Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

ISSN: 0953-7287 (Print) 1366-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

Centerline-SMED integration for machine

changeovers improvement in food industry

J. Lozano, J.C. Saenz-Díez, E. Martínez, E. Jiménez & J. Blanco

To cite this article: J. Lozano, J.C. Saenz-Díez, E. Martínez, E. Jiménez & J. Blanco (2019):
Centerline-SMED integration for machine changeovers improvement in food industry, Production
Planning & Control, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2019.1582110

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1582110

Published online: 25 Mar 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1582110

Centerline-SMED integration for machine changeovers improvement in

food industry
J. Lozanoa, J.C. Saenz-D
ıezb, E. Mart
ıneza, E. Jim
enezb and J. Blancoa
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of La Rioja, La Rioja, Spain; bDepartment of Electrical Engineering, University of La Rioja,
La Rioja, Spain

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper demonstrates how it is possible to combine SMED with Centerlining in complex production Received 21 June 2017
environments with numerous changes of format, product, raw materials and tools. This research pro- Accepted 6 February 2019
poses a methodology involving an initial application of Centerlining and, once the machinery and the
KEYWORDS
process are stable, the subsequent implementation of SMED. Furthermore, it aims to show that it is
SMED; machine
possible to achieve improved output and reduced machinery changeover time while ensuring that the changeovers; Centerlining;
effect achieved by SMED is more stable. This increases the organizational advantages with respect to machine conditions
the implementation of SMED without prior application of Centerlining. The most important overall
conclusion is that a successful application of SMED must always be accompanied by another type of
tool or technique to maximize the results of its application. And, as presented in this work, one tech-
nique that enables significant improvements to SMED is the application of Centerlining.

1. Introduction Khanduja 2010; Suresh Kumar and Syath Abuthakeer 2012;

Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) is one of the techni-
ques encompassed by the Lean Manufacturing (LM) produc-
tion philosophy (Erthal and Marques 2018; Antosz and
Pacana 2018; Belhadi, Touriki, and El Fezazi 2018; Bellisario
and Pavlov 2018). SMED is an LM management tool which is
intended to extract maximum value for clients from manu-
factured products, using fewer resources and increasing prof-
its (B
anyai, Veres, and Ill
es 2015; Dolgui et al. 2008; Shingo
1985) through the reduction and standardization of machin-
ery changeover time. Machinery changeover is any planned
change or procedure carried out on the machinery, including
changes of tools or parts, replacement of materials or pack-
aging, change of format, change of items to be produced
and change of stock-keeping unit (SKU) (Van Kampen and
Van Donk 2014).
Implementation of SMED depends on the type of produc-
tion that is to be analyzed (automotive production and com-
ponents, semiconductors, furniture or food, etc.). The most
important aspect is to ensure that its application is directed
towards the specific points requiring analysis: improvement
of machinery startup (Cakmakci and Karasu 2007; Braglia,
Frosolini, and Gallo 2016; Bidarra et al. 2018); its combination
with other Lean Manufacturing techniques such as 6 Sigma
(Da Graça Ju
nior 2005), Kanban (Michlowicz 2018), 5-Whys
analysis (Braglia, Frosolini, and Gallo 2017); conventional
changes (tools, SKU, formats, etc.) (Tharisheneprem 2008;
Sayem, Islam, and Khan 2014; Peter 2010; Singh and
Ribeiro et al. 2011); or Standardization (Puvanasvaran, Ab.
Hamid, and Yoong 2018; Singh, Singh, and Singh 2018).
In the case of SMED, the benefits can be quantified in the
form of minimization of production costs, increased produc-
tion line efficiency, increased overall efficiency of the machin-
ery (Skotnicka-Zasadzien
, Wolniak, and GeR balska-Kwiecien

2018), enhanced expertise of personnel involved in
production (operators, mechanics, etc.) and maintenance
optimization (Bin Che Ani and Bin Shafei 2014; Gu et al.
2009; Tharisheneprem 2008; Das, Venkatadri, and Pandey
2014; Lozano et al. 2017a). However, the hidden costs of
applying SMED must be taken into account (Gungor and
Evans 2018).
The theoretical approach to SMED suggests that machin-
ery changeover time should never last more than 10 min
(changeover time means the time between the manufacture
of the last valid item before the changeover and the manu-
facture of the first valid item after the changeover) (Karasu
and Salum 2018). Logically, this concept has to be adapted
to the specifics of each type of industry. The aim is to ensure
that the changeover time is as short as possible and that it
is carried out in a standardized manner (Gathen 2004;
Lozano et al. 2017b).
Another theoretical approach suggests that when imple-
menting SMED, it is necessary to distinguish between the
operations carried out while the machinery is stopped
(internal elements) and those carried out while the

