Original Research Article

Concurrent Engineering: Research

and Applications
Development of IoT—enabled data 1–13
Ó The Author(s) 2021
analytics enhance decision support Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

system for lean manufacturing process DOI: 10.1177/1063293X20987911

journals.sagepub.com/home/cer

improvement

Mohd Soufhwee Bin Abd Rahman, Effendi Mohamad and Azrul Azwan
Bin Abdul Rahman

Abstract
For over three decades, production firms have extensively espoused lean manufacturing (LM) approach for constantly
enhancing their operations. Of late, due to the fusion of physical and digital systems within the Industry 4.0 evolution,
production systems can upgrade by applying both notions and lift operational excellence to a new high. This is primarily
the reason why digital business transformation has gained significance. Moreover, Industry 4.0 that is led by data assures
huge strides in output. The sheer volume of pertinent data from the production systems employing servers, sensors,
and cloud computing have made the data exchange procedure more gigantic and intricate. However, conventional sys-
tems do not extensively support LM in the context of Industry 4.0. Moreover, the previous studies by researchers in the
same field, shown that there was no standard platform to manage the new technologies in LM. This study presents a dis-
cussion on the interrelated framework about the way Industry 4.0 has transformed production into an industry focusing
on connective mechanisms and platforms which utilize data analytics from the real world. The theoretical framework
proposed in this paper integrates LM, data analytics, and Internet of Things (IoT) to enhance decision support systems in
process improvement. Data analytics in simulation is employed through Internet of Things to improve bottleneck prob-
lems by maintaining the principle of LM. The main information flow route within LM decision support system is demon-
strated in detail to show how the decision-making process is done. The decision support mechanism has undergone up-
gradation and the suggested framework has shown that the assimilated components could function together to augment
the output.

Keywords
lean manufacturing, Industry 4.0, decision support system, data analytics, simulation

