2019 Industrial & Systems Engineering Conference (ISEC), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, January 19-20, 2019

Lean Manufacturing Implementation in Carton

Industry – A case study
Hani Shafeek
Department of Industrial Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
King AbdulAziz University
Rabigh, Saudi Arabia
Faculty of Industrial Education
Suez University
Suez, Egypt
HaniShafeek@yahoo.com

Abstract—Lean manufacturing (LM) implementation is an
ongoing effort of continuous improvement in manufacturing
processes. To support LM, production engineers persistently
examine the processes to discover and eradicate inherent wastes.
Therefore, this study is devoted to examine the influential
factors of LM implementation. A case from the carton industry
is discussed considering the key lean tools such as pull system,
customer involvement, supplier participation, housekeeping,
poka-yoke, SMED, TPM, standardized work, Kaizen,
leadership HRM, planning, process management, one piece flow
and quality. The case implementation yields about 28.7% over
the suggested manufacturing process areas.
Keywords—lean manufacturing implementation, production,
continuous improvement, waste, lean tools
I. INTRODUCTION
It is hard to imagine some industries such as food,
pharmaceutical, cosmetics, household products etc. without
the contribution of packaging. Packaging plays an important
role in reducing goods waste. Cartons are one of the
commonest forms of packaging. Improving the Carton
Production System (CPS) year after year requires a special
culture of embracing the concept of Continuous Improvement
(CI). Lean culture development takes years and is created and
developed as a result of CI efforts. This work is focused on
CPS culture change at the early stages of LM implementation.
A questionnaire survey is used to collect data from three
carton firms to explore LM implementation in sixteen areas.
The factors that delay the LM implementation process were
also investigated. This study helps organizations to change
from a traditional manufacturing to LM methodology.
Therefore, the research problem of this work is to highlight
the LM implementation in carton industry through sixteen
areas namely pull system, customer involvement, supplier
participation, housekeeping, poka-yoke, SMED, TPM,
standardized work, Kaizen, leadership and HRM and they are
discussed in the subsequent sections.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A pull system is a LM strategy that is used to decrease
waste in the manufacture process. It is a manufacturing system
in which goods are made when needed by a downstream
process. It is not too difficult to design and implement a pull
system [1] that is balanced, operating at takt, and that has short
lead times and high level of quality. The relationship between
the consumption and replenishment points is referred to as a
pull path as has attributes such as the pull code, pull sequence,
and pull link. The common manufacturing pull systems are
Kanban [2, 4] and CONWIP [5]. LM customers are interested
in creating active partnerships with their sellers. The internal
customer is the next line operator in the plant who processes a
product. The purchasing department, which receives a report
from the accounting department, is the internal customer.
External customers are the people outside the company who
receive the goods after they are completed. Customer
involvement identifies and develops ways to involve
customers in the product as in the industrial printing machines
[6] development process [7], such as design, marketing, sales
[8], and customer service. Customer satisfaction and new
product development (measured by surveys) [9] will likely be
one of the most important key measures of company
performance. The least important strategy that supports LM
supplier system is how a firm works with its vendors [10].
Vendors are expected to enable continuous improvement of
performance through their own efforts [11, 12]. Most of a
firm’s value-added assets come from the suppliers as new
product development [13]. The complete benefit of lean
cannot be achieved without vendors initiating lean strategies
themselves [14, 15]. The development of supplier partnerships
is very profitable as single sources of supply allow for closer
ties and better relationship. 5S is a LM tool that helps to
organize a workplace [16]. The 5S concept of housekeeping
focuses on the importance of clean and organized work
environment. The five Ss, which were coined by Toyota and
originally in Japanese, are sort or simplify (removing and
discarding all unnecessary items from the work area) -
straighten (to keep everything in right angle), shine
(everything in the work area should be cleaned), standardize
(keep everything as standard as possible) and sustain (to
ensure compliance). The benefits of implementing the
principles of 5S [17] are quality improvement by identifying
all necessary objects in an area, reduced waiting time, reduced
waste, improved safety, improved profitability by reducing
waste, clean and organized workplace and positive mental
attitude in the environment. Mistake proofed processes can
improve LM by detecting manufacturing quality problems and
eliminating error. It is possible to develop an environment that
is defect-free as was developed by Shigeo Shingo [18]. Poka-
yoke or mistake proofing was designed to eliminate human
error by focusing on the pursuit of quality at the source and
capturing feedback on defects as close as possible to the root
causes [19]. The five basic classes of poka-yoke devices, as
mentioned by Shingo, include limit switches, counters, guide

978-1-7281-0145-3/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE.

pins, alarms, and checklists. They could be as simple as a
checklist for an operator to make sure that all steps in a process
have been followed in the right order. LM thinking encourages
reduction of setup time, Setup time encompass taking an
existing setup apart, preparing for next setup, and determining
whether or not the new setup can create a good part. Though
necessary, setup time does not add value and therefore is a
source of waste [20]. Equipment design should allow easy
change from one tool to another. Setup processes should be
studied for wasteful activities. The development of quick
changeovers for operators has been a strong team effort [21].
Without quick changeovers, lead time remains long [22].
Shigeo Shingo developed the technique of single-minute
exchange of dies (SMED) [23] that has many benefits
including reduced equipment changeover time, increased
machine capacity to meet takt time and reduced lead times.