CONTACT J. Blanco julio.blanco@unirioja.es Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of La Rioja, Edificio Departamental - C/Luis de Ulloa, 20 -
26004 Logro~no, La Rioja, Spain.
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. LOZANO ET AL.
machinery is running (external elements). On the basis of
these operations:
1. Internal elements need to be converted into exter-
nal elements.
2. Tasks causing bottlenecks must be identified, i.e., the
most expensive or resource-heavy tasks. The relevant
improvements should be made to minimize these ele-
ments first.
3. Once the first two points have been completed, the
next bottleneck must be identified and corrected. This
process is repeated until the intended objectives have
been achieved.
It should be noted that several steps are necessary to
apply SMED correctly in practice:
1. Identify the machinery where SMED is to be applied.
They are ones with periodic changes that cause substan-
tial changes in the machinery. Examples of changes
include format, machinery configuration (product with
other characteristics), tools, materials, etc.
2. Identify the points or components of the machinery that
must be changed or modified.
3. Distinguish between the tasks that can be done while
the machinery is in use from the ones that must neces-
sarily be carried out with the machinery shut down
(without producing).
4. Establish actions to reduce the time it takes to make the
changeover, preferring transforming changes requiring
machinery shutdown into ones that can be done with
the machinery in operation.
1.1. Centerlining
It is important to note that there are other types of machine
changeover that are not specified in the SMED technique,
such as maintenance, adjustments, improvements and the
actual operation of the machinery. These can leave the
machinery in non-optimal conditions and entail production
losses. The machinery is subject to daily phenomena such as
maintenance (with much higher frequencies that the change
in configuration or tools), adjustments (a wide variety and
symptomatic of a lack of basic conditions of the machinery)
and operation itself (which depends on human factors, the
conditions of the materials, etc.) (Ferguson 2013).
To remedy this weak point, it is necessary to use the tech-
nique of Centerlining. This makes it possible to generate
optimal operating conditions and parameters.
Daniel L. Ferguson (Ferguson 2013) considers centerlining
to be the ‘Step 7: Final Adjustments and Centerlining’ and is
included in the SMED application. However, Thomas P. Wise
(Wise and Daniel 2015) considers that Centerlining is a post-
SMED option whose ultimate purpose is to ‘simplify the
set-up and realignment of components to ensure optimal
operation, reduce the waste in rework and easily integrate
into the daily activities of machine engineers and operators’.
The application of Centerlining allows us to parameterize
and monitor all the machine components that are prone to
wear (guides, stops, levels, pressure switches, opening or
closing of valves, blowers, tension of chains and belts, gears,
etc.) as well as the machinery program parameters that dir-
ectly affect operation.
Likewise, there are additional changes derived from the
materials used in the packaging (cardboard, paper, etc.).
They are usually subjected to environmental variables, such
as humidity, temperature, etc. In this case, it is important to
follow two control indicators: high level of demand in the
conditions of production control, and transport conditions of
the companies supplying such materials. It is also necessary
to satisfy the specifications for the conservation of materials
during their storage and use. In this case, it is necessary to
identify the points of the machinery that are sensitive to
those changes in the material and include them in the
Centreline (Wise and Daniel 2015). They are reflected with a
range of operation, that is, both the machinery and the pro-
duction and material accept a range of work at the points of
the Centerlining. For instance, in (millimetric) adjustments
in the position range of guides, these adjustments must
match the dimensional variation in the material.
For Centerlining to be effective, the machinery must be in
basic condition and the production process must be stable.
In other words, the company must maintain the machinery
in its original state, without defects and having undertaken
all maintenance tasks. It is also essential that the manufactur-
ing process is standardized and that all variables are con-
trolled. If this is not the case, the defined parameters will not
be maintained over time because neither the machinery nor
the process will be stable (Zuccolotto et al. 2013). It is also
important to note the increase in the deterioration of
machinery when there are errors in Centerlining (Kordoghli
and Moussa 2013).
Other approaches to Centerlining focus on its application
to machinery with regard to a better use of resources (Triki,
Alalawin, and Ghiani 2013) and the standardization of the
combination of components at the time of manufacture of
products (Triki, Alalawin, and Ghiani 2013), rather than the
optimization of the machinery.
The application of Centerlining is valid in any type of
industry: the manufacture of steel for construction
(Zuccolotto et al. 2013); the print industry (Indrawati and
Pratiwi 2018); wind turbines (Huang and Hu 2011); CNC
machinery (Ahmad and Soberi 2018); herbicide manufacture
(Triki, Alalawin, and Ghiani 2013); plastic injection mold
changeover (Karasu and Salum 2018) and defence industry
(Mohammad and Freeman 2010).
1.2. Research context
This paper demonstrates how it is possible to combine SMED
with Centerlining in complex production environments with
numerous changes of format, product, raw materials
and tools.
In addition, it shows that applying Centerlining correctly
can help control and minimize losses from daily use of the

