MR (2014) On value stream map-
ping and its industrial significance. J Ind Intell Inform 2(2)
22. Vamsi Krishna Jasti N, Sharma A (2014) Lean manufacturing im-
plementation using value stream mapping as a tool: a case study
from auto components industry. Int J Lean Six Sigma 5(1):89–116
23. Kalsaas BT (2002) Value stream mapping. An adequate method for
going lean?
1586
24. Seth D et al (2008) Application of value stream mapping (VSM) for
minimization of wastes in the processing side of supply chain of
cottonseed oil industry in Indian context. J Manuf Technol Manag
19(4):529–550
25. Profozich D (1997) Managing change with business process simu-
lation. Simon & Schuster Trade
26. Solding P, Gullander (2009) Concepts for simulation based value
stream mapping. in Simulation Conference (WSC), Proceedings of
the 2009 Winter. IEEE
27. Sohal AS (1996) Developing a lean production organization: an
Australian case study. Int J Oper Prod Manage 16(2):91–102
28. Abdulmalek FA, Rajgopal J (2007) Analyzing the benefits of lean
manufacturing and value stream mapping via simulation: a process
sector case study. Int J Prod Econ 107(1):223–236
29. Sigari S, Clark R (2013) Applying lean thinking to improve the
production process of a traditional medium-size British manufactur-
ing company. Int J Inf Oper Manag Educ 5(2):154–169
30. Gurumurthy A, Kodali R (2009) Application of benchmarking for
assessing the lean manufacturing implementation. Benchmark Int J
16(2):274–308
31. Lian Y-H, Van Landeghem H (2007) Analysing the effects of lean
manufacturing using a value stream mapping-based simulation gen-
erator. Int J Prod Res 45(13):3037–3058
32. Braglia M, Carmignani G, Zammori F (2006) A new value stream
mapping approach for complex production systems. Int J Prod Res
44(18-19):3929–3952
33. Swallmeh E et al. (2014) Integrating simulation modelling and val-
ue stream mapping for leaner capacity planning of an emergency
department, in Sixth International Conference on Advances in
System Simulation, SIMUL. Nice – France
34. Parthanadee P, Buddhakulsomsiri J (2014) Production efficiency
improvement in batch production system using value stream map-
ping and simulation: a case study of the roasted and ground coffee
industry. Prod Plan Contr 25(5):425–446
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2016) 84:1573–1586
35. McDonald T, Van Aken EM, Rentes AF (2002) Utilising simulation
to enhance value stream mapping: a manufacturing case applica-
tion. Int J Logist 5(2):213–232
36. Chen C Snowdon J, Charnes J (2002) The current and future status
of simulation software. in Winter Simulation Conference
37. Chan FT (1995) Using simulation to predict system performance: a
case study of an electro-phoretic deposition plant. Integr Manuf
Syst 6(5):27–38
38. Chan FT, Abhary K (1996) Design and evaluation of automated
cellular manufacturing systems with simulation modelling and
AHP approach: a case study. Integr Manuf Syst 7(6):39–52
39. Chan FT, Jiang B (1999) Simulation-aided design of production
and assembly cells in an automotive company. Integr Manuf Syst
10(5):276–283
40. Irani Z et al (2000) Re-engineering manufacturing processes
through simulation modelling. Logist Inf Manag 13(1):7–13
41. Lemessi M et al. (2012) Semi-automatic simulation-based bottle-
neck detection approach. in Proceedings of the Winter Simulation
Conference. Winter Simulation Conference
42. Roser C, Nakano M, Tanaka M (2003) Comparison of bottleneck
detection methods for AGV systems. in Simulation Conference,
2003. Proceedings of the 2003 Winter. IEEE
43. Kelton WD, Law AM (2000) Simulation modeling and analysis.
McGraw Hill Boston
44. Roser C Nakano M, Tanaka M (2002) Tracking shifting bottle-
necks. in Japan-USA Symposium on Flexible Automation
45. Sengupta S, Das K, VanTil RP (2008) A new method for bottleneck
detection. in Proceedings of the 40th conference on Winter simula-
tion. Winter Simulation Conference
46. Buffa ES, Armour GC, Vollmann TE (1964) Allocating facilities
with CRAFT. Harvard University Boston, MA
47. Jensen PA (2004) Facility layout add-in Available from: https://
www.me.utexas.edu/∼jensen/ORMM/omie/computation/unit/lay_
add/lay_add.html