SMED has been used to reduce setup and turnaround time in
all types of manufacturing [24], assembly, SMEs [25] and
even service industries. The lean approach is different from
the classic total productive maintenance (TPM) focus on
equipment reliability. TPM provides the route map to zero
breakdowns and continuous improvement in equipment
optimization [26]. Lean thinking tools help to improve the
design efficiency and provide the ability to deliver increased
value to the customer with minimum effort. TPM tools
enhance the effectiveness of the transformation process. The
implementation of a TPM program generally takes 2.5 to 3
years [27]. Further discussion about the impact of LM on
manufacturing is also available; refer to [28,30]. This
particular work studies the factors that influence the
implementation of LM through sixteen key tools whilst other
studies usually focus on one tool only. A number of authors
focused on the significance of one tool in LM to increase
efficiency such as the flowing:
a. Pull system [1, 5]
b. Customer involvement [6, 9]
c. Supplier participation [10, 15]
d. Housekeeping (5S) [16, 17]
e. Mistake proofing [18, 19]
f. SMED [20, 25]
g. Total Productive Maintenance [26, 29]
The paper’s objective is to find out the factors that
influence the implementation of lean manufacturing. LM
implementation roadmap built around existing findings in
literature, an industrial case and selected lean practice. Most
articles just focus on factors that influence the implementation
of one by one-lean tool only. In this work, we used a case
study approach which utilized both quantitative research
method (empirical-analytical research) and qualitative
research. From the study, it is found that 28.7% improvement
in LM can be achieved through the suggested areas for
improvement. Henceforth, the paper is organized as follows.
Section III describes the research methodology (LM
questionnaire design). Next, in section IV, are the results and
discussion of the sixteen manufacturing process areas in
carton firms. Finally, in section V comprises conclusions of
the study.
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The questionnaire survey consists of sixteen areas with
questions covering the following tools - pull ssystem,
customer involvement, supplier participation, housekeeping,
poka-yoke, SMED, TPM, standardized work, Kaizen,
leadership, HRM, pplanning, pprocess mmanagement, one
piece flow, and qquality. A survey of ten carton producing
firms in Saudi Arabia (KSA) was taken and the response rate
was 13% which was initially thought to be below expectations
but is sufficient and quite valid as this trend is prevalent in
other countries of the region. The core goal is to use a
descriptive questionnaire covering sixteen tools of LM in
order to give a clear depiction of LM in carton firms. Utilizing
this questionnaire is the heart of this study that is vital for
benchmarking and offers a deeper understanding of LM. The
survey was distributed to manufacturing mangers in carton
firms, data was collected and examined to create
recommendations for developing LM methods, finding
weaknesses and highlighting areas that need improvement in
order to develop suitable LM improvements and implement
them.
Among the key stages of the LM questionnaire design is
conceptualization [30]. The early stages of questionnaire
design should include an overview [31] of existing LM
literature. The survey manger must have experience in LM
implementation and an understanding of LM objectives, tools,
techniques, and how to use them [32, 33]. The most important
part of the LM survey process is questionnaire design [34, 36].
Some methods for accessing lean tools have been proposed
such as the conceptualization of a generic ‘fit’ manufacturing
strategy and manufacturing supply chains [37, 38], re-
conceptualizing lean in construction environments and
healthcare [39, 40], framework for implementing cost and
quality practices within manufacturing [41], lean
manufacturing: tools, techniques, and how to use them [42],
a guide for application of lean tools and management
principles to health care projects [43].
The first task with the LM questionnaire design is to define
the study objectives. The objectives are determining the
success and failure factors in different LM areas as well as
investigating the state of LM in the carton industry. The
sample in carton industry must be defined, and the collection
data must be determined. The interviewer should ask
questions that are relevant to the LM objectives. It should be
clear from LM objectives what LM areas need to be covered.
The survey manger must have experience in LM
implementation and understanding LM objectives. The most
important part of the LM survey process is questionnaire
design. The early stages of questionnaire design should
include an overview of existing LM literature. It will help
determine what hypotheses have been tested. The
questionnaire design is split into determining the questions,
selecting the question types and designing the sequence.
Different types of questions can be used as open, closed,
multiple responses, rank and rating. The LM questionnaire
used Likert scales. Constructing effective questionnaire
design is an art in which needs lean field experience, along
with a basic lean knowledge. The designer must avoid the use
of hidden questions. While brief questions are simple, too
short questions may generate confusion. Question wording
must be simple, brief and specific. Attention should be placed
on the usage of words such as always and never. The
questionnaire designer should pay attention to the type of
questions and their sequence. Developing good measures
involves both good questions and good organizing of the
questionnaire. Questions can be asked in different ways and
the selection of words in a question is critical in expressing the
meaning. Computer programs such as a word processing
package can help in designing the questionnaire. Designer
should use some filter questions in order to screen responses.
There is no negative relationship between LM questionnaire
length and response. Pilot test in the field is a critical
component of LM questionnaire design [44]. Most errors are
found and eliminated at the first LM questionnaire check.
There are some steps for testing a good questionnaire. The first
is identifying the topics, which will be covered in the
questionnaire through the aforementioned sixteen
manufacturing process areas. The drafts of the questionnaire
were discussed several times over the course of its
development. Pre-testing a survey is an essential step in the
questionnaire design. The LM questionnaire was translated
into the local language. Pre-test is used as useful tool for
checking. It checks all issues of wording, style, content and
language. It used three filed method and one office method.
