The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

Productivity
Productivity gains through gains through
standardization-of-work in a SW

manufacturing company
Rahul S. Mor 899
Department of Food Engineering,
Received 31 July 2017
National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management, Revised 26 September 2017
Sonipat, India, and 28 January 2018
27 March 2018
Arvind Bhardwaj, Sarbjit Singh and Anish Sachdeva 18 July 2018
10 September 2018
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, Accepted 11 September 2018
Dr B.R. Ambedkar National Institute of Technology,
Jalandhar, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the non-value-adding activities (NVAs) of core
making process and to eliminate them through the standardization-of-work (SW) procedures in a
manufacturing company.
Design/methodology/approach – The action-research methodology was adopted for the current study.
First, various lean tools were identified through literature review, and the bottleneck area was identified in
discussion with the shop-floor executives. NVAs were recorded after a continuous process study including
method study and motion analysis followed by the standard operating procedure. Second, the standardized
work combination tables were prepared and NVAs were eliminated using the SW procedures. SW has been
opted because it is a set of actions which helps in analyzing, improving and controlling the process and it
leads to continual improvement.
Findings – The production logbook revealed that the capacity in this particular workstation was 54 pieces
per 7 h work shift against the current production of approx. 45–50 pieces (past data). SW saved 31.6 s per
cycle which boosted the production up to 58 pieces per 7 h work shift. Finally, the authors came to know
that the productivity of this particular process increased up to 6.5 percent which may upsurge if this action
is executed continually with the support from shop-floor executives and management. These results were
also compared with previous research works in this area and found significant relevance, and hence, the
results appear to be reliable.
Research limitations/implications – This is a unique study in itself which explores the lean model by
assessing NVAs of core making process. The proposed approach needs to be tested across different other core
making processes of the case company so as to generalize the effectiveness of SW as well as the results
obtained in the current study.
Practical implications – The current study illustrates an important step to give more visibility to the lean
concept by addressing the problem of lack of standard procedures. This study will help the shop-floor
executives and managers to focus their efforts in achieving high performance through effective
implementation of SW. The study should be of the interest of researchers in the area of lean manufacturing,
operations management, productivity analysis, etc.
Originality/value – The findings of this study are based on the problem formulation for productivity
gains using SW procedures in the case company. The study introduces a new perspective for the
execution of SW for core making processes. SW created transparency in workflow, enhanced the safety
and eliminated the 3Ms. The outcome of the current study was discussed with the production team and
management of the company to validate the productivity gains and received an optimistic response.
Most importantly, these improvements were achieved with no investment in machinery or tooling.
Keywords Manufacturing industry, Lean manufacturing, Process management, Industrial engineering,
Standardization
Paper type Case study
Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
Vol. 30 No. 6, 2019
pp. 899-919
The authors would like to express sincere gratitude for the remarks and suggestions made by the © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-038X
anonymous reviewers and editor which radically improved the quality of this manuscript. DOI 10.1108/JMTM-07-2017-0151
JMTM 1. Introduction
30,6 Lean manufacturing (LM) principles were developed 1950s by Taiichi Ohno at Toyota Motor
company (Fricke, 2010). Later, the lean thinking got different names for defining the
manufacturing strategies like agile, just-in-time, repetitive manufacturing, stockless
manufacturing, synchronous manufacturing, Toyota production system, world-class
manufacturing, etc. All these names are used in parallel with LM (Altekar and Burte, 2003;
900 Gaither and Frazier, 2004). Garg et al. (2016) achieved a significant productivity improvement in
terms of setup changeover time (86 percent) by implementing the single minute exchange of
die in a corrugation box manufacturing industry. LM aims at half the human effort, half the
manufacturing space and half the engineering hours to develop a new product in half the time
(Womack et al., 1990). LM is a multi-level process to recognize and prioritize the waste as
non-value-adding activities and provides recommendations to reduce/eradicate them. Taiichi
Ohno developed the LM technique as a means of meeting customer demands with minimum
delay. Earlier, instead of reducing wastages, LM was also recognized as stockless production as
it focuses on the reduction of inventory levels at shop floor (O’Brien, 2001). This includes proper
coordination between workstations so as to produce exact volume (Nordin and Baba, 2011).
Reduced costs, eradication of waste and process integration are the fundamentals of industry’s
success globally (Rahul and Kaler, 2013; Mor et al., 2017; Mor, Singh, Bhoria and Bhardwaj,
2018). LM consists of describing the production flow and setting up the production shop floor
with a smooth and unobstructed flow of materials (Duggan, 2012). This setup ensures that the
materials will undergo manufacturing without queuing or stoppage (Bhardwaj et al., 2018).
Womack and Jones (1996b) described lean as a system that creates more outputs with
reduced inputs. Lean facilitates the production by minimizing the time involved in the
production and delivery of an item with the best quality, reduced manpower and reduced floor
space (Abdullah, 2003). Lean add value to the end product by eliminating the waste, being
reactive to change, aiming at quality improvement and enhancing the employee competence
(Cook and Graser, 2001). Baines et al. (2006) discussed that lean principle could also be
conveyed to other production functions, namely, describing the customer value, making the
customer to pull the product, value stream mapping and motivated for quality. LM is known
for its focus on eradicating the Toyota’s eight type of wastages (Dimitrov and Saxer, 2012;
Meyers and Stewart, 2002; Jensen and Jensen, 2007). Lean production involves respect for
people, a level of patience, continual improvement and a focus on process to realize the
individual development. The two pillars of TPS are the Kaizen and respect for people (Liker,
2004; Shah and Ward, 2003). The current study is aimed to identify the NVAs of core making
process in a manufacturing company, eliminating the wastes and standardizing the process
using standardized work combination table (SWCT). In this context, the following sub-
sections describe the concept of wastes; SW, its need and benefits; and SWCT.

1.1 Wastes
Waste is anything except the minimum amount of equipment, shop floor space, material and
employee’s time which is important to add value to the end product. Or waste is anything that
does not add value to the end product (Mor et al., 2015, 2016). The business success is reliant on
the combined working of resources. Monden (1993) categorized the activities into three types as:
(1) Non-value-adding (NVA): i.e., pure waste and involve unnecessary actions which are
invisible to the customer, like waiting time.
(2) Necessary but non-value-adding: may be wasteful, but these are necessary for
operating procedures, hence called “incidental waste.”
(3) Value adding: these transform the nature, shape or features of a product in time with
the customer requirements.
1.2 3M concept Productivity
The Toyota Motors developed its production system for eliminating the three enemies gains through
of lean i.e., Muda (waste), Muri (overburden), and Mura (unevenness). The 3Ms are as SW
follows:
(1) Muri: “Muri” in Japanese stands for excessive or overburdening of the people,
facilities and equipment which have a direct impact on the employee’s morale in a
negative manner. It includes bad working conditions and pushing a machine or a 901
person beyond its natural limits, leading to work stress.
(2) Mura: “Mura” in Japanese depicts the unevenness, variation or inconsistency in
terms of quality and volume. It is not caused by up and down in the demand or
changing production problems.
(3) Muda: Muda means uselessness or wastage and it is an NVA from the customer’s
point of view. It is the most used “M” which includes waste of time, consumable
resource, etc.