Figure 1. Work methodology.
machinery itself and can have a direct impact on enhancing
the application of SMED, as all the operations/activities per-
formed on one machine are related.
The work methodology has been applied in several facto-
ries in the food sector, and more specifically on those which
principally manufacture cereal-based food products. These
companies typically undertake a large number of complex
machinery changeovers, such as change of format, change of
product and change of materials or tools.
This research proposes a methodology involving an initial
application of Centerlining and, once the machinery and the
process are stable, the subsequent implementation of SMED.
At the same time, it aims to show that it is possible to
achieve improved output and reduced machinery change-
over time while ensuring that the effect achieved by SMED is
more stable.
2. Methodology
The research methodology contains five stages. Stage 1
involves the choice of the productive system to improve.
Stage 2 does an analysis of the productive lines to under-
stand the existing work methodology.
Stage 3 proposes the new work methodology (see
Figure 1) and involves analyzing the implementation of the
Centerlining technique and continued usage of the machin-
ery in basic condition within the SMED methodology. In this
way, it is possible to implement a combination of techniques
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 3
and operating conditions to minimize changeover times in
production lines and maximize profits for companies.
Stage 4 implements the proposed work methodology.
Stage 5 analyzes the results and obtains final conclusions.
2.1. Application of basic and stable machine conditions
Industries with production stages have to deal with a large
number of complex and diverse changeovers in their
machinery, including changes of tools or equipment, config-
uration or format, product, materials or packaging and proc-
esses. All of this takes place alongside organizational
changes, heavy usage of tools and equipment, a large num-
ber of different products manufactured on the same produc-
tion lines, different types of packs and packaging and a
variability of processes according to the product that is
being manufactured. Faced with the problem of so many
changes in the productive environment, SMED is an appro-
priate tool to enable the achievement of the desired level of
profits and productivity (Bin Che Ani and Bin Shafei 2014;
Cakmakci 2009; Chiarini 2014; Ribeiro et al. 2011; Kemal
Karasu et al. 2014; Faccio 2013).
The starting point for implementing SMED is to deter-
mine, in advance, the state of the machinery. This is a very
important concept because knowledge of the state of the
machinery will enable a mediocre application to be con-
verted into an excellent application. To do so, it must be
ensured that the machinery does not generate any losses in
4 J. LOZANO ET AL.
safety (i.e., it has all its safety elements in perfect working
order), losses in quality (i.e., it cannot generate any rejected
project that does not meet the established specifications or
that needs to be re-manipulated) and has suitable work
yields (without any continual adjustments or reoccurring
malfunctions).
Before demonstrating the relationship between the level
of success of SMED with the state of the machinery, it is first
necessary to define what it means to maintain machinery in
basic condition. Basic condition can be defined as the initial
good state of repair to which the machinery must be
returned after use, i.e., the state it would be in if it were
newly acquired. Logically, if the machinery is new, it will take
less time and effort to return it to its original state than if
the machinery has been used.
Maintaining the machinery in basic condition offers obvi-
ous advantages since it averts potential problems produced
through usage and enables the machinery to operate in bet-
ter condition. It should be noted that there are several pro-
duction techniques that focus on this point, including
Integrated Lean Six Sigma (IL6S), Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM) and Toyota Production System (TPS).
Returning the machinery to its original state should be a
joint endeavour involving all personnel associated with the
machinery (see Figure 1). This includes:
 Qualified personnel who are experienced with the
machinery. These are mainly the personnel who spend
the most time operating the machinery and are, there-
fore, those who should best know the state of the
machinery and how to detect when it deviates from its
basic condition.
 Maintenance. This involves the technical specialists who
undertake the most complex operations on the machin-
ery and who act in the event of a breakdown or perform
maintenance tasks, in order to leave the machinery as
defined, using either original components or duly author-
ized copies.
 Planning. This involves those responsible for planning
production and downtime, as well as the materials and
raw materials used during production. This personnel
must coordinate and facilitate downtime for carrying out
the tasks necessary for maintenance and supply the
defined materials to enable the machinery to operate
under these conditions.
 Monitored and recorded upgrades. Each upgrade to be
implemented must comply with defined standards to
ensure the basic condition of the machinery. These stand-
ards require a consensus among all involved personnel to
determine a person to be responsible for the upgrade
and its measurement and verification. They must all valid-
ate that the initial intended objective has been achieved.
 Working procedures and actions. This department is
responsible for the operation of the machinery and the
standards that are defined on the introduction of a new
product. Likewise, in the case of the installation of new
machinery, they must require suppliers to provide the
tools necessary to guarantee the initial condition of
the machinery.
 Defined and monitored product parameters to ensure the
optimal quality of the product.
 Quality assurance. Its role is to define operating condi-
tions and monitoring to ensure that products entering
the process comply with standards and allow operation
of the machinery without having to modify the plans.
Once the requirement to maintain the basic condition of
the machinery is met, it is then possible to apply Lean
Manufacturing tools. It is also important to note that once
Kaizen or any other Lean Manufacturing enhancement tech-
nique has been applied, the machine must continue to be
maintained in basic condition. Problems may arise during
the process of returning the machinery to basic condition:
 if there is no original technical documentation provided
by the manufacturer;
 if no in-depth analysis is performed on the losses to be
eliminated or reduced;
 if it is harmful to other parts of the machinery
or production;
 if maintenance has not been carried out;
 if maintenance has been carried out without using ori-
ginal spare parts or parts have been changed incorrectly
or without the following procedure; or
 if other aspects of production are taken into account.
There is a very close relationship between SMED and the
state of the machinery. SMED should not be applied to
machinery that has not been properly maintained, where ori-
ginal spare parts have not been used, where production
standards are lacking and where there are no well-defined
materials or product specifications. Doing so would make it
impossible to analyze, measure or assess the implementation
of any improvement because the defined procedure or the
determined sequence of changes will not always be the
same. In other words, the state of the machinery will have
changed since there will be different clearances, worn or bro-
ken parts, spare parts that are not valid, products with very
variable characteristics, and so on. All this would entail
adapting the machinery to each situation, causing chaos in
the procedure or work method that has been defined with
SMED, as well as losing efficiency.
In addition to the basic condition of the machinery, it is
essential to take into account several other aspects, including
layout, materials or resources used, timeframe for the project
and the machinery itself (Almomani et al. 2013;
Tharisheneprem 2008; Ferrad
as and Salonitis 2013; Cakmakci
and Karasu 2007; Chen, Zhang, and Huo 2016).
2.2. Implementation of Centerlining in SMED
For the combined application of Centerling/SMED, it is essen-
tial to determine the best time to implement Centerlining.
To this end, we first need to understand the main purpose
of this technique and how it fits into an application of

Figure 2. Centerlining tracking sheet.
SMED. The logic sequence is shown in Figure 1 and is
as follows:
1. ensure the machinery is in basic condition;
2. implement Centerlining;
3. implement SMED.
Before implementing Centerlining it is necessary to carry
out several more or less simple steps in order to:
 establish a baseline for measuring the improvements
implemented with this technique;
 determine the appropriate personnel for the application
of the methodology and if there is room for improve-
ment, solve this through training, substituting personnel
or other options;
 define and draw up the documents or procedures which
are required for implementation;
 set out or plan the production cycles;
 determine the state of the machinery and production
lines, etc.
As can be seen, there are a number of aspects to be
taken into account before applying the methodology, in
order to ensure the machinery is in basic condition and, sub-
sequently, to maintain it in that state (Dombrowski and
Weckenborg 2013; Li, Liu, and Qiao 2012).
Once these steps have been taken, it is possible to apply
the Centerlining technique. It is, however, necessary to
follow a sequence of stages (see Figure 1):
a. Qualified, permanent personnel. Operators, maintenance
technicians, technical support workers, etc. must have
skills relevant to:
 machinery handling;
 operating conditions;
 tools or techniques applied to the machinery (TPM,
SMED, Centerlining, 5S, etc.);
 operating procedures;
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 5
 behaviour of the product or material to be
manufactured;
 tools and procedures for workplace safety and qual-
ity, etc.
These tasks must be checked and audited to verify that
personnel are suitably trained. Suitable personnel are a key
factor in a successful SMED/Centerlining project since they
will ensure, among other things, that the Centerlining will
always be the same and the machinery will not undergo any
unexplained changes. This can be achieved by analysing the
skills of the agents who will take part in the application:
operators, specialist technicians, engineers in on-going
improvement, process engineers, etc. The purpose is to
ensure that they are thoroughly knowledgeable of the
machinery (its current status, optimum conditions, basic con-
ditions, etc.) to which the Centerlining concept will
be applied.
b. Defined format for the Centerlining tracking sheet.
Centerlining should lay out, by means of a formatted
tracking sheet, all machinery parameters and condi-
tions to ensure optimal functioning. Useful parameters
include machinery positions, pressures, flow rates, pro-
gramming parameters, specified spare parts, tensions,
etc. This task will be developed by the Engineer for
Continuous Improvement or Process Engineer (the
responsible of processes and tools standardization).
Figure 2 shows an example of a tracking sheet for manag-
ing and laying out the Centerlining. The determined parame-
ters must be recorded each day and positioned in the left
column. With a 7-day register (Figure 3), the sheet will be
changed weekly and the completed sheet will be kept or
recorded. This way, if the Centerlining is altered, there will
be a record of when the change was made and the corre-
sponding actions can be undertaken. In other words, before
Centerlining can be applied, all the machinery’s
moving points and measurements must be identified.
Once identified, note is taken of the parameters when
6 J. LOZANO ET AL.
Figure 3. Real case of Centerlining tracking sheet.
the machinery is working at peak performance (optimal
conditions). These parameters will be considered as a ref-
erence, and therefore are included in the document so
that the status of the machinery can be continu-
ally checked.
These parameters should correspond to: numbering on
ruled guides, pressure at pressure switches, valve numbering,
program parameters, flow rates, tensions, etc.
c. Implementation procedure. As with any Lean
Manufacturing tool, Centerlining must follow a series
of defined steps to ensure its correct implementation.
These steps must be defined by the personnel
involved in production (process engineers, operators
and technicians) and must be undertaken in the
same way. This task will be developed by the
Production Manager, requiring that operators and
qualified technicians are involved.
Once the machinery is in basic condition and the optimal
working method has been defined, all machine parameters
should be documented. Once documented and measured,
they should be indicated in a highly visible manner. If any
parameter does not match the optimal one, it will be neces-
sary to do the following:
1. Place all the parameters exactly as defined when the
machinery was working at peak performance. Analyze
whether the performance of the machine improves,
maintain it just as it was achieved, and do not go on to
the next step.
2. If the performance has gone down, leave it as it was
when the machinery worked best and change the
Centerlining document.
It is natural for the Centerlining of the machinery to
undergo small variations because of factors such as the wear
of components, material specifications, etc. Experience shows
that Centerlining generates very slight improvements, for
example, if the injection time is 3 s ± 0.25 s, it could vary to
2.5 s ± 0.25 s, but the sum of them all leads to substantial
improvements.
d. Regular checks and audits. Once the method of measuring
the correct application of Centerlining has been estab-
lished, regular visual inspections (‘health checks’) should
be performed by operators, always following the same
procedure. If the results are outside the acceptable oper-
ating range, action must be taken to return to the ranges
established under Centerlining. If this is not corrected,
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 7