Conventional, behavioral and cognitive methods are the field
methods. The conventional method involves interviewers as
LM researchers, the behavioral method involves LM experts
and the cognitive method assesses the analytical accuracy. LM
expert designer reviewed the LM questionnaire in the office.
The pre-test purpose is to evaluate the adequacy of the LM
questionnaire and to estimate the length of interview. Editing
questionnaire is the process through which LM questionnaire
is reviewed to detect and correct errors. It consists of checking
and verifying that the data collected is complete, accurate and
consistent.
Once completed, the data entry form must be tested. The
data collected from carton firms should be as accurate as
possible. Training interviewers should be considered the last
step of LM questionnaire design. The interviewer should be
the same person as questionnaire designer. The sequence of
different LM areas that are covered by the questionnaire can
affect the accuracy of collected data. Gantt chart can be used
in planning the timing of a survey. Face-to-face interviews
were used in this study and the average interview length was
70 minutes. The LM questionnaire is not more than 12 pages
long. The LM questionnaire used in this work consisted of
sixteen main parts and 120 questions. This study used mixed
method quantitative and qualitative research approaches. The
questionnaire was formed to gather data about LM and for
qualitative method, face-to-face interviews were conducted.
LM has a very extensive collection of top tools and concepts.
One way to start is to survey the most important lean tools,
with a brief explanation of how each tool can develop in
carton-manufacturing operations. We already have been
tested our data for the normal distribution, we found that our
data follow the normally distributed data which can be
analyzed by ANOVA. This work used both quantitative
research (empirical-analytical research) method and
qualitative research (interpretative research) methods. The
key stages of the LM questionnaire design are
conceptualization following [45, 46]. There are such as the
early stages of questionnaire design should include an
overview [47] of existing LM literature. The survey manger
must have experience in LM implementation and
understanding LM objectives tools, techniques, and how to
use them [48, 50]. The most important part of the LM survey
process is questionnaire design [51].
IV. DISCUSSION
The analysis showed clearly the general picture of lean
enterprise assessment inside three carton firms.
A. Pull System
The analysis of pull system for three different firms is
summarized below.
The factors responsible for success of the pull system in
carton firms are:
i. More than 23% of manufacture executives have been trained
in the principle and achievement of inventory control involves
forecasting inventory needs to meet customer demand.
ii. Almost 20% of the production is pulled by the shipment of
finished goods.
The factor that is responsible for success/failure of the pull
system in carton firms is:
i. Nearly 17% of manufacture supervisors are not forced to
make extra parts than the follow up procedure requires.
The factors responsible for the failure of the pull system in
carton firms is:
i. Only 11% of manufacturing processes display the target and
actual hourly output as well as the shift’s production
requirements and timing.
ii. Less than 11% of production at stations is pulled by the
current demand of the next station.
iii. Kanban squares or containers are used only 9% of the time
in production control.
B. Customer Involvement
The analysis of customer involvement for three different
firms is summarized below.
The factors responsible for the success of the customer
involvement in carton firms are:
i. Almost 15% of customers are in close contact with the
company.
ii. More than 15% of customers give feedback on quality and
delivery performance.
iii. Regular surveys to gauge customer satisfaction were
conducted more than 13% of the time.
The factor responsible for success/failure of the customer
involvement in carton firms is:
i. Customer needs are recognized during the supply chain 7%
of the time.
The factors responsible for the failure of the customer
involvement in carton firms are:
i. Only 6% of customer feedbacks are process the same time
ii. Barely 3% of customers frequently visit the plants
C. Supplier Participation
The analysis of supplier participation for three different firms
is summarized below.
The factors responsible for the success of the supplier
participation in carton firms are:
i. The company gives the suppliers feedback on quality and
delivery performance more than 8% of the time.
ii. More than 10% of respondents said that there was a long-
term relationship with suppliers.
iii. Almost 10% of suppliers are contractually committed to
annual cost reductions.
iv, Nearly 10% of key suppliers are located in close proximity
to the plants.
v. 8% of respondents said that there was a corporate level of
communication on important issues with key suppliers.
The factors responsible for success/failure of the supplier
participation in carton firms are:
i. The company visits 6% of supplier plants.
ii. Almost 7% of vendors deliver to the company on a JIT
basis.
iii. 7% of the respondents said that there were active steps
taken to reduce the number of vendors in each category.
The factors responsible for the failure of the supplier
participation in carton firms are:
i. Only 6% of suppliers are in close contact with the company.
ii. Less than 6% of suppliers frequently visit the plants.
iii. Barely 6% of suppliers are directly involved in the new
product development process.
iv. There was a formal supplier certification program in only
6% of instances
v. Only 4% of key suppliers manage inventory.
vi. Only 6% of respondents said that suppliers are evaluated
on the basis of the total cost and not per unit price.
D. Housekeeping Assessment
The analysis of Housekeeping Assessment for three different
firms summarizes as the following.
The factors responsible for the success of the housekeeping
assessment in carton firms are:
i. The shop floor is normally clear of needless resources, items
at least 21% of the time.
ii. 21% of respondents said that the shop floor has outlines that
distinguish work areas and material handling paths.
iii. In 15% of cases, there was a place for everything and
everything was in its place. Every needed item, tool and
material is labeled and easy to find.