1.3 Standardization-of-work (SW)

Currently, the industries are looking for ways to improve the overall productivity to survive.
Standard work is one of the ways to achieve this goal and it is defined as the specific
instructions that help to make a product in the most efficient way. It helps in identifying the
areas for improvement by highlighting the wastes in a process and it specifies exactly how
work can be performed so as to get a competitive advantage over others. Standard work is
an important tool to establish the best methods and sequences for each process as well as for
each operator by reducing the wastes (Mor, Bhardwaj and Singh, 2018; Mor et al., 2016).
Despite its usefulness, this tool is often underused, neglected and misunderstood. Where
there is no standard, there can be no improvement and the standard work is a tool used in
the lean production model (Ohno, 1988). Additionally to those diagrams, standard work is
composed of three key elements, i.e., standard cycle time, standard work sequence and
standard work-in-progress (Monden, 1998). Standard work consists of a set of work
procedures (a standard routine) aimed at establishing the best methods and sequences for
each process and for each worker. Operations must be followed exactly as they are defined
with no room for improvisation; it is often referred to as an inflexible work standard
(Feng and Ballard, 2008). SW is a method where it is defined how operations should be
conducted in a workstation of a production system, preventing operators to perform
operations randomly (Wigglesworth and Wood, 2012). This lack of randomness in
manufacturing processes can reduce variations in cycle times because the sequence of
operations is defined according to Takt time in order to respond to the demand (Womack
and Jones, 1996a). This means that the purpose of these restrictions is related to the
elimination of Mura (variability) so that it is possible to improve quality, safety, efficiency
and planning (Arezes et al., 2010). SW does not imply that a work routine can never be
changed, but it rather implies “this is the best way we know how to do this type of work
today” (Wigglesworth and Wood, 2012; Duggan, 2012).
According to Spear and Bowen (1999), it ensures the identification of the activities that
add value, i.e., it defines the activities that maximize performance and minimize waste.
Fillingham (2007) shows an application of SW to reduce complexity for an effective
clinical practice together with the one-piece flow, 5S concept, pull production systems and
visual management so as to prove its application to the healthcare sector. Other studies
consider SW as a tool integrated with another lean tool, i.e., 5S (Ben-Tovim, 2008). To
apply SW, Whitmore (2008) considers different standard documents: time observation
sheet, capacity sheet, standard worksheet, loading diagram, combination sheet and key
JMTM point sheet. Improving the SW is a never-ending process and it basically consists of
30,6 three elements:
(1) takt time, i.e., the rate at which products must be made in a process to meet customer
demand;
(2) the exact work sequence in which the worker works in Takt time limits; and
902 (3) standard inventory, including units in machines, needed to keep the process
operating smoothly.

1.4 Need for standardized work

The improvements are not possible without the work standardization in any organization
along with the continuous maintenance and up gradation of the standards through the plan,
do, check, act cycle. Middle management and supervisors fully support the higher authority
in an industry, and regular training is a must in this context. Standardized processes
provide companies a platform from which they carry out continual improvement.
A standard operating procedure is a set of instructions that provide direction covering those
features of processes that lend themselves to a definite or standardized approach for
optimization and consistency of output.

1.5 Benefits of standardized work

The standardized operations and procedures allow producing efficiently with minimal waste,
using efficient methods and rules (Lim et al., 1999). Losonci et al. (2011) stated that with a clear
description of the activities to execute, workers could become polyvalent because they have
access to all information which ensures more flexible production systems. The benefits of
standardized work include documentation of the current process for all shifts, reductions in
variability, easier training of new operators, reductions in injuries and strain and a baseline for
improvement activities. Standardized work provides ways for audits, endorses problem-
solving, and includes team members in developing of Poka-yoke activities. The benefits of
standardized work include the work instructions of current processes themselves covering all
processes, all employees and all shifts. According to Emiliani (2008), if applied appropriately,
SW brings numerous advantages such as it builds in quality and flexibility, creates flexibility,
improves productivity, frees up floor space, improves safety, improves morale, gives better
process control, reduces the process variability, etc.
When implemented, SW offers almost immediately performance improvements in the
company, increasing productivity and decreasing the lead times. The work standardization
allows operators to improve their creativity and entrepreneurship, giving them a benchmark
against which they can measure their own ideas for improvement (Toussaint and Berry, 2013).
In addition, it is possible to have a greater internal transparency; more involved and disciplined
operators; and a higher degree of attention to the operations by management personnel. It
ensures that each task is viable, sustainable and safe (Arezes et al., 2010). Spear and Bowen
(1999) proposed a set of rules that should be followed when seeking to implement SW as follows:
• work should be analyzed in detail, taking into consideration the sequence, the
production time, how it is performed and the results;
• the link between the customer and the supplier should be clear;
• the transportation of products in the workplace should be straightforward and
simple; and
• all improvements should be made following the scientific method and be supervised
by a skilled person.
1.6 Standardized work combination table Productivity
The SWCT is a simple graphical-based picture showing the work sequence for a worker and gains through
the times to complete each process. SWCT demonstrates the combination of time involved in SW
manual work, walking and machine processing time for each operation in a production
operation. The key concept for the elimination of waste and the effective combination of
work on the shop floor is the separation of machine work and human work. The perceptive
of both human and machine work is the basis for understanding the boundary points 903
between these two elements (Rahul and Kaler, 2013). Human work refers to the job that
cannot be completed without human effort like picking up materials, putting materials onto
a machine, operating the controls of a machine, manual slaving, etc. On the other hand,
machine work refers to the job or supplementary work that equipment which has been
started by human hand but automatically performs operations like milling, auto riveting,
bolting, auto inspection, etc. One needs to know which operations will be carried out by
which operator to prepare the standard work combination sheet. This is done through the
work balance sheet. The purpose of SWCT is to:
• define the best combination of worker/machine;
• diagnose the work sequence for the worker;
• diagnose the time for each element that they are doing; and
• act as a foundation for Kaizen activities.
Thus, the current study aimed to recognize the NVAs of core making process in a
manufacturing company and to standardize the process using SWCT. SWCT determined
the time spent in manual work and traveling at each core making operation. Further, 3M
(Muda, Muri, Mura) activities were highlighted and observed that almost all the operations
in the core making process were standardized. Standardization-of-work created
transparency in the workflow and eliminated “Muda” of the process.