the entire operation will be considered unsuccessful. This

task will be developed by operators and qualified techni-
cians and monitored by the Production Manager.
The procedure requires that audits be applied at differ-
ent levels: Figure 4. Common part in Packaging line.

1. Level 1: Checking the machinery at each work shift. attention should be given to certain out-of-the-ordinary
Performed by the machinery operators and visible for operations or in the event of a breakdown.
the people in charge of the production line, this check
will be done at every point of Centerlining.
3. Case study
2. Level 2: Daily check. Performed by the person in charge
of the production line. This work methodology has been implemented in several
3. Level 3: Weekly check. Performed by the person in charge food sector factories. The production of cereal-based foods is
of fabrication, at the level of production manager or fac- divided into six interlinked stages: transport of raw materials,
tory manager. This check will be performed by line and reception of raw materials, storage of raw materials, process-
all the production lines will be checked to ensure they ing or conversion of foodstuffs, conservation of processed
are on Centerlining. foodstuffs, and service to consumers.
The analysis of the production lines can be outlined in
e. Changeover procedures. Like any other Lean
four groups of tables which show the data that have been
Manufacturing tool, Centerlining can evolve for vari-
collected and the evolution of the implementation of the
ous reasons: change of product or material to be
methodology. This section involves a comparative examin-
manufactured, upgrades to the machinery, etc. What
ation of the changeover times in a series of packaging lines,
is important is to follow a procedure to modify the
contrasting an SMED application with prior application of
application of Centerlining and ensure that this pro-
Centerlining (therefore, with the packaging lines in basic
cedure is established by the same personnel who
condition) with an SMED application without prior
defined the implementation procedure. This ensures
Centerlining.
that if the machinery undergoes a change, it is car-
The production lines studied share a common line (see
ried out in a controlled way and will not negatively
Figure 4) in order that there are no changes to the machin-
impact on what has been previously carried out. This
ery even if the type of product changes.
task will be monitored and controlled by the
The common part uses four machines to perform the mix-
Engineer for Continuous Improvement or Process
ing process; once the product is made, it is baked and then
Engineer because this process tool is devoted to con-
cooled for packaging. The subsequent phases are where the
tinuous improvement. It is necessary that operators
changes are made according to the format or material that is
and qualified technicians are involved as the respon-
to be packaged
sible staff for machine changeover and
Centelining checking.
3.1. Packaging line 1
The aim is to define a work protocol in order that the
Packaging line 1 prints logos onto packs. The variables to be
procedures for measuring and application or correction do
controlled are the design to be printed, the material and the
not vary. This ensures that the results obtained are always
dimensions of the pack.
referenced at the same starting point and that the sense of
The process on line 1 (Figure 5) divides the production
Centerlining is not lost.
into two branches, then the product is lined up and verified
Once the machinery is in basic condition, every machine
with artificial vision. From that moment on, machinery is
parameter which is subject to change must be recorded. It is
used with constant changeovers:
important not to overlook recording parameters which
appear to have less direct impact on the machinery, since
 It is packaged, with the product on line, mainly varying
failure to do so may cause problems by entailing the modifi-
the length of the packaging.
cation of other, more important, parameters.
 It is labelled according to the format or product being
The next step is to measure when the machinery is oper-
manufactured.
ating at optimal conditions; these measurements are based
 It is grouped and boxed.
on GE (Global Efficiency) CASE STUDY, OEE (Overall
Equipment Effectiveness) or MTBF (Mean Time Between Application of SMED on line 1 consisted of the following:
Failures) (Seleem, Attia, and El-Assal 2016). We must then
take note of the value of all parameters that have been listed  Identifying the machines in which the changes in format
and mark them so that it is easy to identify whether the or product will be made (identified in orange in the fig-
machinery is operating in line with the Centerlining. Regular ure). A total of five machines of three different types
checks provide a simple visual way of determining whether (Flowpack, Marker Machine and Wrap-up) were identified
the machinery complies with the Centerlining. Special and on two equal sub-lines.
8 J. LOZANO ET AL.
Figure 5. Production flow of Packaging line 1.
Figure 6. Results and the evolution of Packaging line 1.
 Identifying the change points of each machine:
 Flowpack: 37 points of movement.
 Marker Machine: 10 points of movement.
 Wrap-up: 57 points of movement.
All these points consist of movements of guides along which
the product moves, clocks regarding power screws that
move the points of the machines, changes in sealant temper-
atures, components that must be changed (clamps, injectors,
sets of components, etc.), changes in program parameters
and shortening or lengthening chains with devices installed
on the machine.
 Differentiating between exterior change points (changes
with the machine in operation) and interior change points
(changes with the machine shut down):
 Flowpack: 22 exterior points and 15 interior points.
 Marker Machine: 7 exterior points and 3 inter-
ior points.
 Wrap-up: 12 exterior points and 45 interior points.
These change points enable the following:
 Generate programs for each format. This way, the pro-
gram of each format is loaded and it is faster than
changing parameter by parameter.
 Instead of modifying guides, there is a group of
guides with the exact measurements for each format,
and it is easier to change the entire set than to
change points on the same guide.
 Identify the machine that is hardest to modify, study
changes and lower the overall line change. In this case,
the machine that is hardest to change is Wrap-up. That is
why this is the machine where actions are posed to
reduce the change in machine, such as:
 Place end limits on the guides to easily move the
change points instead of taking continuous measure-
ments for the new fastening point.
 Facilitate use of the same tool so as not to waste time
working with different tools.
 Replace screwed fastenings with quick fastening hooks
without tools.
Figure 6 shows that they start from the same objective
value to be achieved in the same time. The predetermined
value of the changeover time is 190 min and this is intended
to be achieved from week 14. The current changeover time
is 305 min.
The goal of 190 min is significantly less than half of a
work shift (480 min), that is, in the same work shift, the pro-
duction of two different products can be planned. When pro-
posing a product change, it is analyzed which is the
component of the line that spends most time in the format
change and it is identified as a bottleneck. From that
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 9