The factors responsible for success/failure of the
housekeeping assessment in carton firms are
i. 5% of respondents said that all staff are aware of good
housekeeping practices.
ii. Almost 5% confirmed that a daily checklist exists in each
workstation that identifies housekeeping activities to be
performed.
E. Mistake Proofing (Poka-Yoke) Assessment
The analysis of mistake proofing (poka-yoke) assessment for
three different firms is summarized below.
The factor responsible for the success of poka-yoke in carton
firms is:
i. 43% of all equipment are equipped with lights or signals that
bring attention to situations requiring help.
The factor responsible for success/failure of poka-yoke in
carton firms is:
i. Among the survey respondents, 24% said that mistake
proofing devices and methods have either been
implemented or are being designed to eliminate the main
production defects for each work area in the plant.
The factors responsible for the failure of poka-yoke in carton
firms are:
i. Only 14% of staff have been trained on the basis of errors
proofing (poka-yoke).
ii. Less than 19% of parts, products and components have
been analyzed to eliminate waste and improve productivity.
F. Setup Reduction (SMED) Assessment
The analysis of SMED for three different firms summarizes
as the following
The factors responsible for the success of SMED in carton
firms are:
i. More than 24% of setup reduction procedures are
standardized.
ii. Almost 31% of respondents confirmed that special tools
have been developed to decrease the time and labor to
participate in the setup time.
The factor responsible for success/failure of SMED in carton
firms is:
i. Nearly 17 % of workers practice setups to decrease the time
requisite.
The factors responsible for the failure of SMED in carton
firms are:
i. Only 8% of the time there was a working to lower the setup
times to be less than 10 minutes between runs.
ii. Setup time is clearly tracked at only 8% of workstations
where changeovers are performed.
iii. Only 12% of equipment in the plant had low setup times
G. Leveled Production Assessment
The analysis of leveled production assessment for three
different firms is summarized below.
The factor responsible for the success of leveled production
assessment in carton firms is:
i. Among the respondents, 28% agreed that when order size
modifies, supermarket scales are checked to integrate the
new takt time.
The factor responsible for success/failure of the leveled
production assessment in carton firms is:
i. About 22% of processes on manufacture lines are balanced
so the difference between cycle times of linked processes is
minor.
The factors responsible for the failure of the leveled
production assessment in carton firms are:
i. About 20% of respondents claimed that there is an attempt
to level manufacture schedules by requesting suppliers to
schedule periodic, smaller submission, over the term.
ii. Only 6% agreed that takt time is identified.
H. Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) Assessment
The analysis of TPM for three different firms is summarized
below.
The factors responsible for the success of TPM in carton
firms are:
i. TPM awareness training is provided for 11% of employees.
ii. About 13% of develop the employees' skills, improve their
performance through training includes teamwork and
problem-solving techniques.
iii. More than 16% of respondents agreed that equipment’s
have all essential safety guards in the workplace;
iv. About 11% of survey respondents said that preventive
responsibilities were defined for all staff.
v. Nearly 13% of scheduled planned maintenance activities
are up to date.
The factors responsible for success/failure of TPM in carton
firms are:
i. About 6% reported that PM activity lists were posted to
workplace.
ii. Nearly 6% of PM activities are concentrated on reducing the
cycle time.
The factors responsible for the failure of TPM in carton firms
are:
i. Only 6% of training needs assessment for total productive
maintenance are based upon the type of machines used.
ii. Less than 4% reported that mean time between failures and
mean time to repair are monitored.
iii. About 4% agreed that the productive maintenance staff
assists the operating staff.
I. Standardized Work Assessment
The analysis of Standardized Work Assessment for three
different firms is summarized below.
The factors responsible for the success of standardized work
assessment in carton firms are:
i. More than 22% of workers have been trained in Kaizen and
have participated in continuous improvement actions.
ii. More than 20% of workers be familiar with the 8 wastes and
are authorized to reduce and remove wastes.
The factor responsible for success/failure of standardized
work assessment in carton firms is:
i. Nearly 18% of respondents said that there is a proper
proposal procedure in workplace to seek ideas for
improvements from all workers and to identify their
contribution
J. Continuous Improvement (Kaizen) Assessment
The analysis of Kaizen for three different firms is
summarized below.
The factors responsible for the success of Kaizen in carton
firms are:
i. More than 22% of workers have been trained in Kaizen and
have participated in continuous improvement actions.
ii. More than 20% of workers be familiar with the 8 wastes and
are authorized to reduce and remove wastes
The factor responsible for success/failure of Kaizen in carton
firms is:
i. Nearly 18% of respondents said that there is a proper
proposal procedure in workplace to seek ideas for
improvements from all workers and to identify their
contribution.
The factors responsible for the failure of Kaizen in carton
firms are:
i. Only about 12% of improvements complete with no
expense.
ii. About 12% of product/process value streams undertake an
assessment for CI regularly.
K. Leadership Assessment
The analysis of Leadership Assessment for three different
firms is summarized below.
The factors responsible for the success of leadership
assessment in carton firms are:
i. Nearly 20% of respondents agreed that champions of
change are effectively used to drive 'best practice at the
sites.
ii. More than 20% of environmental 'green' protection issues
are proactively managed at the sites.