Introduction as well as Lean Manufacturing (LM). However, LM

Lean manufacturing and Industry 4.0.
The world is globally accepted a technological and
business transformation toward Industry 4.0 where the
changes will impact the fundamental of the global man-
ufacturing landscape. The new paradigm urges compa-
nies over the world to determine and adopt the
most suitable manufacturing strategies for their
business. Therefore, manufacturing firms are needed to
re-evaluate their current manufacturing method such as
Concurrent Engineering (CE), Agile Manufacturing
(AM), Customization (MC), Quick Response
Manufacturing (QRM), Flexible Manufacturing (FM)
has been chosen to conduct the research in this paper
for being one of the most popular and extended man-
agement philosophies in different application domains
among others (Holweg, 2007).
In the manufacturing field, LM has proved that the
tools and techniques used were become a success factor
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Melaka, Malaysia
Corresponding author:
Effendi Mohamad, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Hang Tuah Jaya,
Melaka 76100, Malaysia.
Email: effendi@utem.edu.my
2 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)
Figure 1. Rising complexity against industrial revolution timeline.
and adopted by various industries in the world until
now (Holweg, 2007; Mostafa et al, 2013; Pearce et al.,
2018; Schuh et al., 2011; Shah et al., 2003). There were
supported by successful cases recorded during the
implementation period of LM. Founded in 1950 by
Ohno at Toyota until 2010, LM is one of the best
methods used by manufacturers around the world to
enhance their competitiveness (Kumar and Vaishya,
2018). LM has been described as a novel manufactur-
ing philosophy that aims to improve the production
flow by decreasing waste and improving the activities
(Shah et al., 2003). Elimination of the waste improved
quality while decreasing the costs and the time needed
for production (Sundar et al., 2014).
However, started the year 2011, when Industry 4.0
was officially introduced in parallel with global market
competition, it gave a challenge to LM for analysing
the complexities issue in the current manufacturing sys-
tem. Researchers reported that the degree of complexity
is increasing in parallel with the growth of Industry 4.0
(Mayr et al., 2018; Zhou et al. 2015). Figure 1 depicts
that the intricacy rises toward the four phases of the
timeline of the industrial revolution.
Industry 4.0 is driven by data. The rapid develop-
ment of Industry 4.0 technologies has led to the explo-
sive growth of data in almost every industry and
business area. Taking account of the manufacturing
area, the abundance of related data from data
resources such as sensors, Cloud Computing, IoT,
Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), etc. drives the growth
of the manufacturing system, thus making the data
exchange process becomes faster and more complex
(Roblek et al., 2016). Of late, the data volume has gone
over 1000 exabytes annually and is projected to rise 20
times in the next 10 years (Tao et al., 2018).
Furthermore, as per the World Economic Forum, 463
exabytes of data would be produced daily by 2025; this
is equal to 463 million terabytes. The overall digital
universe is likely to touch 44 zettabytes by 2020
(Ertemel, 2015). Meanwhile, Lee et al. (2014) express
that a large amount of data must be analyzed through
data analytics before an organization fulfills customer
needs. The complexity has been found to impact perfor-
mance and behaviour (Hu et al., 2008; Liu and Li
2012). Subsequently, the scenario is one of the reasons
why decision making in LM is quite intricate.
Combination of LM and Industry 4.0 enhance DSS
The development of Industry 4.0 is deliberately and
efficiently contributing toward greater productivity
through resources. Therefore, with the same aim to
increase productivity, a close correlation exists between
LM and Industry 4.0 to enhance the current manufac-
turing system. This has led the researcher to investigate
more inclusive DSS related techniques, which are
decision-making for operations, financial management,
and strategy, which are too complex (Moro et al.,
Abd Rahman et al.
2014). Intensive simulations were applied in most man-
ufacturing companies to create stable and flexible pro-
cesses. Discrete-Event Simulation (DES) is the most
popular DSS method to enhance manufacturing
improvement activities (Jahangirian et al., 2010;
Negahban et al., 2014). Any innovative process, evalu-
ated through simulation, could help manufacturers pre-
dict the output of their improvement plans. Network
interconnection systems, such as IoT could be used to
support organization through e-manufacturing concept
(Prasad, 2016a). It could address each phase of the pro-
duction process chain, such as material design (e.g.
metallurgy simulations), manufacture (e.g. laser cut-
ting, press brake), assembly (e.g. robot-based part han-
dling, robot spraying), or logistic management (e.g.
shop-floor logistics, supply chain management). Most
processes require human interaction with the system
(Valdeza et al., 2015). The journey toward technologi-
cal change is never easy; therefore, in this research, a
new approach incorporating networking and the use of
data, has a far greater impact on LM than the present
conventional method. Both LM and Industry 4.0 prin-
ciples were considered in designing the framework, to
overcome the drawbacks of their combination, raised
by most researchers from the same field.
Problem statements
Nowadays, in the transaction period to the new era,
shown that LM faces many problems during the imple-
mentation has some drawbacks when it comes to analys-
ing complex systems with the variation of the behaviour
of the manufacturing processes. Manufacturers have
realized that the data they possess is not completely used
for improving their existing processes. Hence, they have
used a computer-based information process, called the
Decision Support System (DSS), for making effective
decisions (Shim et al., 2002). DSS applies simulation as
a feed of knowledge to analyse the data for users. In the
past, owing to the massive technological innovations,
the functionality of the DSS has been improved so that
it can manage data by facilitating many databases, mod-
eling processes, and user interfaces involved in the pro-
cess. The data that is transmitted to the DSS is named
Data Analytics. The traditional approach is unable to
manage the complexity of the data analytics in the DSS
process, with regards to tasks like storage, completing
capture, managing, and analysing the mass data pool.
Some researchers used data analytics for tracking pur-
poses only and not for improving the processes (LaValle
et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2016). Data analytics were not
used as an alternative technique for solving problems. It
makes pressure increased on production and some scien-
tists call it the ‘‘productivity paradox’’ (Uriarte et al.,
2018). This phenomenon forced manufacturers to study
3
how Industry 4.0 technology can be applied to restruc-
ture their existing system (Sundar et al., 2014).
Considering the DSS in LM, one more concern cited
by researchers is that decision-makers are not
acquainted with the LM principles in the course of the
execution. LM tools and principles are not offered
much focus while executing LM in the process industry,
leading to incorrect allotment of decision variables
within the simulation model (Gobinath et al., 2015;
Panwar et al., 2015). It may lead to obtaining incorrect
industrial methods in management decisions (Almeida
and Cunha, 2017). This was agreed by Bhamu and
Sangwan (2014), recently the implementation of LM
none of the available framework/model on LM pro-
vides of the LM concept. Furthermore, to warrant the
organizational transformation entailed for collabora-
tion with LM philosophies, the manufacturer should
make sure, at least within the LM venture, long-term
positioning, and availability of proficiency needed to
establish and sustain philosophies, procedures, and
tools during the deployment (Moeuf et al., 2016).
Subsequently, to study the effective collaboration
between LM and Industry 4.0 is still the main topic of
research. Therefore, research work has been carried out
by several authors to identify how simulation having
the same objectives should be combined with LM in the
context of Industry 4.0 (Goienetxea Uriarte et al., 2020:
Pinho and Mendes, 2017). Hence, this research aims to
develop a framework to integrate LM, data analytics of
simulation modeling (SM), and IoT to support LM
decision support system for process improvement. All
of them will be interconnected as a platform to enhance
LM decision making for process improvement.
Preliminaries
How LM is associated with productivity
In the recent past, business entities have been dealing
with several concerns pertaining to production perfor-
mance like quality, output, and flexibility. These were
noted to be the vital primary measures for exhaustive
production performance (Son and Park, 1987). Amid
the business transformation to Industry 4.0, the major-
ity of producers are wondering whether LM could be
separate or they need to re-mold their business scenario
for competing at the global level. Novel technologies
are considered a solution for accelerating consumer
deliveries and enhancing production processes, compe-
tence, management decision making, and consumer
satisfaction (McLeod and Schell, 2007). Thus, Industry
4.0 as well as LM employ decentralized control and
intend to raise output (Buer et al., 2018). The produc-
tivity, high consumer requirements, and the eruption of
data improvement have caused diversification and a lot
4 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