2. Literature review
Abreu et al. (2017) studied various production support tools that were developed as a
temporary solution to solve a specific problem in the manufacturing industry. Marksberry
et al. (2011) found that standardized work as a lean tool is being applied by various
companies over the years, and Toyota uses standardized work as an analysis tool which
requires a support structure, that is, not fully understood. Ingvaldsen et al. (2013) presented
a case study at the manufacturing industry and concluded that the standardized work leads
to continual improvement. LM helps to leverage the competence of an enterprise by
eliminating waste and NVAs from the manufacturing system (Singh et al., 2009; Womack
et al., 1990). LM has the potential to improve operational efficiencies, quality and financial
performance of the industry (Kumar and Kumar, 2012). Standardized work not only controls
the process, but also minimizes the cost and maximizes the overall efficiency of an
organization (Wang et al., 2010). Dave (2012) defined the standard work as specific
instructions that help to make a product in the most efficient way. The author highlighted
the importance of implementing the standard work. LM affects all areas of a business, major
changes take place in manufacturing management, purchasing, human resources
management and quality management. Whereas the lean execution needs the acceptance
of the fundamental concepts of the lean production system (Shah and Ward, 2003; Mor et al.,
2017). A lean enterprise will produce greater value for the shareholders, higher levels of
customer satisfaction and above all greater employee satisfaction as all play an active role in
continuous improvement. Oehmen (2012) suggested that for the successful implementation
of LM all the elements must be properly understood, measured and implemented. It is very
difficult to take care of each of these elements individually without any structured approach.
JMTM The approach adopted here is to divide all the elements into seven major elements, which
30,6 covers some of the lean basics (Singh et al., 2010).
Standard work refers to the safest and most effective method to carry out a job in the
shortest repeatable time and effective utilization of resources. Standardized work helps in
reorganizing the work with respect to Takt time fluctuation, labor can be added
incrementally if demand increases and the labor can be incrementally removed for
904 decreased demand (Saraswat et al., 2014). Monden (1993) introduced the standardized work
chart (SWC), SWCT and standard operation sheet for analyzing and improving the
standardized work. Authors revealed that SWC helps in visualizing the operator’s
movement and material location in relation to the machine and overall process layout.
Kumar et al. revealed that the purpose of SWCT is to identify the waste such as WIP,
waiting and overburden of work. Combination table and value stream mapping procedure
illustrates the production capacity visually by combining the men and machine in terms of
process time (Mor et al., 2016, 2017). Wang et al. (2010) studied the data collected from a
sample of customers of automobile services and found the effects of customization and
standardization as curvilinear as well as the adverse effect on customer satisfaction. Highly
standardized products and services lead to more standardized organizational cultural
concerns (Doval and Doval, 2008). Tsai (2011) revealed that good organizational culture
leads to collaboration and encouragement of subordinates and enhances the job satisfaction.
Mohan and Sequeira revealed that the consumer perception method contains brand
awareness, quality and brand relations, whereas the brand assets include loyalty,
associations, perceived quality, awareness, etc. Miriam suggested that businesses having
equilibrium across diverse leadership styles and types of business culture succeeds fully,
but rational and hierarchical culture-based organizations fail. Bhasin recognized the role of
organizational culture in adopting lean principles and suggested that business culture and
change as a key factor for lean failure. Wong (2007) presented the culture as a prevailing and
insensible set of forces that regulate the individual and collective performance of human,
ways of observing, standards, etc.

2.1 Research gaps

It is evident from the literature review that show there is no study that relates the
inefficiencies and the eradication of NVAs for core making process. Further, the execution of
SW is not yet attempted in a real-time industrial scenario. All these reasons motivated the
authors to design a research problem in the current study.

3. Methodology
The standard work tool (an enabler of lean) was executed followed by the action-research
methodology. The core making section of case company was studied comprehensively and
found that it consisted of total 29 operations per product cycle. Out of these 29 operations,
16 were manual operations (say Mp), 13 were machine operations (say Ma). Some operations
were being performed simultaneously also, i.e., man–machine activities (say Mm). Being an
industrial engineer, the aim was to club Mp and Ma activities in the Mm activities up to the
maximum possible. This resulted in reducing the idle time for both man and machine, and
hence, an increased productivity. However, the name of the manufacturing company is not
disclosed anywhere in this paper as per industry’s privacy policy. The need for SW in
current study came from various aspects, such as:
• variability of manufacturing processes;
• inexistence of a detailed sequence of work procedures; and
• existence of NVAs, wastages and idle time.
In order to adopt the action-research methodology, a five-stage cycle should be used Productivity
(recommended by O’Brien, 2001; Braganca and Costa, 2015), as follows: gains through
(1) Diagnosis: the current status of core making section in the case company was first SW
analyzed, involving the analysis of various documents like production logbook and
machine breakdown data and then the conversations with the machine operators
and video recording of the complete operation were performed. Some analysis and
diagnosis tools were also considered, such as process chart, sequence diagram 905
and Ishikawa chart. Finally, major bottleneck areas were identified, for example,
lack of pre-defined work routines, inexistence of a balanced work-in-process, the
existence of NVAs in process study.
(2) Action planning: an action plan was formed using the 5W2H technique. For each
problem (why) a proposal was developed (what), suggesting forms to solve the
problem (how). The person responsible for the execution (who), the places to execute
(where) and the moment to do it (when) was identified.
(3) Action taking: the standard work tool was executed, with the creation of three
different sheets: the man–machine activity; the standard operations chart; and
standard work combination table. Additional to these sheets, the work guidelines
were also drafted for each product to assist the machine operators in their daily jobs.
(4) Evaluation: the results obtained with the execution of standard work were analyzed
and discussed by the top-level managers/shop floor executives of the manufacturing
company. Further, various NVAs were analyzed for the eradication of Muda/Muri/
Mura activities existing in the core making process.
(5) Learning specification: the outcome of the study was documented.

4. Case study
In the diagnosis phase, the current status of core making section was analyzed and some
analysis and diagnosis tools such as process chart, sequence diagram and Ishikawa chart
were considered. In the action planning phase, an action plan was formed and a proposal
was developed by suggesting forms to solve the problem. The persons responsible for the
execution of SW as well as the places to execute and the moment of execution was also
identified. This section describes the phases of standard work execution process, i.e., action
taking (Stage 3) of action-research methodology. Stages 4 and 5 are presented in the next
section, i.e., discussions, of this paper.