The factors responsible for success/failure of leadership
assessment in carton firms are:
i. About 17% said that there is a high degree of unity of
purpose throughout the site, and elimination of barriers
between individuals and /or departments.
ii. 17% said that they proactively follow CI before reacting to
emergency 'fire-fighting'.
The factors responsible for the failure of leadership
assessment in carton firms are:
i. Only 13% of senior bosses encourage change and
implement an environment of trust, involvement and
commitment in moving towards 'best practices'.
ii. Less than 13% of respondents reported that ideas from
manufacture workers are actively used in supporting
organization
L. Human Resource Management (HRM) Assessment
The analysis of HRM Assessment for three different firms is
summarized below.
The factors responsible for the success of HRM Assessment
in carton firms are:
i. More than 14% of reported that employee satisfaction is
formally and regularly measured.
ii. About 16% said that shop-floor employees are key to
problem solving teams.
iii. 7% of respondents pointed that workers in workplace make
suggestion programs
The factors responsible for success/failure of HRM
Assessment in carton firms are:
i. There was an organization-wide training and development
process, including career path planning, for 10% of all
employees.
ii. About 11% of shop-floor employees lead product/process
improvement efforts.
The factors responsible for the failure of HRM Assessment in
carton firms are:
i. 6% said that the sites have effective 'top-down' and 'bottom-
up' communication processes.
ii. Only 7% of occupational health and safety practices are
excellent.
iii. Less than 8% said that employee flexibility multi-skilling
and training are actively used to support improved
performance.
iv. Only 8% of employees believe that quality is their
responsibility.
v. About 8% of shop-floor employees undergo cross-
functional training
N. Planning Assessment
The analysis of Planning Assessment for three different firms
is summarized below.
The factors responsible for the success of the pull system in
carton firms are:
i. More than 26% reported that there was a full and structured
planning process, which regularly sets and reviews short
and long-term goals.
ii. Nearly 24% of respondents said that there is a written
statement of strategy covering all manufacturing operations
that is clearly expressed and agreed to by senior managers.
The factor responsible for success/failure of the pull system
in carton firms is:
i. About 21% agreed that the plans focus on achievement of
'best practices'.
The factors responsible for the failure of the pull system in
carton firms are:
i. Only 16% said that developing plans, policies and
objectives consider customer requirements, vendor
capabilities, and other stakeholder needs, including the
community.
ii. Less than 13% agreed that the vision and mission statements
have been communicated throughout the company and are
supported by all the employees.
O. Process Management Assessment
The analysis of Process Management Assessment for three
different firms is summarized below.
The factor responsible for the success of the pull system in
carton firms is:
i. About 56% of respondents confirmed that there are
established methods to measure the quality of products and
services.
The factor responsible for success/failure of the pull system
in carton firms is:
i. Less than 44% said that there were wide standardized and
documented operating procedures.
4.15 One Piece Flow Assessment
The analysis of one piece flow assessment for three different
firms is summarized below.
The factors responsible for the success of one piece flow
assessment in carton firms are:
i. More than 14% agreed that the plant layout supports
product flow or small lot production.
ii. About 11% said that the layout allows for ease of
maintenance and replenishment of parts.
The factor responsible for success/failure of one piece flow
assessment in carton firms is:
i. About 11% of machines are organized in cell layout,
promoting flexible manning.
The factors responsible for the failure of one piece flow
assessment in carton firms are:
i. Only 9% said that the layout is designed around people's
movements and ergonomics.
ii. About 9% agreed that products are classified into groups
with similar processing requirements.
iii. 6% said that families of products determine the factory
layout.
P. Quality Assessment
The analysis of Quality Assessment for three different firms
is summarized below.
The factors responsible for the success of quality assessment
in carton firms are:
i. More than 21% of survey respondents said that large
numbers of equipment and processes on shop floor are
currently under SPC.
ii. About 10% reported that called cause-and-effect, C&E or
Ishikawa diagrams used to identify causes of problems.
iii. Nearly 18% confirmed that the firm implement ISO 9000
that define, establish, and maintain an effective quality
system for manufacturing
iv. Almost 15% agreed that internal scrap and returned
materials to vendors are little.
The factor responsible for success/failure of quality
assessment in carton firms is:
i. 12% of survey respondents said that charts showing defect
rates are used as tools on the shop floor.
The factors responsible for the failure of quality assessment
in carton firms are:
i. Only 10% said that there is extensive use of statistical
techniques to reduce process variance.
ii. Less than 6% thought that process capability studies are
conducted before product launch.
iii. 8% of respondents agreed that FMEA is applied in place.
SPSS software was used for the analysis of the collected
data. While entering data into the SPSS software, the variable
view enables the user to customize it by data type and consists
of the many headings such as name, lean type, values, and
measures. These titles allow the user to illustrate the data.