of intricacy in the manufacturing environment.

Consequently, the concern of complexity has triggered
a more intricate scenario, particularly in making a pre-
cise decision about output. However, in 1988, Toyota
managers frequently discussed the need to reduce the
waste coming from the so-called three Mu (3Mu),
which are Muda, Muri, and Mura. Muda, refers to the
wastes defined above, while Muri is overburdening peo-
ple and machines beyond their limits, and Mura is to
have unevenness or a lack of consistency in the system
due to variation. Based on the concept of root cause
elements, man, machine, and material, Mura and Muri
have contributed to Muda. Therefore, focusing on Figure 2. The eight types of wastes (Oehmen and Rebentisch
eliminating Muda alone is not sufficient (Liker, 2004). 2010).
This is in line with the definition of Knowledge-Based
Engineering (KBE), which proposes a process manage-
ment cycle, in which knowledge and tool are applied to Lean manufacturing philosophy, principles, and tools
a continuously improving in-process plan, master pro-
duction schedule, manufacturing execution plan, and Nowadays, LM was widely used in several industrial
manufacturing cost estimates (Prasad, 2016b). Based applications in the world (Schuh et al., 2011). LM is
on that, the three of them are related to each other, based on the philosophy which increased productivity
being the root cause of waste is shown in Figure 2. The and eliminated waste. LM includes five steps as a guide-
depiction of the eight kinds of wastes has been deliber- line, called the LM Principles. There are Specify a
ated and approved by several researchers. These are value; Identify the value stream; Establish the flow, pull
over-manufacturing, defects, transportation, waiting, value, and Strive for perfection (Womack and Jones,
needless motion, inventory, underutilized staff, and 2003). LM is having both philosophical and practical
over-processing (Oehmen and Rebentisch, 2010). orientations, which are embedded in three levels of LM
Hence, the impact of LM output is the basis that has to thinking: philosophy, principles and, tools, and tech-
be comprehended in this work. niques (Arlbjørn et al., 2013) as present in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Level of LM thinking: Arlbjørn et al. (2013).

Abd Rahman et al. 5

Table 1. LM tools.

Practices LMT Description

Setup time Single-Minute SMED is a technique for dramatically reducing the time it takes to
reduction Exchange complete equipment changeovers. It namely Single-Minute Exchange of
of Dies (SMED) Dies (SMED) because of the goal of reducing changeover times to the
‘‘single’’ digits (i.e. less than 10 minutes) (Rahman et al, 2019).
Visual control ANDON Andon can be defined as a ‘‘sign’’ or ‘‘signal’’ that provides visual
management aid, when highlighting an issue as it occurs, and effectively
improve production efficiency (Shivleel and Anuradha, 2015).
Standardized Line Balancing Line balancing is a technique to minimize imbalance between/among
workflow workers and workloads, where bottleneck always happens, to achieve the
required run rate. Therefore, the line should be analysed in terms of the
assembly process, workstations layout, and workstation cycle time (Lam et
al., 2016).
LM accounting Value Stream Value stream mapping is a widely used and proven method that enables the
practices Mapping (VSM) mapping and analysis of process chains and helps to derive potentials for
improvement (Meudt et al., 2017).
Machine Overall Equipment OEE is one of the approaches in TPM focus on the whole manufacturing
performance Effectiveness (OEE) environment, the equipment availability, as well as, the production
efficiency while the equipment is available to run product, also, the
efficiency loss that results from scrap, rework, and yield losses (Abd
Rahman et al., 2020).
Production layout Cellular Manufacturing Cellular manufacturing is a process of manufacturing which is a subsection
of just-in-time manufacturing group technology. The goal of cellular
manufacturing is to move as quickly as possible, make a wide variety of
similar products while making as little waste as possible (Pattanaik and
Sharma, 2009).
Continuous flow Just in Time The goal of JIT is to produce the necessary items, in the necessary
quantity, at the necessary time, through production and operation’s
management (Monden, 2011).
Continuous flow Bottleneck Analysis The bottleneck process is identified by determining the maximum cycle
time compare to takl time in the production line (Sundar et al., 2014).
Production process flow Spaghetti diagramming A method to view the movement of the object in the system with the help
of a line meir (Senderska et al., 2017).
Production levelling Heijunka Controlling the variability of the job arrival sequence to permit higher
capacity utilization (Hüttmeir et al., 2009).