Figure 7. Production flow of Packaging line 2.

moment, resources, both human and material, are distributed

to minimize the time of change.
In the case analyzed, each format change involves the
manipulation of 49 components sequentially (in certain com-
ponents it corresponds to up to 4 equal change points). That
is to say, it is necessary to intervene in an orderly manner
starting at component number 1 and ending at number 49,
with almost 8 min on average to change each element (in
the initial model). It is interesting to note that part of the
substitutions is made in the form of subsets, that is, there
are several subsets that are disassembled and reassembled
with different configurations (conditioned to each of the
working formats of the machine). The change of subsets
implies a preset sequence: open clamps, open harting con-
nectors, move or remove the subset, and do the reverse
sequence with the substituted subset. In most cases, it
involves the use of machinery (a platform, work bench, etc.)
to perform the work more efficiently, in the shortest possible
time, and in an ergonomic manner.
There is a very noticeable difference between the figures.
SMED was applied to one set of machinery that had previ-
ously undergone Centerlining to return it to basic condition
and to another that had not. The machinery which had
undergone Centerlining achieved the objective from week 11
and the reduction in changeover time was stable and
Figure 8. Example of Centerlining application in Packaging line 2.
smooth. In contrast, for the machinery which had not under-
gone these steps, the times fluctuate, reaching the objective
first in week 12 and then again in week 14.
out this material automatically. This width must be modified
according to the measurements determined in the pack and
3.2. Packaging line 2 in the format to be produced.
Packaging line 2 fills flexible packs with different products. It is important to monitor it to know if the machinery is
The variables to be controlled are the type and size of pack performing correctly. It also monitors component wear in the
and the product that is packaged. machinery and checks that the pack material does not
This line (Figure 7) has a different type of product despite change throughout production, etc.
sharing the process area with the rest. Once the product is Figure 9 shows the results obtained with and without
filled with cream, marmalade or chocolate, it is sorted by prior application of Centerlining. In both cases, they start
size and then put into robots for bagging. These bags are from the same point and have the same objective. The first
grouped and boxed in the Wrap-up machine and finally are changeover takes 176 min and changeover time decreases
marked according to the format as produced. gradually and in a more stable way. This case involves the
Figure 8 shows a Centerlining application featuring two manipulation of 29 components. With the machinery that
counters connected to some power screws. These counters has not undergone Centerlining, the changeover time fluctu-
measure the width of the packaging storage and measure ates and reaches the objective later.
10 J. LOZANO ET AL.

Figure 9. Results and the evolution of Packaging line 2.

Figure 10. Production flow of Packaging line 3.

If the data is analyzed, it can be seen that there is a sig-

nificant increase in the machinery changeover time during
these weeks. It can also be seen that in week 3, the change-
over time has actually increased with respect to the starting
point of the study.
The consequences of the lack of prior implementation of
Centerlining can also be seen in several weeks (especially in
weeks 10 and 13), where the team that carries out the
changes of format is disoriented. This signifies that between
week 12 and 13 something has occurred in the machinery or
in its environment that has led to the SMED technique not
functioning properly. It is important to note the continuity in
the positive results achieved through the application of
Centerlining, completely eliminating the fluctuations and
deviations in changeover time.

3.3. Packaging line 3

Packaging line 3 covers packages with a surface layer. The
variables to be controlled are the types of coverings and the
products to be covered.
Packaging line 3 (Figure 10) shows the product arriving
from the process area, getting filled and then divided into
two to be packaged linearly in two branches. It is then Figure 11. Example of Centerlining application in Packaging line 3.