4.1 Production operations (machine activity)

After problem formulation, the first step in executing the standard work was the process
study. To represent this, a chart consisting machine activity has been drawn to describe
the process and time taken by each operation. As there were only the machine operations
in this chart, so it was based on a sequence diagram where the several activities such as
sand shooting, core curing, core baking, etc., were recorded. Each operation was defined
clearly with the type of activity, i.e., whether VA or NVA, in the chart. The cycle time
(in seconds) was measured with the help of stopwatch and videography analysis.
Videography analysis helped in an in-depth analysis of the process as well as discovering
the NVAs easily. An average cycle time was considered for each activity after repeated
cycle study. The average cycle time of each activity was confirmed by taking into account
the different working condition/operators/working shifts/hours. The sheet (Table I)
illustrates that the process consists of 61 s of NVA and 226.3 s of VA per production
operation cycle, and needed improvement. Here, only two machine operations were adding
JMTM Production operations (machine activity time)
30,6 Method of study – videographic analysis and stopwatch study
Operator number Operation cycle time
Sr. No. Machine operations sequence VA/NVA 1 2 3 1 2 3 Avg.

1 Press ON, and upper core box half and manifold NVA 6 6 6 6
come down
2 Press the button and side loose part of core box match NVA 4 4 4 4
906 with pneumatic cylinder
3 Press the button, and upper core box half come down NVA 6 7 6 6.3
and match
4 Upper and lower core box half move to sand NVA 8 7 7 7.3
shooter (auto)
5 Core box rest for some time before going up (auto) NVA 5 5 5 5
6 Core box goes up and matches with sand shooter (auto) NVA 4 4 4 4
7 Sand shooting blows and exhaust in core box VA 28 30 29 29
8 Core box comes down (auto) NVA 5 5 5 5
9 Core box move to the manifold (auto) NVA 7 8 7 7.3
10 Manifold come down to core box NVA 4 3 4 3.7
11 Curing start (auto) VA 196 198 198 197.3
12 Repeated pressing of buttons and ejection of loose core NVA 6 6 5 5.7
Table I. box piece
Production operations 13 Pressing the button and ejection of core NVA 7 7 6 6.7
(machine activity) Total working time (in seconds) VA 226.3 NVA 61 287.3

value to the end product resulting in 78.8 percent of total machine cycle time and the
remaining 11 operations were non-value-adding resulting in 21.2 percent of total machine
cycle time.

4.2 Production operations (man activity)

The sequence of production operations performed by the operator was represented as “man
activity.” The duration of each activity was determined as per the standard time defined by
shop-floor executives. Each operation was defined clearly with the type of activity, i.e., whether
VA or NVA. The cycle time (in seconds) was measured using the stopwatch as well as through
videography analysis (Table II). The average cycle time of each man operation/activity was
confirmed by considering into account the different working condition/operators/working
shifts/hours. Here, all the 16 operations were non-value-adding resulting in 100 percent of total
man cycle time. On the other hand, all activities in the man activity chart (Table II) were NVAs,
but necessary activities and some automation or sensors could be introduced to eradicate the
Muda in man activities.

4.3 Production operations (man–machine activity)

The third step represented the combination of production operations sequence performed by
both man and machine, i.e., man–machine activity (Table III). This sheet involved both
manual and machine operations and help in identifying the unnecessary elements in the core
making process. Each operation was defined clearly for its type, i.e., whether VA or NVA.
Further, the possible suggestions to kill Muda or Muri were also given against each NVA.
Out of the total man–machine time (i.e., 619 s), 46.4 percent was the machine time whereas
53.6 percent was the man time. Here, only two machine operations were adding value to the
end product resulting in 36.6 percent of man–machine cycle time and the remaining 29
operations were NVA resulting in 63.4 percent of man–machine cycle time. Both the man
and machine operations consist of unnecessary NVAs in terms of Muda, Muri and Mura.
The idle time in process was a major focus of the study which was approx. 199 s for the
machine and 152 s for man.
 Production operations (man activity time)
Productivity
Method of study – videographic analysis and stopwatch study gains through
Sr. No. Operator’s activity sequence VA/NVA 1
Operator number
2 3
Operation cycle time
1 2 3 Avg.
SW
1 Pick the core from unloader, put it on trimming trolley NVA 18 18 17 17.7
and move back to M/c
2 Press button and poke the sand holes of upper half NVA 28 27 29 28
3 Cleaning the die with air NVA 4 4 4 4
907
4 Press button and upper core box half and manifold NVA 5 5 5 5
come down
5 Poke the sand shooter holes in upper core box half NVA 28 28 29 28.3
6 Cleaning the sand holes with air after poking while NVA 20 21 20 20.3
upper and lower core box matched
7 Press button and upper core box half and manifold NVA 5 5 4 4.7
goes up
8 Clean the lower box with air, cavity and sand shooting NVA 44 43 44 43.7
holes of upper half
9 Spray kerosene in the lower core box half cavity and NVA 12 12 13 12.3
upper core box half
10 Press the button and side loose part of core box NVA 13 13 14 13.3
match (with pneumatic cylinder) and other loose
side part manually
11 Trim the Core and put it in Core storage area NVA 108 105 102 105
12 Press button and manifold goes up NVA 6 6 5 5.7
13 Repeated pressing of buttons and ejection of core NVA 6 6 5 5.7
14 Ejection of loose blow candle pieces manually NVA 19 18 19 18.7
15 Side matching part loose manually NVA 7 6 7 6.7 Table II.
16 Press the button and ejection of core NVA 13 12 13 12.7 Production operations
Total working time (in seconds) VA 0 NVA 331.7 331.7 (man activity)

4.4 3M vs suggestions
Based on the sequence of production operations, various NVAs were identified (Table IV )
and the suggestions to eliminate unnecessary NVA were proposed. Given below is the list of
unnecessary operations along with their suggestions to improve the core making process.
The 3M approach was implemented in five steps as follows. First, Muda of checking sand
after five to six blows by going upstairs on top of the machine by the operator was eliminated
by providing sensors. Second, Muda of poking sand blower holes after each blow occurred
due to poor maintenance of thermocouples. Third, Muda of ejecting the core from corebox was
eradicated by adding pneumatic cylinder. The fourth was the Muda and Muri of picking up
the core from the machine for trimming and thenl transporting it to the storage area. This
NVA was removed by merging the trimming activity with machine time and providing a belt
conveyor for transportation of the core to the core storage area. Fifth, Muda and Muri of
unbaked core coming out of die were resolved by proper maintenance of temperature sensors.
Hence, a total of 31.6 s per product cycle time was saved in this practice, excluding the time
and cost calculations for re-baking the core (as discussed in Table IV). This improvement was
achieved with an analytical study only and no investment from the industry.