There are limitations in this research, where not all
LM tools can comply. Only significant LM tools under
the category process and equipment are proposed. The
suggested LM tools are stated in Table 1.
Methodology
Integrated concepts
The DSS framework is designed to support a decision-
making process related to LM process improvement.
Many approaches exist, especially associated with
Industry 4.0 technologies; however, the researcher’s
desire is to design a more robust system to minimize the
possibility of human error; especially during the data
entry phase. However, the main components in DSS
and the technology used, are (1) data management, (2)
communication, (3) user (decision-maker), and (4)
simulation model. Knowledge-Based Engineering
(KBE) strategy, which is convenient for lean products,
was adopted to design the framework. Besides, the
knowledge in DSS and Industry 4.0 states the use of
data management tools through IoT in this concept
where human factors (user/decision-makers) remained
in generating innovation to increase productivity
(Prasad, 2014) as present in Figure 4. LM principles
were served as a bridge in the combination.
LMDSS framework
Smart production is the result of the integration of vir-
tual and physical processes (Godfrey, 2002). IoT is
using internet networking concept to use sensors for
acquiring data. The data are captured through barcode
sensor. Then, they are installed in the database before
it is transmitted to the server via the intranet. The
MySQL command is given for compiling and coding
the data so that it aligns with the simulation require-
ment input. These step procedures are the foundation
of a networking system aligned with Industry 4.0 prin-
ciples. Data from the system were simulated in a few
6 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Lean Manufacturing

Producvity

DSS Industry 4.0

Connuous Innovaon
Improvement (human) Interoperability

Data Management Virtualizaon

Decentralizaon
Communicaon
Real me data
User
Service oriented
simulaon
LM Principles Integrated business
process

Figure 4. DSS design concept based on Knowledge-Based Engineering (KBE) (Prasad, 2014).

scenarios for LM process improvement options.
Knowledge-Based Modeling (KBM) using simulation
enables users to predict and make accurate results
based on simulation output (Prasad and Rogers, 2005).
The system could enhance LMDSS in the context of
Industry 4.0 as illustrated in Figure 5.
Based on the LMDSS proposed framework, a guideline
named IMAGE (Identify, Measure, Analyse, Generate,
and Execute) was established to run the process. The
details of IMAGE were explained in the following topic.
Implementation examples
Phase 1: I-identify (specify value)
This study was carried out at the semi-automated LM
production line, wherein the machines were linked to
the IoT system established by the manufacturers.
Different kinds of data from LM processes are to be
captured in an appropriate way. The knowledge cap-
ture and reuse (KCR) technologies can be used to
gather such information. KCR plays an important role
in improving the efficiency and quality of data collec-
tion process (Prasad, 2016a). In this case, production
line displays an uneven cycle time, different workloads
at the workstations, and varying capabilities of the
operators which can lead to an unbalanced line. Line
balancing is the most significant tool applied to solve
bottleneck problems where it is reflected to total opera-
tion time to the customer. The problem of the study is
related to the customer (specify value). Process
parameters such as cycle times captured digitally from
sensors and directly updated to database nearest to
real-time data. Line balancing technique used to solve
below issues:
(i) balance the operator workload in the workstations.
(ii) to minimize the workload of stations.
(iii) enhance output efficiency
The production Line TX8 manufacture rear wheel-
house comp (left side), rear wheelhouse comp (right
side), and cross member. All the parts will be assembled
in supporting frame of the automotive model. The
automatic spot-welding machine is utilizing in this pro-
duction line to fabricate the wheelhouse comp and
cross member. The child parts of each product are
assembly through three automatic spot weld robots and
undergo an inspection process before disposing to the
customer. There are total of twelve stations and eight
operators in this production line to manufacture three
types of finished products as illustrates in Figure 6.
Abd Rahman et al. 7

Figure 5. LMDSS proposed framework.

Figure 6. Pictorial diagram of manufacturing process.

Phase 2: Measure (identify the value stream) program, which connected the PHP language, web-
In this study, the researchers collected all data and need based database (MySQL), and a web services provider
to identify the process flow of the production line (iden- (i.e. Kepware). The PHP language + MySQL platform
tify the value stream). With the help of a web-based was a popular database-driven web service that assisted
8 Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)

Table 2. Standard time for each workstation.