Because of our study is involved at a large scale. We can used
some techniques such, t-test, ANOVA, which are available in
the “analyze” menu of this software. We already have been
tested our data for the normal distribution, we found that our
data follow the normally distributed data which can be
analyzed by ANOVA. ANOVA extends the t and the z tests
which have the problem of only allowing the nominal level
variable to have two categories. The ANOVA test is also
known as the Fisher analysis of variance. Parametric statistical
tests were carried out for collected data. Nonparametric test of
 1. Pull system
95% 93%
16. Quality 100% 2.Customer Involvement
82% 90%
80%
15.One piece flow 70% 3.Supplier Participation
83%
60% 72%
50%
14.Process Management80% 40% 4.Housekeeping
30% 74%
20%
88% 10%
13.Planning 0% 75% 5.Mistake Proofing

88%
77%
12.Human Resource Management 6.Setup Reduction (SMED)

88%
11.Leadership79% 63% 7.Leveled Production
73% 62%
10.Contiunous Improvement 8.Total Productive Mainetance
9.Standardized Work

Fig. 1. A clear picture of LM implementation in the carton industry

4.2%
3.9%
Increase efficiency ratio

2.5% 2.3%
2.2%
2.0% 1.8%
1.6%
1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2%
1.0%
0.5%
0.4%

Area of LM

Fig. 2. Prospective improvement of LM implementation with overall 28.7%

normality (probability plot) is carried out and the test does not
show statistical significant deviation of normality. However,
it is found exhaustive to explore the normality test in the paper.
According to the null hypothesis, there is no significant
difference between the groups. The alternative hypothesis is
that there is at least one significant difference between the
groups. After cleaning the data, we test the assumptions of
ANOVA and then determine the F-ratio. In general, if the F
is less than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected and the
alternative hypothesis is supported. If the null hypothesis is
rejected, we can conclude that the means of all the groups are
unequal.
By using ANOVA, we are attempting to check if there is a
statistically significant difference among the groups. If a
difference is found, we will then need to check where the
differences in the groups lay. A major limitation of SPSS is its
inadequacy when used for very large data sets.
The statistical analysis depicted some clearly strong areas
and other areas that need improvement. Statistical tools
evaluated the level of conformism between the LM areas
according to various factors. Parametric statistical tests such
as mean and standard deviation were used to analyze the
collected data. ANOVA test was performed in order to check
whether there is a major difference in the means of the three
carton firms. The ANOVA results in terms of high F(0.917)
statistics value show that there is a significant difference in the
means of the three firms; the mean is 0.83 and the standard
deviation is 0.23.
 Factors that assist in the success of LM implementation
are: process management, customer involvement, pull system,
setup, reduction, and quality. The factors that tend to
contribute toward a failed LM implementation in carton firms
are: TPM, leveled production, standardized work, and
housekeeping.
The performance of LM in three firms is highlighted in
order to draw a road map of continuous improvement of LM
in carton firms. Fig. 1. Shows a clear picture of LM
implementation in the carton industry.
Fig. 2. depicts the prospective improvement of LM
implementation with overall 28.7%. The findings show that
prospective improvement in lean manufacturing can be
achieved by 28.7% in the carton industry through the
following: 4.2% through HRM, 0.9% through supplier
participation, 2.5% through pull system, 2.3% through one
piece flow, 2.2% through customer involvement, 2.0%
through kaizen, 1.8% through quality, 1.6% through SMED,
1.3% through poka-yoke, 1.3% through leadership, 1.3%
through TPM, 1.3% through process management, 1.2%
through planning, 1% through leveled production, 0.5%
through housekeeping and 0.4% through standardized work.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This work studied the state of LM in the carton industry.
The study used mixed method quantitative and qualitative
research approaches. A questionnaire was formed to gather
data about LM; for qualitative method, face-to-face interviews
were used. The overall picture points towards evidence of
some criticalities - factors that help in the success of LM,
factors that lead to the failure of main LM and factors that
contain a mixture of failure and success in LM. The findings
show that 28.7% improvement in lean manufacturing can be
achieved. The detailed process has been described in the
methodology. The activities that can help improve LM
implementation from the examined sixteen LM tools in the
carton industry can be prioritized in the following order :
Human Resource Management HRM, supplier participation,
pull system, customer involvement, continuous improvement
(kaizen), and quality. The areas that help in the success of LM
implementation in the carton industry are process
management, customer involvement, pull system, setup
reduction SMED, and quality. The factors (or lack thereof)
that tend to contribute to the failure of LM implementation in
the carton industry are Total Productive Maintenance TPM,
leveled production, standardized work, and housekeeping.
Future research can be directed towards reducing waste in LM
by the use of computer-aided lean manufacturing.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Sharma, and N. Agrawal, “Selection of a pull production control
policy under different demand situations for a manufacturing system
by AHP-algorithm,” Computers & Operations Research, Vol.
36,No.5, 2009, pp.1622-1632,.
[2] A.Naufal, A. Jaffar, N. Yusoff, and N.Hayati, “Development of
Kanban system at local manufacturing company in Malaysia–case
study,” Procedia Engineering, Vol. 41, ,2012., pp. 1721-1726.
[3] M. Thürer, M. Stevenson, and C.W. Protzman, “COBACABANA
(Control of Balance by Card Based Navigation): An alternative to
kanban in the pure flow shop?,” International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol.166, pp. 2015, 143-151.
[4] M. Bortolini,E. Ferrari, M. Gamberi, R. Manzini, and A. Regattieri,
“New Kanban model for tow-train feeding system design,” Assembly
Automation, Vol.35,No.12015 , pp.128-136.
[5] C.E.Onyeocha, J.Wang, J. Khoury, and J. Geraghty, “A comparison
of HK-CONWIP and BK-CONWIP control strategies in a multi-
product manufacturing system,” Operations Research Perspectives,
Vol.2,pp. 2015, 137-149.