4.5 Standardized work combination table

Finally, the SWCT were drawn by combining all the production operations against a timeline
graph. As this included both manual and machine operations, the sheet presented a sequence
diagram as well as identified the Muda and Muri of process on a timeline graph. Each
operation was defined clearly with the type of activity along with the possible suggestions to
kill NVA. Table V represented the SWCT worktable for core making process/workstation.
The combination chart followed the relevant information from the charts (Tables I–IV ) and
 30,6

908

activity)
JMTM

Table III.

(man–machine
Production operations
Production operations (man–machine activity time)
Method of study – videographic analysis and stopwatch study
Operator
number Operation cycle time
Approx.
saving of time
Sr. Machine operations VA/ per cycle (in
No. sequence NVA 1 2 3 1 2 3 Avg. Muda/Mura/Muri Suggestions to kill NVAs seconds)

1 Press ON, and upper core NVA 6 6 6 6

box half and manifold
come down
2 Press the button and side NVA 4 4 4 4 Muda of checking the sand after Sensor to be provided for 8
loose part of core box 5–6 blows by going upstairs on checking the level of sand in
matche with pneumatic top of M/c by the operator hooper
cylinder
3 Press the button, and NVA 6 7 6 6.3
upper core box half come
down and match
4 Upper and lower core box NVA 8 7 7 7.3
half move to sand shooter
(auto)
5 Core box rest for some time NVA 5 5 5 5
before going up (auto)
6 Core box goes up and NVA 4 4 4 4 Muda of poking the sand blower Thermocouples need to be 4
matches with sand shooter holes after each blow repaired (not showing temp. as
(auto) per work instructions)
7 Sand shooting blows and VA 28 30 29 29.0
exhaust in core box
8 Core box come down (auto) NVA 5 5 5 5
9 Core box move to the NVA 7 8 7 7.3
manifold (Auto)
10 Manifold come down to NVA 4 3 4 3.7
core box
11 Curing starts (auto) VA 196 198 198 197.3

(continued )
 Production operations (man–machine activity time)
Method of study – videographic analysis and stopwatch study
Operator
number Operation cycle time
Approx.
saving of time
Sr. Machine operations VA/ per cycle (in
No. sequence NVA 1 2 3 1 2 3 Avg. Muda/Mura/Muri Suggestions to kill NVAs seconds)

12 Repeated pressing of NVA 6 6 5 5.7 Muda of ejecting the core from Pneumatic cylinder can be fitted 5
buttons and ejection of core box for ejecting the piece in core box
loose core box piece
13 Pressing the button and NVA 7 7 6 6.7
ejection of core
VA 226.3 NVA 61 287.3
Operator’s activity sequence
1 Pick the core from NVA 18 18 17 17.7 Muda and Muri of picking the Trimming of core may be clubbed 0+5 ¼ 5 (as
unloader, put it on core from M/c for trimming and with M/c time, and belt conveyor trimming
trimming trolley and move then transporting it to storage may be provided to transport the already
back to M/c area core to storage area (to reduce clubbed)
machine idle time)
2 Press button and poke the NVA 28 27 29 28
sand holes of upper half
3 Cleaning the die with air NVA 4 4 4 4
4 Press button and upper NVA 5 5 5 5
core box half and manifold
come down
5 Poke the sand shooter NVA 28 28 29 28.3
holes in upper core box half
6 Cleaning the sand holes NVA 20 21 20 20.3
with air after poking while
upper and lower core box
match

(continued )
gains through

909
SW
Productivity

Table III.
 30,6

910
JMTM

Table III.
Production operations (man–machine activity time)
Method of study – videographic analysis and stopwatch study
Operator
number Operation cycle time
Approx.
saving of time
Sr. Machine operations VA/ per cycle (in
No. sequence NVA 1 2 3 1 2 3 Avg. Muda/Mura/Muri Suggestions to kill NVAs seconds)

7 Press button and upper NVA 5 5 4 4.7

core box half and manifold
goes up
8 Clean the lower box with NVA 44 43 44 43.7 Muda and Muri of unbaked core Temp. sensors needs to be 9.6 s per cycle
air, cavity and sand coming out of die (after every repaired for maintaining adequate (as 16 s for
shooting holes of upper 10–12 cycles, due temp. temp. for core baking. We are core
half variation), which is baked considering it for every 10th core transportation
externally with IR furnace to IR furnace
and
80 s for re-
baking of core)
9 Spray kerosene in the NVA 12 12 13 12.3
lower core box half cavity
and upper core box half
10 Press the button and side NVA 13 13 14 13.3
loose part of core box
match (with pneumatic
cylinder) and other loose
side part manually
11 Trim the core and put it in NVA 108 105 102 105
core storage area
12 Press button and manifold NVA 6 6 5 5.7
goes up
13 Repeated pressing of NVA 6 6 5 5.7
buttons and ejection of core

(continued )
 Production operations (man–machine activity time)
Method of study – videographic analysis and stopwatch study
Operator
number Operation cycle time
Approx.
saving of time
Sr. Machine operations VA/ per cycle (in
No. sequence NVA 1 2 3 1 2 3 Avg. Muda/Mura/Muri Suggestions to kill NVAs seconds)

14 Ejection of loose blow NVA 19 18 19 18.7

candle pieces manually
15 Side matching part loose NVA 7 6 7 6.7
manually
16 Press the button and NVA 13 12 13 12.7
ejection of core
VA 0 NVA 331.7 331.7
Total working time (in M/c Man Total idle time (in Machine 199
seconds) seconds)
287.3 331.7 Operator1 152
gains through

911
SW
Productivity

Table III.
JMTM Approx. saving
30,6 of time per cycle
Sr. No. Muda/Muri/Mura Suggestions (in seconds)

1. Muda of checking the Sand after 5–6
blows by going upstairs on top of M/c
by the operator
912 2. Muda of poking the sand blower holes
after each blow
3. Muda of ejecting the core from core
box
4. Muda and Muri of picking the core
from M/c for trimming and then
transporting it to storage area
5. Muda and Muri of unbaked core
coming out of die (after every
10–12 cycles, due temp. variation),
which is baked externally with
Table IV. infrared (IR) furnace
3M vs suggestions
Sensor to be provided for checking the 8
level of sand in hopper
Thermocouples need to be repaired (not 4
showing temperature as per work
instructions)
Pneumatic cylinder can be fitted for 5
ejecting the piece in core box
Trimming of core may be clubbed with 5
M/c time, and belt conveyor may be
provided to transport the core to storage
area (to reduce machine idle time)
Temperature sensors need to be repaired 9.6
for maintaining adequate temperature for
core baking. We are considering it for
every 10th core. Hence, it causes 9.6 s per
cycle (as 16 s for core transportation to IR
furnace and 80 s for re-baking of core)

displayed the association of different activities in terms of process time. After considering the
cycle time and sequence of work, the normalized amount of work-in-process among different
workstations was defined. It was proposed to retain a continuous production flow with a
moderate stock. Given below is the detailed SWC chart of the complete process (Table V ).
The major wastage was the unbaked core coming out repeatedly after every 10–12 cycles
due to temperature variation and it was re-baked externally. After proper investigation, it
was found that this issue occurred due to “sensor error.” Further, it was found that the
transportation of the core to external furnace consumed approx. 16 s and 80 s for re-baking
the core for each repeated cycle. Authors considered this practice for every 10th cycle and
the time consumed in this process was divided by ten cycles, i.e., 9.6 s per product cycle.
However, the cost calculations for re-baking of the core were excluded here.