Process: spot welding Product: right side wheel house comp, left side wheel house comp, cross member
Station Average cycle Range Performance Rating Normal Standard
time (s) rating (%) factor time (s) time (s)

100 RH 280 20 100 1.0 280 322

150 RH 250 19 100 1.0 250 287.5
200 RH 294 11 90 1.1 323.4 371.91
300 RH 271.3 13 110 0.9 244.17 280.8
QG1 273.8 16 110 0.9 246.42 283.4
100 LH 310.6 18 100 1.0 310.6 357.19
200 LH 271.6 25 90 1.1 298.76 243.6
300 LH 31.5 8 110 0.9 28.35 32.6
QG2 67.5 21 100 1.0 67.5 77.6
100 13.6 10 100 1.0 13.6 15.64
Manual welding 90.1 20 90 1.1 99.11 113.9
QG3 93.5 22 100 1.0 93.5 107.5
Total T cycle time = (2247.5s) 2493.64

this framework. All sensors existing in the machines
helped in collecting the data. Data was retrieved by the
sensors before it was transmitted to the MySQL data-
base. By using the SQL command and the intranet ser-
vices, the necessary data which was derived by some
machines was compiled into the MySQL database. The
data that was compiled at the MySQL database were
aligned using the simulation input like the numbers of
operators, quantity, cycle time, etc. Table 2 shows the
standard time for every workstation generated through
the below formula.
Normal timeðNTÞ = Average Time  Rating Factor
ð1Þ
Standard TimeðSTÞ = Normal Time
ð2Þ
 ð1 + Allowance FactorÞ
The allowance factor for all inspection stations is pre-
sumed to be 15%.
Phase 3: A-analyse (establish flow)
In this phase, the innovative KBE was applied where
simulation was used to capture the process improve-
ment output based on ‘‘what if’’ concepts. In the
research, new values (attributes or variables)were set
and several scenarios can be obtained (Prasad, 2010).
The simulation inputs measured the resource require-
ments and performance of every system, before asses-
sing the advantages of using the ‘‘shop-floor’’ principles
related to LM (Mohamad et al., 2017). Thus, research-
ers have applied the LMDSS and used the DES tech-
nique as a tool for supporting the organizations that
aimed to implement the LM principles by determining
the benefit (establish flow) based on a particular sce-
nario (Mohamad et al., 2016). Before making any deci-
sions, the DES model estimates the system’s ability to
optimize the values of the decision variables. However,
the decision-makers also define the different definition
scenarios and variables that can be altered based on
their acceptable range.
Model translation and verification. The flowchart modeling
of the production process can be done easily in Arena
simulation software by drag the model block icon from
the template then drop into the graphical model can-
vas. All the relevant data is set accordingly into the sys-
tem as input. A comparison between the simulation
model and the current system is implemented after
modeling to make sure the behaviour of the simulation
model builds correctly. The simulation process was
used for simulating the production system so that it
determined the actual operational process used in the
production line of a manufacturing system. The
research data was used for creating a simulation model.
This model was compared and verified using an actual
production line. Figure 7 presents this simulation logic
model which could be used for verification. A verifica-
tion process was carried out for ensuring that the enti-
ties entered the system as directed. The process is
initiated by identifying the numbers of workstations,
cycle time, numbers of operators, etc. The simulation
results showed that this production line produced
121 units within 3 h, whereas, the actual production
was seen to be 120 units within 3 h. Thus, the results
show that this verification process was . 90% accu-
rate; which is higher than the acceptable level (95%
confidence interval) (Kasemset et al., 2014).
Abd Rahman et al. 9

Figure 7. Simulation logic model.

Phase 4: G-generate (pull value)

After the simulation model was created, the cycle-time
required by each workstation must be determined.
Based on that, the line efficiency (%) was calculated
using the following formula:

Line Efficiencyð%Þ = ðTotal Std TimeÞ=

ðNumber of workstation x takt timeÞ x 100
ð3Þ
= 2493:64=ð12 x 336sÞ x 100
Line Efficiencyð%Þ = 61:8%:

Base on the theory, the cycle time required for every

workstation mostly were lower than the takt time,
which was regarded as the baseline. Only workstations
200 RH and 100 LH are above than talk time.
As a solution, with the aid of the precedence diagram
technique, the relationship between each process is illu-
strated. Consequently, a new workstation arrangement
will be suggested to solve the bottleneck shown in the
precedence diagram as well as improve workstation
smoothing. The simulation run to test for a new pro-
duction line design without disturbing the complicated
real-world system. The variables in the simulation
model can keep changing to obtain the desired result.
After finish the simulation run, the simulation software
provided the report automatically where allow the
examination of the performance of the new production
line design.
Phase 5: E-execute (strive the perfection)
Improvement plan. The researchers proposed some coun-
termeasures for improving the line balancing, based on
the 4Ms and 1E. They applied the fishbone diagram
methodology. This process uses many factors like
Man, Machine, Materials, and Method (i.e. 4M) along
Figure 8. Graph of new line balancing.
with the Environment (E). A summary of all counter-
actions, which were simulated again using the simula-
tion model, has been presented in the study. The
researchers noted that two factors, that is, machine and
layout, played a vital role in this study. The action was
taken as described below:
(a) Machine: The researchers established a novel
parameter setting for all related machines for
ensuring that the cycle time for the machines was
decreased.
(b) Layout: The researchers proposed a novel prece-
dence diagram by combined a few processes so
that the numbers of workstations could be
decreased to eight.
The line efficiency was calculated for the updated
simulation model based on cycle time, takt time, and
numbers of workstations. This value significantly
increased from 61.8% to 80.25%. The new line balan-
cing as presents in Figure 8.
10
Table 3. The results of the two simulation models.
ARENA simulation
Total operators
Output (units)
Line efficiency (%)
Productivity growth (%)
Table 4. Interconnection between DSS and Industry 4.0 principles in LMDSS framework.
Technologies Industry 4.0 design principles
Interoperability Virtualization
Sensor, barcode, RFID
Data analytics d d
Simulation d
Communication d d
and networking (IoT)
Line Efficiencyð%Þ = ðTotal Std:TimeÞ=
ðNumber of workstation x takt timeÞx100
= 2696:6=ð10 x 336Þ x 100 = 80:25%
From the research, the simulation of the initial
model included 17 operators, while it produced
121 units in 3 h, with a production line efficiency value
of 61.6%. Thereafter, the line balancing succeeds in
decreasing the number of workstations from 14 to 10
workstations. They used a precedence diagram for
combining the assembly items. The new model, con-
taining 10 workstations, was simulated using the soft-
ware simulation and it required 16 operators, that is, 1
less the number of the operator than the initial simula-
tion model. The output of this model was also higher,
that is, 149 units within 3 h. It showed significantly
higher line efficiency, that is, 80.25%. Hence, the new
model showed a productivity growth of 23.14%, when
it reduced the number of operators and decreased the
number of workstations in the production line. The
comparison data is shown in Table 3.
Conclusion and future work
In this research, a digital platform was created which
the combination of LM principles, data analytics, simu-
lation, and IoT were upgraded DSS for process
improvement. The LMDSS framework has highlighted
significant technologies involved in the system for pro-
cess improvement. However, it is quite crucial to take
into account the LM philosophy, principles, and tools
at all stages of IMAGE procedures. LM tools under
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)
Initial simulation Final simulation
(14 workstations) (8 workstations)
17 16
121 149
61.60% 80.25%
(149–121/121) 3 100% = 23.14%
Decentralization Real time data Service Integrated business
management oriented process (Modularity)
d d
d
d
the category process and equipment are proposed to be
used in the framework. However, through the KBE
concepts, LM principles have been adopted to combine
them (DSS and Industry 4.0 technologies). Since this
research involves IoT and is related to IoTs environ-
mental, seven influencing agents need to be considered
(Prasad, 2016b). There are talents, tools, time, technol-
ogy, techniques domain of influence, teamwork, and
task which the application aligns with Muda, Muri,
and Mura. The combination of knowldege between
LM, DSS, Industry 4.0 technologies creating a signifi-
cant relationship between them though LMDSS frame-
work. Interconnection each element in DSS and
Industry 4.0 principles can be translated in Table 4
thorugh the symbols (d).
All the principles from both sides are integrated into
the LMDSS framework. LMDSS framework revealed
that LM thinking can be adopted without changing the
basic concepts of LM. In LMDSS, humans are still the
bearers of this new technology and drivers of innova-
tion. The role of human beings in technological devel-
opment is indeed inseparable. Aligned with the KBE