Figure 12. Results and the evolution of Packaging line 3.
Figure 13. Production flow of Packaging line 4.
grouped and boxed for marking according to the format or
product being packaged.
Figure 11 shows a Centerlining application by means of a
pressure gauge showing the air pressure needed for the
robots to work. It must be checked to see if it is within the
Centerlining (in green) or outside (in red). It reflects anoma-
lies that must be detected and an action taken to achieve
peak performance.
Packaging line 3 (see Figure 12), where Centerlining has
previously been applied, allows us to observe the change
from week 1, with a value of 155 min, through to week 9,
in which the objective value of 119 min is achieved. In
addition, as its application continues over the 14 weeks, it
is possible to see how the changeover times decrease
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 11
until they last only 98 min. This is a further 22 min
beyond the objective. This case involves the manipulation
of 8 components.
In contrast, when Centerlining has not been applied, the
objective is not achieved until the final week. Neither is there
any assurance of stability since more time would be required
to determine whether the value is stable or might even
increase as a result of the uncertainty generated.
3.4. Packaging line 4
Packaging line 4’s main component is a series of pneumatic
presses that create packages through a process of successive
12 J. LOZANO ET AL.
packaging. The variables to be controlled are the pack size
and the material to be packaged.
Line 4 (see Figure 13) receives the product and divides it
into two identical sub-lines, each with the same capacity.
After that, the product is filled and sent to robot 1, which
also receives boxes, placing the product in them and boxing
it up. Then, robot 2 piles the boxes and they are placed
inside one of greater capacity by the Wrap-up for subse-
quent distribution.
An example of Centerlining application is given in
Figure 14, which shows the inlet guides into the robot. It
shows two coloured end limits on the guide. The end limits
are accompanied by a metric tape measure to see the height
of the product being produced. This height must be checked
to know whether or not the machinery has the correct
Figure 14. Example of Centerlining application in Packaging line 4.
Figure 15. Results and the evolution of Packaging line 4.
height. Depending on how the machinery is configured, the
lever must be at one end or the other.
As can be seen in Figure 15, packaging line 4 is the most
complicated line in which to apply SMED to the changeover
technique. This case involves the manipulation of 17 compo-
nents. Packaging line 4 has a starting value of 250 min of
changeover time and the objective is reached by week 12,
with a value of 173 min, which then decreases to 166 min. It
can be seen that the decrease in the changeover time is
gradual and predictable.
In contrast, when SMED is implemented in the same pack-
aging line without prior application of Centerlining, the
objective is not achieved. Moreover, it is not expected to be
attainable over the following weeks, since it is still 20 min
away from the objective. This suggests that when SMED is
implemented in complex changeovers, the implementation
time should be lengthened, because of the risk of not reach-
ing the objective within the set timeframe.
3.5. Joint implementation of packaging lines
The joint application of SMED to the four packaging lines
allows us to observe that the most complex packaging line
is number 4 because it is the last to reach its objective. By
reason of logic, packaging line 1 is a bottleneck, since this is
the line in which the changeover is most difficult. This ena-
bles us to infer that if a combined change had to be made
across all 4 packaging lines, the more specialized operations
should be carried out on packaging line 4 (the most com-
plex) and more human resources should be used on packag-
ing line 1 (because it is more difficult to carry out the
changeover). On the other two packaging lines, it is possible
to use a lower number of less specialized operators.
It should also be noted that these conclusions cannot be
drawn with the same level of accuracy when changes are
applied without prior Centerlining since the figures can be
interpreted to give misleading conclusions. For example, in
packaging line 2, the largest fluctuation in comparison to
packaging line 4 could appear to be due to the machinery
changeover being more complex, whereas in reality, the
most complex packaging line is number 4. Similarly, in pack-
aging line 4, it is not possible to draw final conclusions

because the objective has not yet been achieved. This is all
due to the lack of necessary stability that is obtained when
SMED is applied to machinery in basic condition, following
the prior application of Centerlining.
4. Conclusions
The most important overall conclusion is that a successful
application of SMED must always be accompanied by
another type of tool or technique to maximize the results of
its application.
One technique that enables significant improvements to
SMED is the application of Centerlining. The most important
aspect in the implementation of Centerlining is to be clear
as to the concept that it represents, i.e., to parameterize and
monitor all the points and parameters that affect the
machinery to which SMED will be applied. To determine
which points to monitor, it is sufficient to know all the points
or parameters that are subject to change.
It is important to note that there is a series of production
methods, including Integrated Lean Six Sigma (IL6S), Total
Productive Maintenance (TPM), Toyota Production System
(TPS) and Total Quality Management (TQM), which enable
the machinery to be returned to basic condition, and all of
them entail, as a primary objective, maintaining the machin-
ery in this state in order to achieve other goals. While it is
also possible to return the machinery to basic condition
without applying a production method, this involves the use
of a large amount of resources, above all at the outset. What
is most significant is that SMED and Centerlining enable us
to perform this step with much fewer resources than any of
the methods mentioned above.
The application of Centerlining is expected to produce
one or several sheets detailing elements of the machinery in
its ideal state. At the same time, it should facilitate the visual
conception of the machinery and indicate the points subject
to change.
As shown in the article, it is possible to apply SMED with-
out prior steps. It has also been shown that it is not possible
to apply Centerlining without first having returned the
machinery to basic condition. These two concepts must go
hand in hand because they are essentially the same.
It follows that it is more complicated to implement SMED
without first implementing Centerlining, since, as the figures
in the results section show, the fluctuations in changeover
times during the application of this technique mean that it is
not as simple to ensure that the changes that are occurring
are useful. To underline this argument, it can be seen that
the application of SMED with Centerlining results in faster
achievement of objectives, while fluctuations in changeover
times over time lead to errors in the application and in the
analysis of results.
Finally, it should be noted that regardless of which of the
two routes are chosen for the application of SMED, both
start from the same point. In other words, the results of the
implementation of SMED are obtained starting from the first
changeover carried out. This leads to the conclusion that the
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 13
application of Centerlining prior to the monitoring process
gives results during and after the project, and not before.
The application of Centerlining also has a positive effect on
other aspects of production, including improvement in
machinery maintenance, and detection and correction of
defects in the machinery. In conclusion, it should be borne
in mind that the use of tools such as Total Productive
Maintenance (TPM), Integrated Lean Six Sigma (IL6S) and
Toyota Production System (TPS) offers a suitable work envir-
onment for optimizing machinery usage conditions and effi-
ciency in the production process.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Jorge Lozano Na
jera is a BSc in Mechanical
Engineering and a MEng in Industrial Engineering
both from the University of La Rioja, where he is a
PhD student in Innovation in product engineering
and industrial processes. As professional experience,
he has worked as an R&D consultant in a consult-
ancy, and he has worked for two multinational com-
panies in different manufacturing departments, such
as Continuous Improvement, Production,
Maintenance, and Projects, in which he is currently working, developing
and applying different lean tools.
Professor Juan Carlos Sa
enz-D
ıez Muro studied
Industrial Engineering and PhD studies at the
University of La Rioja, where currently he works in
the Department of Electrical Engineering. He has
published more than 100 works (25 JCR papers), has
participated in more that 30 research projects, and
has developed more than 60 patents.
Eduardo Mart
ınez-Ca
mara studied Industrial
Engineering and PhD studies at the University of La
Rioja. Currently, he works in both in a private com-
pany (as head of the Research Department) and as
an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering of the University of La
Rioja. He has published more than 100 works and
has participated in several research projects in both
his work Company and University. His main
research interests include renewable energy, fabrication processes, and
environmental impact.
Prof. Emilio Jim
enez Mac
ıas is a Full Professor at the
University of La Rioja where he is the Director of the
Master on Industrial Engineering and leads the
“Modeling, Simulation and Optimization” Group. He is
also the head of the Division of Systems Engineering
and Automation, in the Department of Electrical
Engineering. He is a Master on Industrial Engineering
(Computer Science, Electronics and Automation speci-
ality) by the University of Zaragoza, and a PhD on
Industrial Automation by the University of La Rioja. Currently, he is the
President of EUROSIM (the Federation of European Simulation Societies).
14 J. LOZANO ET AL.