5. Results and discussion

The current study illustrated an important step to provide more visibility to the LM concept by
addressing the problem of lack of standard procedures. The process study revealed that the
average man-time and machine-time of the core making process were 287 s and 332 s,
respectively, per product cycle. The representation of the shop-floor situation in the
parts-production capacity worktable indicated that the capacity in this particular workstation
should be 54 parts per 7 h work shift at the current pace. This was a relatively good capacity
since it was slightly higher than the Takt time of core making process. Finally, the standard
worktable facilitated in identifying the key bottleneck elements. The standard work combination
chart offered a better visual representation of the operations against their respective cycle time.
As clarified in Table V, the key improvements made in the core making process included
“sensors to be provided, thermocouples needed, pneumatic cylinder needed, and provision
for belt conveyor at the core trimming facility.” These improvements helped in eradicating
the idle process time and NVAs and reduced the manpower requirement. Approximately,
31.6 s of time was saved per product cycle which boosted the production up to 58 pieces
against the existing production of 45–50 pieces in a 7 h work shift. Finally, the authors came
to know that it enhanced the productivity of the core making process up to 6.5 percent
approx. and it can be even more if these proposals are continually implemented with full
 Standardized work combination table Process name Core making Organization
Method of study – videographic analysis and stopwatch study Item name X M/c No.
Operator number Operation cycle time Muda/Mura/Muri
Sr. No. Machine operation sequence VA/NVA
1 2 3 1 2 3 Avg. 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68
1 Press ON, and upper core box half and manifold come down NVA 6 6 6 6

2 Press the button and side loose part of core box match (with pneumatic cylinder) NVA 4 4 4 4 Muda of checking the sand
after 5–6 blows by going
3 Press the button, and upper core box half comes down and match NVA 6 7 6 6.3
upstairs on top of M/c by
4 Upper and lower core box half move to sand shooter (Auto) NVA 8 7 7 7.3 the operator
5 Core box rest for some time before going up (Auto) NVA 5 5 5 5
6 Core box goes up and match with sand shooter (Auto) NVA 4 4 4 4
7 Sand shooting blow and exhaust in core box VA 28 30 29 29.0 Muda of poking the sand
8 Core box come down (Auto) NVA 5 5 5 5 blower holes after each
9 Core box move to the manifold (Auto) NVA 7 8 7 7.3 blow
10 Manifold come down to core box NVA 4 3 4 3.7
11 Curing starts (Auto) VA 196 198 198 197.3
12 Repeated pressing of buttons and ejection of loose core box piece NVA 6 6 5 5.7
Muda of ejecting the core
7 7 6 6.7 from corebox
13 Pressing the button and ejection of core NVA

VA 226.3 NVA 61 287.3

Operator’s activity sequence

1 Pick the core from unloader, put it on trimming trolley and back to M/c NVA 18 18 17 17.7 Muda and Muri of picking
2 Press button and poke the sand holes of upper half NVA 28 27 29 28 the core from M/c for
trimming, and then
3 Cleaning the die with air NVA 4 4 4 4 transporting it to storage
area
4 Press button and upper core box half and manifold come down NVA 5 5 5 5
5 Poke the sand shooter holes in upper core box half NVA 28 28 29 28.3
Cleaning the sand holes with air after poking while upper and lower core box
6 NVA 20 21 20 20.3
match
7 Press button and upper core box half and manifold goes up NVA 5 5 4 4.7
Muda and Muri of unbaked
8 Clean the lower box with air, cavity and sand shooting holes of upper half NVA 44 43 44 43.7
Core coming out of die
(after every 10–12 cycles,
9 Spray kerosene in the lower core box half cavity and upper core box half NVA 12 12 13 12.3
due temp. variation), which
Press the button and side loose part of core box match (with pneumatic cylinder) is baked externally with IR
10 NVA 13 13 14 13.3 furnace
and other loose side part manually
11 Trim the core and put it in core storage area NVA 108 105 102 105
12 Press button and manifold goes up NVA 6 6 5 5.7
13 Repeated pressing of buttons and ejection of core NVA 6 6 5 5.7
14 Ejection of loose blow candle pieces manually NVA 19 18 19 18.7
15 Side matching part loose manually NVA 7 6 7 6.7
16 Press the button and ejection of core NVA 13 12 13 12.7
VA 0 NVA 331.7 331.7

M/c Man Total idle time Machine 199

Total working time (in seconds)
287.3 331.7 (in seconds) Operator 1 152

(continued)
gains through

913
SW
Productivity

Standardized work
Table V.

combination table
 30,6

914
JMTM

Table V.
XYZ Area 1 Total cycle time (in seconds) 464 Actual output per shift (7 h)
A Date --- No. of blows as per study (7 h) 54 Study conducted by
Time graph (1 division = 4 s)
72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 124 128 132 136 140 144 148 152 156 160 164 168 172 176 180 184 188 192 196 200 204 208 212 216 220 224 228 232 236 240 244 248 252 256 260 264 268 272 276 280 284

(continued)
 45–50 Proposed cycle time after standardization 434 Unit/output Core
ABC Proposed output per shift (7 h) 58 Suggestions to kill NVA

288 292 296 300 304 308 312 316 320 324 328 332 336 340 344 348 352 356 360 364 368 372 376 380 384 388 392 396 400 404 408 412 416 420 424 428 432 436 440 444 448 452 456 460 464

Sensor to be provided for

checking the level of sand in
hooper

Thermocouples need to be
repaired (not showing temp. as
per work instructions)

Pneumatic cylinder can be fitted

for ejecting the piece in corebox

Trimming of core may be

clubbed with M/c time, and belt
conveyor may be provided to
transport the core to storage area
(to reduce machine idle time)

Temp. sensors needs to be

repaired for maintaining adequate
temp. for core baking. We are
considering it for every 10th core
gains through

915
SW
Productivity

Table V.
JMTM support from the shop-floor executives and top management of the company. SW aided in
30,6 providing more flexibility to production processes and creating a safe work environment.
The productivity gains and findings of the study were discussed with the production team
and management of the company so as to validate the outcome. Most importantly, these
improvements were achieved with no investment in machinery/tooling from the company.