[6] K. Kimita, R. Sugino, M. Rossi, and Y. Shimomura, “Framework for
Analyzing Customer Involvement in Product-service Systems,”
Procedia CIRP, Vol.472016 , pp. 54-59.
[7] L.Scaringella, R.E. Miles, andY. Truong, “Customers involvement
and firm absorptive capacity in radical innovation: The case of
technological spin-offs,” Technological Forecasting and Social
Change,Vol. 120, 2017 , pp. 144-162.
[8] A. La Rocca, P. Moscatelli, A. Perna, and I.Snehota, “Customer
involvement in new product development in B2B: The role of sales,”
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.58, 2016, pp. 45-57.
[9] K. Abdolmaleki, and S. Ahmadian, “The relationship between
product characteristics, customer and supplier involvement and new
product development,” Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol.36,
2016, pp. 147-156.
[10] M.El Mokadem, “ The classification of supplier selection criteria with
respect to lean or agile manufacturing strategies,”Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol.28,No ,2017 ,pp. 232-
249.
[11] H.Nagati,and C.Rebolledo, “ Supplier development efforts: The
suppliers' point of view,” Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol.42,No.2, 2013 ,.pp. 180-188.
[12] M. C Caniëls,M.H. Gehrsitz, and J. Semeijn, “ Participation of
suppliers in greening supply chains: An empirical analysis of German
automotive suppliers,” Journal of Purchasing and supply
management, Vol.19,No.3,2013 , pp. 134-143.
[13] Y.Kuo, T.Yang, D. Parker, and C.H. Sung, “ Integration of customer
and supplier flexibility in a make-to-order industry,” Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol.116,No.2, pp.213-235,2016.
[14] N. F. Habidin, S. R. Mohd Yusof, andN. Mohd Fuzi, “Lean Six
Sigma, strategic control systems, and organizational performance for
automotive suppliers,” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,Vol.
7,No.2,2016 ,pp. 110-135.
[15] J. A. Garza-Reyes, E. M. Ates, and V.Kumar, “Measuring lean
readiness through the understanding of quality practices in the
Turkish automotive suppliers industry,” International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol.64,2015 . , pp.1092-
1112.
[16] S. Gupta, and S. K. Jain, “An application of 5S concept to organize
the workplace at a scientific instruments manufacturing company,”
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol.6,No.1,2015 , pp.73-88.
[17] J. S Randhawa and I. S. Ahuja, “5S–a quality improvement tool for
sustainable performance: literature review and directions,”
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol.34,No.3, 2017 , pp.334-361.
[18] T. A.Saurin, J. L. D. Ribeiro and G. Vidor, “A framework for
assessing poka-yoke devices,” Journal of manufacturing systems,Vol.
31, No.3, 2012., pp.358-366.
[19] J. R. Grout, “Mistake proofing: changing designs to reduce error,”
BMJ Quality & Safety, Vol.15(suppl 1),2006 .,pp. i44-i49.
[20] S. Jebaraj Benjamin, U. Murugaiah, and M. Srikamaladevi
Marathamuthu, “The use of SMED to eliminate small stops in a
manufacturing firm,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol.24,No.5, 2013.,pp.792-807.
[21] F. P.Guzmán, and K. Salonitis, “Improving changeover time: a
tailored SMED approach for welding cells,” Procedia CIRP,Vol. 7,
2013., pp.598-603,
[22] M. Braglia, M.Frosolini, andM. Gallo, “Enhancing SMED:
Changeover Out of Machine Evaluation Technique to implement the
duplication strategy,” Production Planning & Control,Vol. 27,No.4,
2016 ,pp.328-342.
[23] A.Simões, and Tenera, “Improving setup time in a Press Line–
Application of the SMED methodology,” IFAC Proceedings
Volumes, Vol.43,No.17, ,2010 ,pp.297-302..
[24] S. Chen, S.Fan, J. Xiong, and W. Zhang, “The Design of JMP/SAP [45] C.Roriz, E.Nunes, andS. Sousa, S. “Application of Lean Production
Based Six Sigma Management System and its Application in SMED,” Principles and Tools for Quality Improvement of Production
Procedia engineering, Vol.174, 2017 , pp. 416-424. Processes in a Carton Company,” Procedia Manufacturing,
[25] B.Jit Singh, and D.Khanduja, “SMED: for quick changeovers in Vol.11,2017 , pp.1069-1076.
foundry SMEs,” International Journal of Productivity and [46] S. T.Demir, D. J.Bryde, D. J. Fearon, and E. G. Ochieng, “Re-
Performance Management,Vol. 59,No.1,2009 , pp.98-116. conceptualizing Lean in Construction Environments–„the case for
[26] R. Singh, A. M.Gohil, D. B.Shah, and S.Desai, “Total productive “AgiLean” Project Management‟. In 48th ASC(2012) Annual
maintenance (TPM) implementation in a machine shop: A case International Conference Proceedings,pp. 1-9.
study,” Procedia Engineering, Vol.51,2013 , pp.592-599. [47] R. J. De Koeijer,J.Paauwe, and R. Huijsman, “Toward a conceptual
[27] C. C. Shen, “Discussion on key successful factors of TPM in framework for exploring multilevel relationships between Lean
enterprises,” Journal of applied research and technology, Management and Six Sigma, enabling HRM, strategic climate and
Vol.13,No.32015 ,pp. 425-427. outcomes in healthcare,” The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol.25,No.21,2014 , pp.2911-2925.