ndez is an Industrial
Full Professor Julio Blanco Ferna
Engineering and PhD by the University of the Basque
Country (Spain). Currently, he works in the
Department of Mechanical Engineering, where he is
the Director of the bachelor on Mechanical
Engineering. He has published more than 150 works
(74 JCR works), 72 patents, has participated in more
than 50 research projects and has been Director of
Chair of Innovation, Technology and Knowledge
Management of the University of La Rioja.
References
Ahmad, R., and M. S. F. Soberi. 2018. “Changeover Process Improvement
Based on Modified SMED Method and Other Process Improvement
Tools Application: An Improvement Project of 5-Axis CNC Machine
Operation in Advanced Composite Manufacturing Industry.” The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 94
(1–4):433–450. doi:10.1007/s00170-017-0827-7.
Almomani, M. A., M. Aladeemy, A. Abdelhadi, and A. Mumani. 2013. “A
Proposed Approach for Setup Time Reduction through Integrating
Conventional SMED Method with Multiple Criteria Decision-Making
Techniques.” Computers and Industrial Engineering 66 (2):461–469. doi:
10.1016/j.cie.2013.07.011.
Antosz, K., and A. Pacana. 2018. “Comparative Analysis of the
Implementation of the SMED Method on Selected Production Stands.”
Tehnicki Vjesnik 25:276–282. doi:10.17559/TV-20160411095705.
B
anyai, T., P. Veres, and B. Ill
es. 2015. “Heuristic Supply Chain
Optimization of Networked Maintenance Companies.” Procedia
Engineering 100:46–55.
Belhadi, A., F. E. Touriki, and S. El Fezazi. 2018. “Benefits of Adopting
Lean Production on Green Performance of SMEs: A Case Study.”
Production Planning and Control 29 (11):873–894. doi:10.1080/
09537287.2018.1490971.
Bellisario, A., and A. Pavlov. 2018. “Performance Management Practices
in Lean Manufacturing Organizations: A Systematic Review of
Research Evidence.” Production Planning and Control 29 (5):367–385.
doi:10.1080/09537287.2018.1432909.
Bidarra, T., R. Godina, J. C. O. Matias, and S. G. Azevedo. 2018. “SMED
Methodology Implementation in an Automotive Industry Using a
Case Study Method.” International Journal of Industrial Engineering
and Management 9 (1):1–16. www.iim.ftn.uns.ac.rs/ijiem_journal.php
Bin Che Ani, M. N., and M. S. S. Bin Shafei. 2014. “The Effectiveness of
the Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) technique for the
Productivity Improvement.” Applied Mechanics and Materials 465–466:
1144–1148. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.465-466.1144.
Braglia, M., M. Frosolini, and M. Gallo. 2016. “Enhancing SMED:
Changeover Out of Machine Evaluation Technique to Implement the
Duplication Strategy.” Production Planning and Control 27 (4):328–342.
doi:10.1080/09537287.2015.1126370.
Braglia, M., M. Frosolini, and M. Gallo. 2017. “SMED Enhanced with 5-
Whys Analysis to Improve Set-upreduction Programs: The SWAN
Approach.” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 90 (5–8):1845–1855. doi:10.1007/s00170-016-9477-4.
Cakmakci, M. 2009. “Process Improvement: Performance Analysis of the
Setup Time reduction-SMED in the Automobile Industry.” The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 41
(1–2):168–179. doi:10.1007/s00170-008-1434-4.
Cakmakci, M., and M. K. Karasu. 2007. “Set-up Time Reduction Process
and Integrated Predetermined Time System MTM-UAS: A Study of
Application in a Large Size Company of Automobile Industry.” The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 33
(3–4):334–344. doi:10.1007/s00170-006-0466-x.
Chen, Q. Q., J. B. Zhang, and Y. Huo. 2016. “A Study on Research Hot-
Spots and Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Technology
Innovation Visualization Analysis Based on the Citespace III.”
Agricultural Economics (Czech Republic) 62 (9):429–445. doi:10.17221/
207/2015-AGRICECON.
Chiarini, A. 2014. “Sustainable Manufacturing-Greening Processes Using
Specific Lean Production Tools: An Empirical Observation from
European Motorcycle Component Manufacturers.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 85:226–233. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.080.
Da Graça J
unior, J. C. 2005. “Lean Manufacturing and 6 Sigma: The role
of Top Management.” SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-4102. doi:10.4271/
2005-01-4102.
Das, B., U. Venkatadri, and P. Pandey. 2014. “Applying Lean
Manufacturing System to Improving Productivity of Airconditioning
Coil Manufacturing.” The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 71 (1–4):307–323. doi:10.1007/s00170-013-
5407-x.
Dolgui, A., A. Pashkevich, M. Pashkevich, and F. Grimaud. 2008.
“Forecasting Risk Analysis for Supply Chains with Intermittent
Demand.” International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 9
(3):213–224. doi:10.1504/IJRAM.2008.019741.
Dombrowski, U., and S. Weckenborg. 2013. “Determination of the Spare
Parts Demand for Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Service
Providers.” IFIP Advances in Information and Communication
Technology 414:433–440. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41266-0_52.
Erthal, A., and L. Marques. 2018. “National Culture and Organisational
Culture in Lean Organisations: A Systematic Review.” Production
Planning and Control 29 (8):1–20. doi:10.1080/09537287.2018.1455233.
Faccio, M. 2013. “Setup Time Reduction: SMED-Balancing Integrated
Model for Manufacturing Systems with Automated Transfer.”
International Journal of Engineering and Technology 5 (5):4075–4084.
ISSN: 0975-4024.
Ferguson, D. L. 2013. Removing the Barriers to Efficient Manufacturing:
Real-World Applications of Lean Productivity. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Ferrad
as, P. G., and K. Salonitis. 2013. “Improving Changeover Time: A
Tailored SMED Approach for Welding Cells.” Procedia CIRP 7:598–603.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2013.06.039.
Gathen, G. 2004. “What Can SMED Do for You?” Industrial Maintenance
and Plant Operations 65 (7):10–12.
Gu, R., P. Li, W. Zhang, H. Meier, and M. Kroll. 2009. “Supply Chain
Management for the Global Distribution of Machine Life Cycle Based
Service. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2009 6th
International Conference on Service Systems and Service
Management, ICSSSM ’09.
Gungor, Z. E., and S. Evans. 2018. “Understanding the Hidden Cost and
Identifying the Root Causes of Changeover Impacts.” Journal of
Cleaner Production 167:1138–1147. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.055.
Huang, Q., and B. Hu. 2011. “Simulation Model of Multi-echelon Closed
Supply Chain for Spare Parts.” Paper Presented at the 2011 3rd
International Workshop on Intelligent Systems and Applications, ISA
2011 – Proceedings.
Indrawati, S., and M. E. Pratiwi. 2018. “The Effectiveness of Single Minute
Exchange of Dies for Lean Changeover Process in Printing Industry.”
MATEC Web of Conferences 154 (2):01064. doi:10.1051/matecconf/
201815401064.
Karasu, M. K., and L. Salum. 2018. “FIS-SMED: A Fuzzy Inference System
Application for Plastic Injection Mold Changeover.” The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 94 (1–4):545–559.
doi:10.1007/s00170-017-0799-7.
Kemal Karasu, M., M. Cakmakci, M. B. Cakiroglu, E. Ayva, and N. Demirel-
Ortabas. 2014. “Improvement of Changeover Times via Taguchi
Empowered SMED/Case Study on Injection Molding Production.”
Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confederation
47 (1):741–748. doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2013.09.035.
Kordoghli, B., and A. Moussa. 2013. “Effect of Wastes on Changeover
Time in Garment Industry.” Paper presented at the 2013 5th
International Conference on Modeling, Simulation and Applied
Optimization, ICMSAO 2013.
Li, Z. L., F. Liu, and K. Qiao. 2012. “An Effective Inventory Management
Control Strategy.” Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing 139:
99–105. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27951-5_15.
Lozano, J., J. C. Saenz-D
ıez, E. Mart
ınez, E. Jim