916 6. Conclusions
Lean production is an umbrella term which basically means “doing more with less” at no or
little investment from the company. In this context, the current study started with the aim of
filling the research gap for exploring the NVAs of core making process in a manufacturing
company. Various NVAs were identified in discussion with shop-floor executives and were
recorded after continuous process study including the method study and motion analysis
followed by the standard operating procedures. SW was executed to eradicate the NVAs
and it helped in enhancing the productivity of the particular core making process up to
6.5 percent by eliminating the NVAs. This improved the level of safety, provided more
process flexibility and enabled the cost reduction in the context of core making. The
productivity gains in the current study were compared with the previous research work in
this area and were found approximately the same as achieved by Rahul and Kaler (2013),
Womack et al. and Mor et al. (2016). The productivity gains in the current study were
substantially higher than Bhardwaj et al. (2018), Mor, Singh, Bhoria and Bhardwaj (2018)
and Garg et al. (2016). The results of the current study have significant relevance with past
research works in this area and hence, the results appear to be reliable.
The current study contributed to the literature on standardized work proving its validity
with application in a real-time industrial scenario. The standardized work procedures
offered a base for the documentation of core making processes in the case company. These
documents provided greater process flexibility and enabled the elimination of wastes, and
hence, significant productivity gains. Therefore, the study will help the managers to achieve
their long-term corporate goals through process improvements.

6.1 Limitations and future scope

SW has been chosen as a lean enabler tool to eradicate the NVAs in a core making process, and
many other lean tools such as 5S, Kaizen, Poka-yoke, value stream mapping, etc., may also be
executed for other issues. This methodology can be executed directly through group technology
as it allows us to group the items based on their similarity in design, process, quality parameters,
etc. Similar results can be obtained through SW to various other core making process of the case
company. This study can further be extended for a comparison of cost savings gained through
applied methodology on different other core making processes of the case company.