approach, where humans play a role innovatively in
decision making, it continues deployed in the LMDSS
framework. Based on the vision and mission of the
organization, decision-makers are responsible to aug-
ment their company’s performance.
For future work, Industry 4.0 principles related to
the service-oriented and integrated business process,
can be expanded; since IoT and IoS were defined as
parts of the manufacturing process that have ignited
the fourth industrial revolution. However, technologi-
cal needs related to IoS are a window of opportunity to
Abd Rahman et al.
enhance the business strategy. It was agreed by Prasad
(2020) through the concept of ‘‘IoT-ready’’: the system
should be Leaner, Integrated, Fully-connected, and
Efficient. Although this study focuses on LM, other
approaches within operation management (OM) can be
combined to enhance the current manufacturing system.
Acknowledgement
The authors are grateful to the Malaysian Government and
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) for funding
this research via Grant (FRGS/1/2020/TK0/UTEM/02/42).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This project is funded by Malaysian Government and
Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) via Grant
(FRGS/1/2020/TK0/UTEM/02/42).
ORCID iD
Effendi Mohamad https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3565-0575
References
Abd Rahman MS, Mohamad E and Rahman AA (2020)
Enhancement of overall equipment effectiveness (OEE)
data by using simulation as decision making tools for line
balancing. Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science 18(2): 1040–1047.
Almeida A and Cunha J (2017) The implementation of an
activity-based costing (ABC) system in a manufacturing
company. Procedia Manufacturing 13: 932–939.
Arlbjørn JS and Freytag PV (2013) Evidence of lean: A review
of international peer-reviewed journal articles. European
Business 25(2): 174–205.
Bhamu J and Sangwan KS (2014) Lean manufacturing: Liter-
ature review and research issues. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 34(7): 876–940.
Buer SV, Strandhagen JO and Chan FT (2018) The link
between Industry 4.0 and lean manufacturing: Mapping
current research and establishing a research agenda.
International Journal of Production Research 56(8):
2924–2940.
Ertemel AV (2015) Consumer insight as competitive advan-
tage using big data and analytics. International Journal of
Commerce and Finance 1(1): 45–51.
Gobinath S, Elangovan D and Dharmalingam S (2015) Lean
manufacturing issues and challenges in manufacturing
process–a review. International Journal of ChemTech
Research 8(1): 44–51.
11
Godfrey P (2002) Overall equipment effectiveness. Manufac-
turing Engineer 81(3): 109–112.
Goienetxea Uriarte A, Ng AH and Urenda Moris M (2020).
Bringing together Lean and simulation: A comprehensive
review. International Journal of Production Research 58(1):
87–117.
Holweg M (2007) The genealogy of lean production. Journal
of Operations Management 25(2): 420–437.
Hu SJ, Zhu X, Wang H, et al. (2008) Product variety and
manufacturing complexity in assembly systems and supply
chains. CIRP Annals 57(1): 45–48.
Hüttmeir A, De Treville S, Van Ackere A, et al. (2009) Trad-
ing off between heijunka and just-in-sequence. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics 118(2): 501–507.
Jahangirian M, Eldabi T, Naseer A, Stergioulas LK and
Young T (2010) Simulation in manufacturing and busi-
ness: a review. European Journal of Operational Research
203(1): 1–13.
Kasemset C, Pinmanee P and Umarin P (2014) Application
of ECRS and simulation techniques in bottleneck identifi-
cation and improvement: A paper package factory. In:
Proceedings of the Asia Pacific industrial engineering &
management systems conference (APIEMS), Ramada Plaza
Jeju Ocean Front, Jeju-Si, South Korea, 12–15 October
2014, pp. 1477–1484. Korea: Asia Pacific Industrial Engi-
neering and Management Society.
Kumar M and Vaishya R (2018) Real-time monitoring sys-
tem to lean manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing 20:
135–140.
Lam NT, Toi LM and Tuyen VTT (2016) Lean manufactur-
ing line balancing for an electronics assembly line. Proce-
dia CIRP 40: 437–442.
LaValle S, Lesser E and Shockley R (2011) Big data, analytics
and the path from insights to value. MIT Loan Manage-
ment Review 52(2): 21–32.
Lee J, Kao HA and Yang S (2014) Service innovation and
smart analytics for industry 4.0 and big data environment.
Procedia Cirp 16(1): 3–8.
Liker JK (2004) The Toyota Way: 14 Management principles
form the World’s Greatest Manufacturer. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Liu P and Li Z (2012) Task complexity: A review and concep-
tualization framework. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 42(6): 553–568.
Negahban A and Smith JS (2014) Simulation for manufactur-
ing system design and operation: Literature review and
analysis. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 33(2): 241–261.
Mayr A, Weigelt M, Kühl A, et al. (2018) Lean 4.0-A concep-
tual conjunction of lean management and Industry 4.0.
Procedia Cirp 72: 622–628.
McLeod R and Schell GP (2007) Management Information
System, 10th edn. Upper Saddle River New Jersey 07458:
Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Meudt T, Metternich J and Abele E (2017) Value stream