enez, and J. Blanco. 2017a.
“Integration of the SMED for the Improvement of the Supply Chain
Management of Spare Parts in the Food Sector.” Agricultural

Economics (Czech Republic) 63 (8):370–379. doi:10.17221/69/2016-
AGRICECON.
Lozano, J., J. C. Saenz-D
ıez, E. Mart
ınez, E. Jim

enez, and J. Blanco. 2017b.
“Methodology to Improve Machine Changeover Performance on Food
Industry Based on SMED.” The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 90 (9–12):3607–3618. doi:10.1007/s00170-
016-9686-x.
Michlowicz, E. 2018. “Kanban System in the Flow Control Subassemblies
as a Component of Lean Manufacturing.” In Intelligent Systems in
Production Engineering and Maintenance – ISPEM 2017, edited by A.
Burduk and D. Mazurkiewicz, 271–283. Cham: Springer Verlag.
Mohammad, A. F., and D. E. R. Freeman. 2010. “Supply Chain
Requirements Engineering: A Simulated Reality Check.” Paper pre-
sented at the Innovations and Advances in Computer Sciences and
Engineering.
Peter, O. 2010. “Extending the Technology Envelope of Equipment
Fungibility with Single Minute Exchange Die (SMED) Novel Solution.”
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the IEEE/CPMT International
Electronics Manufacturing Technology (IEMT) Symposium.
Puvanasvaran, A. P., M. N. H. Ab. Hamid, and S. S. Yoong. 2018. “Cycle
Time Reduction for Coil Setup Process through Standard Work: Case
Study in Ceramic Industry.” ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences 13 (1):210–220. ISSN 1819-6608.
Ribeiro, D., F. Braga, R. Sousa, and S. Carmo-Silva. 2011. “An Application
of the SMED Methodology in an Electric Power Controls Company.”
Romanian Review Precision Mechanics, Optics and Mechatronics 40:
115–122. http://hdl.handle.net/1822/15892
Sayem, A., M. A. Islam, and M. M. A. Khan. 2014. “Productivity
Enhancement through Reduction of Changeover Time by
Implementing SMED technique – In Furniture Industry.” International
Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering 17 (1):15–33. doi:
10.1504/IJISE.2014.060820.
Seleem, S. N., E. A. Attia, and A. El-Assal. 2016. “Managing Performance
Improvement Initiatives Using DEMATEL Method with Application
Case Study.” Production Planning and Control 27 (7–8):637–649. doi:
10.1080/09537287.2016.1165301.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 15
Shingo, S. 1985. A Revolution in Manufacturing: The SMED System. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Singh, B. J., and D. Khanduja. 2010. “SMED: For Quick Changeovers in
Foundry SMEs.” International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 59 (1):98–116. doi:10.1108/17410401011006130.
Singh, J., H. Singh, and I. Singh. 2018. “SMED for Quick Changeover in
Manufacturing Industry – a Case Study.” Benchmarking: An
International Journal 25 (7):2065–2088. doi:10.1108/BIJ-05-2017-0122.

, B., R. Wolniak, and A. Ge
. 2018.
Skotnicka-Zasadzien R balska-Kwiecien
“Improving the Efficiency of the Production Process using SMED.”
MATEC Web of Conferences 183:01002. https://doi.org/10.1051/matec-
conf/201818301002
Suresh Kumar, B., and S. Syath Abuthakeer. 2012. “Implementation of
Lean Tools and Techniques in an Automotive Industry.” Journal of
Applied Sciences 12 (10):1032–1037. doi:10.3923/jas.2012.1032.1037.
Tharisheneprem, S. 2008. “Achieving Full Fungibility and Quick
Changeover by Turning Knobs in Tape and Reel Machine by Applying
SMED Theory.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of the IEEE/CPMT
International Electronics Manufacturing Technology (IEMT)
Symposium.
Triki, C., A. Alalawin, and G. Ghiani. 2013. “Optimizing the Performance
of Complex Maintenance Systems.” Paper presented at the 2013 5th
International Conference on Modeling, Simulation and Applied
Optimization, ICMSAO 2013.
Van Kampen, T. J., and D. P. Van Donk. 2014. “When Is It Time to Revise
Your SKU Classification: Setting and Resetting the Decoupling Point in
a Dairy Company.” Production Planning and Control 25 (16):
1338–1350. doi:10.1080/09537287.2013.839063.
Wise, T. P., and R. Daniel. 2015. Agile Readiness: Four Spheres of Lean and
Agile Transformation. Aldershot: Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Zuccolotto, M., C. E. Pereira, B. Hellingrath, E. M. Frazzon, D. Esp
ındola,
and R. V. B. Henriques. 2013. “I2MS2C -intelligent Maintenance
System Architecture Proposal.” Chemical Engineering Transactions 33:
241–246. doi:10.3303/CET1333041.