References
Abdullah, F.M. (2003), “Lean manufacturing tools and techniques in the process industry with focus on
steel”, doctoral dissertation, The University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abreu, M.F., Pereira, A.C., Silva, D., Alves, A.C., Oliveira, J.A., Lopes, I. and Figueiredo, M.C. (2017),
“Collaborative process mapping to improve work instructions and standardized work”, in
Rocha, Á., Correia, A., Adeli, H., Reis, L. and Costanzo, S. (Eds), Recent Advances in Information
Systems and Technologies. WorldCIST 2017. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing,
Vol. 569, Springer, Cham.
Altekar, R.V. and Burte, S. (2003), Production Management, Jaico, Mumbai.
Arezes, P., Carvalho, D. and Alves, A. (2010), “Threats and opportunities for workplace ergonomics in
lean environments”, International Annual EurOMA Conference – Managing Operations in
Service Economics, Porto, June 6-9.
Baines, T.S., Lightfoot, H.W., Williams, G.M. and Greenough, R.M. (2006), “State-of-the-art in lean design Productivity
engineering: a literature review on white collar lean”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical gains through
Engineering, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 220 No. 9, pp. 1539-1547.
Ben-Tovim, D.I. (2008), “Redesigning care at the flinders medical centre: clinical process redesign using
SW
lean thinking”, Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 188 No. 6, pp. 27-31.
Bhardwaj, A., Mor, R.S. and Nagar, J. (2018), “Productivity gains through PDCA approach in an auto
service station”, Proceedings of the 2nd IEOM European Conference on Industrial Engineering
and Operations Management, Paris, July 26-27, pp. 2595-2602. 917
Braganca, S. and Costa, E. (2015), “An application of the lean production tool: standard work”, Jurnal
Teknologi (Sciences and Engineering), Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 47-53.
Cook, C.R. and Graser, G.C. (2001), Military Airframe Acquisition Costs: The Effects of Lean
Manufacturing: Findings of the Project Air Force Rand, Rand, Pittsburgh, PA.
Dave, Y. (2012), “Benefits of standardized work: a study”, International Journal of Latest Research in
Science and Technology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 95-97.
Dimitrov, D. and Saxer, M. (2012), “Productivity improvement in tooling manufacture through high
speed 5 axis machining”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 1, pp. 277-282.
Doval, E. and Doval, O. (2008), “Issues of standardization concerning organizational culture in change
management”, 32nd Annual Congress of ARA Proceedings, American Romanian Academy of
Arts and Sciences, Polytechnic International Press, Wentworth Institute of Technology,
Boston, MA, July 22-26.
Duggan, K. (2013), Creating Mixed Model Value Streams, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Emiliani, M. (2008), “Standardized work for executive leadership”, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 24-46.
Feng, P. and Ballard, G. (2008), “Standardized work from lean theory perspective”, Annual Conference
of the International Group for Lean Construction, Manchester, July 16-18.
Fillingham, D. (2007), “Can lean save lives?”, Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 231-241.
Fricke, C.F. (2010), Lean Management: Awareness, Implementation Status, and Need for Implementation
Support in Virginia’s Wood Industry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA, available at:
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12162010-075013/unrestricted/Fricke_CF_T_2010.pdf
Gaither, N. and Frazier, G. (2004), Operations Management, 9th ed., Cengage Learning India, New Delhi.
Garg, G., Gupta, A., Mor, R.S. and Trehan, R. (2016), “Execution of single minute exchange of die on
corrugation machine in cardboard box manufacturing company: a case study”, International
Journal of Lean Enterprise Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 133-145.
Ingvaldsen, J.A., Holtskog, H. and Ringen, G. (2013), “Unlocking work standards through systematic
work observation: implications for team supervision”, Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6, pp. 279-291.
Jensen, S.H. and Jensen, K.H. (2007), “Implementing of lean manufacturing in SME companies”,
International Conference on Economic Engineering and Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 8, No. 3,
Brasov, pp. 305-308.
Kumar, R. and Kumar, V. (2012), “Lean manufacturing system: an overview”, Proceedings of the
National Conference on Trends and Advances in Mechanical Engineering, YMCA University of
Science and Technology, Faridabad, October 19-20.
Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way-14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Lim, K., Ahmed, P. and Zairi, M. (1999), “Managing waste and looking beyond: the IMI approach”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 304-310.
Losonci, D., Demeter, K. and Jenei, I. (2011), “Factors influencing employee perceptions in lean
transformations”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 131 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
Marksberry, P., Rammohan, R. and Vu, D. (2011), “A systems study on standardized work: a Toyota
perspective”, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 287-303.
JMTM Meyers, F. and Stewart, J. (2002), Motion and Time Study for Lean Manufacturing, 3rd ed., Prentice
30,6 Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Monden, Y. (1993), Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to Just-in-Time, 2nd ed.,
Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Norcross, GA.
Monden, Y. (1998), Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to Just-in-Time, Engineering
and Management Press, Norcross, GA.
918 Mor, R.S., Bhardwaj, A. and Singh, S. (2018), “Benchmarking the interactions among performance
indicators in dairy supply chain: an ISM approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 26 No. 5, (in press).
Mor, R.S., Singh, S. and Bhardwaj, A. (2016), “Learning on lean production: a review of opinion and
research within environmental constraints”, Operations and Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 61-72.
Mor, R.S., Bhardwaj, A., Singh, S. and Bharti, S. (2017), “Exploring the causes of low-productivity in
dairy industry using AHP”, Jurnal Teknik Industri, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 83-92.
Mor, R.S., Singh, S., Bhardwaj, A. and Singh, L.P. (2015), “Technological implications of supply chain
practices in agri-food sector: a review”, International Journal of Supply and Operations
Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 720-747.
Mor, R.S., Singh, S., Bhoria, R. and Bhardwaj, A. (2018), “Role of value stream mapping in process
development: a review”, 3rd North American International Conference on Industrial Engineering
and Operations Management, Washington, DC, September 27-29.
Nordin, N. and Baba, M.D. (2011), “Lean manufacturing implementation in Malaysian automotive
industry: an exploratory study”, Operations and Supply Chain Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 21-30.
O’Brien, R. (2001), “Um exame da abordagem metodológica da pesquisa ação (An Overview of the
Methodological Approach of Action Research)”, in Richardson, R. (Ed.), Teoria e Prática da
Pesquisa Ação [Theory and Practice of Action Research], Universidade Federal da Paraíba
(English version), João Pessoa, available at: www.web.ca ~robrien/papers/arfinal.html
Oehmen, J. (2012), “The Guide to Lean Enablers for Managing Engineering Programs, Joint MIT-
PMIINCOSE Community of Practice on Lean in Program Management”, in Oppenheim, B.W.
(Ed.), The Guide to Lean Enablers for Managing Engineering Programs, PMI-INCOSE-MIt LAI,
available: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/70495/oehmenetal2012-theguidetol
eanenablersformanagingengineeringprograms.pdf?sequence=4
Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, Productivity Press, Cambridge.
Rahul and Kaler, J.S. (2013), “Eradication of productivity related problems through lean principles in
integrated manufacturing environment”, International Journal of Lean Thinking, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 71-88, available at: http://thinkinglean.com/img/files/PAPER_8(1).pdf
Saraswat, P., Sain, M.K. and Kumar, D. (2014), “A review on waste reduction through value stream
mapping analysis”, International Journal of Research, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 200-207.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles and performance”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-149.
Singh, B., Garg, S.K. and Sharma, S.K. (2009), “Lean can be a survival strategy during recessionary times”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 803-808.
Singh, B., Garg, S.K. and Sharma, S.K. (2010), “Lean implementation and its benefits to production
industry”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 157-168.
Spear, S. and Bowen, H. (1999), “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 95-106.
Toussaint, J. and Berry, L. (2013), “The promise of lean in health care”, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Vol. 88
No. 1, pp. 74-82.
Tsai, Y. (2011), “Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job satisfaction”,
BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 11 No. 98, pp. 1-9.
Wang, G., Wang, J., Ma, X. and Qiu, R.G. (2010), “The effect of standardization and customization on
service satisfaction”, Journal of Service Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Whitmore, T. (2008), “Standardized work”, Manufacturing Engineering, Vol. 140 No. 5, pp. 171-179. Productivity
Wigglesworth, M. and Wood, T. (2012), Management of Chemical and Biological Samples for Screening gains through
Applications, John Wiley and Sons, Weinheim. SW
Womack, J. and Jones, D. (1996a), Lean Thinking – Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
Womack, J. and Jones, D. (1996b), “Beyond Toyota: how to root out waste and pursue perfection”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 1-16. 919
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World,
Rawson-MacMillan, New York, NY.
Wong, M. (2007), “The role of culture in implementing lean production system”, in Olhager, J. and
Persson, F. (Eds), Advances in Production Management Systems. IFIP – The International
Federation for Information Processing, Vol. 246, Springer, Boston, MA

Further reading
Bhasin, S. (2013), “Impact of corporate culture on the adoption of the lean principles”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 118-140.
Mariam, J. (2014), Cultural Impact on Lean Six Sigma and Corporate Success: Causal Analyses
Considering the Effects of National Culture and Leadership, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-07340-4
Mohan, B.C. and Sequeira, A.H. (2016), “The impact of customer-based brand equity on the operational
performance of FMCG companies in India”, IIMB Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 13-19.

About the authors

Rahul S. Mor currently works as Assistant Professor in the Department of Food Engineering at the
National Institute of Food Technology Entrepreneurship and Management, Kundli, Sonipat (India).
His research interest include “Industrial & production engineering, Operations & supply chain
management, Food processing industry, Envi-lean production, Interpretive structural modeling (ISM)
and Structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques,” etc. Rahul S. Mor is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: dr.rahulmor@gmail.com
Dr Arvind Bhardwaj is currently working as Professor in the Department of Industrial and
Production Engineering, and the Dean – R&C at National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, India.
He has worked as the Director at the Global Institutions, Amritsar; and Head at the Department of
Industrial and Production Engineering, and Dean at the Student Welfare at NIT, Jalandhar. He has
more than 26 years of research and teaching experience, and his research interests includes: technology
management, logistics and supply chain management, occupational health and safety, operation
research, quality management, human factor engineering, etc.
Dr Sarbjit Singh is currently working as Associate Professor in the Department of Industrial and
Production Engineering, and Associate Dean – R&C at National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, India.
He has worked as the Head at the Department of Industrial and Production Engineering, NIT Jalandhar;
and Dy. Dean at the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. He has more than 20 years of research and
teaching experience, and his research interest includes supply chain management, environmental planning
and control, lean production, occupational health and safety, human factors engineering, etc.
Dr Anish Sachdeva is currently working as Professor in the Department of Industrial and Production
Engineering at National Institute of Technology, Jalandhar, India. He earned his Doctoral Degree from IIT
Roorkee, India. He has more than 20 years of research and teaching experience, and his research interest
includes operations and supply chain management, reliability and maintenance engineering, simulation of
production systems, solar energy, decision making under uncertain environment, lean production, etc.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com