[28] P.Ruiz-de-Arbulo-Lopez, J. Fortuny-Santos, and L. Cuatrecasas-
Arbós,“Lean manufacturing: costing the value stream,” Industrial [48] A. Tiwari, C. Turner, and P. Sackett, “A framework for implementing
Management & Data Systems, Vol.113,No.5, 2013 , pp.647-668. cost and quality practices within manufacturing,” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 18,No.6,2007 ,
[29] M. Z.Rafique, M. N.Ab Rahman, N.Saibani, N. Arsad, N., and W.
pp.731-760.
Saadat, “RFID impacts on barriers affecting lean manufacturing,”
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol.116,No.8,2016 ,.pp. [49] B. S.Kumar, and S. S. Abuthakeer, “Implementation of lean tools and
1585-1616. techniques in an automotive industry,” Journal of Applied Sciences
(Faisalabad), Vol.12,No.10,pp.2012 , 1032-3037.
[30] De Koeijer, R. J., Paauwe, J., & Huijsman, R. Toward “a conceptual
framework for exploring multilevel relationships between Lean [50] Taleghani, M. “Key factors for implementing the lean manufacturing
Management and Six Sigma, enabling HRM, strategic climate and system,” Journal of American science, Vol.6,No.7,2010 , pp. 287-
outcomes in healthcare”. The International Journal of Human 291.
Resource Management, Vol. 25, No.21, 2014 , 2911-2925. [51] I. Brace, “Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure and write
[31] A.Tiwari, C., Turner, and P. Sackett, P. “A framework for survey material for effective market research,” Kogan Page
implementing cost and quality practices within manufacturing”, Publishers,2018.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol.18,No.6
,2007 , 731-760. Hani Shafeek obtained his B.Sc., Post Graduate Diploma, M.Sc. and Ph.D
[32] B. S., Kumar and S. S. Abuthakeer , “Implementation of lean tools in Industrial Engineering from the Faculty of Engineering at Mansoura
and techniques in an automotive industry”. Journal of Applied University. His research interest areas are Continuous Improvement
Sciences(Faisalabad), Vol.12,No.102012 ,pp. 1032-3037. techniques, Lean Manufacturing, Maintenance, Human Factors
[33] M., Taleghani “Key factors for implementing the lean manufacturing Engineering, Industrial Safety Engineering and Work Study, Dr. Hani has
system”. Journal of American science,Vol. 6,No.7,2010 ,pp.287-291. worked for several universities and has been a part of international projects
for the industry and governmental agencies for more than 25 years. He is a
[34] N. E ,Synodinos," The “art” of questionnaire construction: some
certified trainer and consultant from CDG Germany. Dr. Hani serves the
important considerations for manufacturing studies," Integrated
chief industrial advisory unit of a small & medium business support project
manufacturing systems, Vol.14,No. 3,2003 , pp. 221-237.
by the Canadian international development agency (Deloitte & Touche).
[35] J. M., Converse and s.S. Presser, “Survey questions: Handcrafting the He was the head of the Department of Industrial Engineering at King
standardized questionnaire” Vol. 63,1986 ,. Sage. Abdulaziz University, Rabigh where he is currently serving as an Associate
[36] Brace, I. (2018). Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure and Professor.
write survey material for effective market research. Kogan Page
Publishers.2018.
[37] A. J., Thomas, and D. T Pham,.,"Making industry fit: the
conceptualization of a generic 'fit' manufacturing strategy for
industry," In Industrial Informatics, 2004. INDIN'04. 2004 2 nd IEEE
International Conference on, pp. 523-528). IEEE.
[38] N. K., Ng, and J. Jiao, “A domain-based reference model for the
conceptualization of factory loading allocation problems in multi-site
manufacturing supply chains "Technovation, Vol.24,No.8,2004 ,
631-642.
[39] S. T Demir,. D. J Bryde, ,D. J., Fearon, , E. G. Ochieng, “Re-
conceptualizing Lean in Construction Environments–„the case for
“AgiLeanProject Management‟. In 48th ASC (2012) Annual
International Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-9).
[40] De Koeijer, R. J., Paauwe, J., and Huijsman, R. “ Toward a conceptual
framework for exploring multilevel relationships between Lean
Management and Six Sigma, enabling HRM, strategic climate and
outcomes in healthcare”. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol..25,No.21,2014 ,pp.2911-2925.
[41] A.Tiwari, , C.Turner, C., andP. Sackett, (2007). A framework for
implementing cost and quality practices within manufacturing.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol.18,
No.6,2007 ,pp. 731-760.
[42] W.M.Feld, “Lean manufacturing: tools, techniques, and how to use
them.” CRC press.2000.
[43] Simon, R. W., & Canacari, E. G. (2012). A practical guide to applying
lean tools and management principles to health care improvement
projects. AORN journal, 95(1), 85-103.
[44] G.Brancato, S. Macchia, M. Murgia, M. Signore, G. Simeoni, K..
Blanke, and J. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, “ Handbook of recommended
practices for questionnaire development and testing in the European
statistical system.” European Statistical System.2006.