mapping 4.0: Holistic examination of value stream and
information logistics in production. CIRP Annals 66(1):
413–416.
Moeuf A, Tamayo S, Lamouri S, et al. (2016) Strengths and
weaknesses of small and medium sized enterprises
12
regarding the implementation of lean manufacturing.
IFAC-Papers On Line 49(12): 71–76.
Mohamad E, Ibrahim MA and Shibghatullah AS (2016) A
simulation-based approach for lean manufacturing tools
implementation: A review. ARPN Journal of Engineering
and Applied Sciences 11(5): 3400–3406.
Mohamad EB, Ibrahim MAB and Sukarma L (2017)
Improved decision making in lean manufacturing using
simulation-based approach. International Journal of Agile
Systems and Management 10(1): 34–48.
Monden Y (2011) Toyota Production System: An Integrated
Approach to Just-In-Time. New York: CRC Press.
Moro S, Cortez P and Rita P (2014) A data-driven approach
to predict the success of bank telemarketing. Decision Sup-
port Systems 62: 22–31.
Mostafa S, Dumrak J and Soltan H (2013) A framework for
lean manufacturing implementation. Production & Manu-
facturing Research 1(1): 44–64.
Oehmen J and Rebentisch E (2010) Waste in lean product
development. Lean Advancement Initiative.
Panwar A, Nepal BP, Jain R, et al. (2015) On the adoption of
lean manufacturing principles in process industries. Pro-
duction Planning & Control 26(7): 564–587.
Pattanaik LN and Sharma BP (2009) Implementing lean
manufacturing with cellular layout: A case study. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technol-
ogy 42(7–8): 772–779.
Pearce A, Pons D and Neitzert T (2018) Implementing lean—
Outcomes from SME case studies. Operations Research
Perspectives 5: 94–104.
Pinho C and Mendes L (2017) IT in lean-based manufactur-
ing industries: Systematic literature review and research
issues. International Journal of Production Research 55(24):
7524–7540.
Prasad B and Rogers J (2005) A knowledge-based system
engineering process for obtaining engineering design solu-
tions. In: ASME International Design Engineering Techni-
cal Conferences and Computers and Information in
Engineering Conference, IDETC 2005. January 2005,
pp.477–488. Long Beach, California, USA: The American
Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Prasad B (2014) Knowledge-based enterprising (KBE) strat-
egy for lean product development (LPD). In: 27th interna-
tional conference on CAD/CAM, robotics and factories of
the future conference, London, 22–24 July 2014, pp.22–24.
London: Middlesex University.
Prasad B (2016a) Why companies embracing online web-
enabled product development strategies for manufactur-
ing. In: Proceedings of 28th international conference on
CAD/CAM, robotics and factories of the future, Kolaghat,
West Bengal, India, 6–8 January 2016, pp.6–8. India:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engi-
neering and Management
Prasad B (2016b) Lean, integrated & connected framework for
developing smart products. In: Batalla JM, Mastorakis G,
Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 00(0)
Mavromoustakis CX, et al. (eds) Beyond the Internet of Things:
Everything Interconnected. Berlin: Heidelberg, pp.1–25.
Prasad B (2020) Product Development Process for IoT-Ready
Products, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applica-
tions 28(2): 87–88.
Rahman MSA, Mohamad E and Rahman AAA (2019). Deci-
sion making of single-minute exchange of die (SMED) in
setup improvement through a simulation approach. In:
International conference on design and concurrent engineer-
ing 2019 & manufacturing systems conference 2019, Kata-
hira Campus, September 2019, Sendai, Japan: Tohoku
University.
Roblek V, Meško M and Krapež A (2016) A complex view of
industry 4.0. Sage Open 6(2): 2158244016653987.
Schuh G, Lenders M and Hieber S (2011) LM Innovation–
introducing value systems to product development. Inter-
national Journal of Innovation and Technology Management
8(1): 41–54.
Senderska K, Mareš A and Václav Š (2017) Spaghetti dia-
gram application for workers’ movement analysis. UPB
Scientific Bulletin, Series D: Mechanical Engineering 79(1):
139–150.
Shah Rachna and Peter TW (2003) LM manufacturing: Con-
text, practice bundles, and performance. Journal of Opera-
tions Management 21(2): 129–149.
Shim JP, Warkentin M and Courtney JF (2002) Past, present,
and future of decision support technology. Decision Sup-
port Systems 33(2):111–126.
Shivleel AT and Anuradha S (2015) Performance analysis of
ANDON system using wireless communication. Indian
Journal of Scientific Research (1): 360–364
Son YK and Park CS (1987) Economic measure of productiv-
ity, quality and flexibility in advanced manufacturing sys-
tems. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 6(3): 193–207.
Sundar R, Balaji A and Kumar RS (2014) A review on lean
manufacturing implementation techniques. Procedia Engi-
neering 97: 1875–1885.
Tao F, Qi Q and Liu A (2018) Data-driven smart manufactur-
ing. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 48: 157–169.
Uriarte AG, Ng AH and Moris MU (2018) Supporting the
lean journey with simulation and optimization in the con-
text of Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing 25: 586–593.
Valdeza AC, Braunera P, Schaara AK, et al. (2015) Reducing
complexity with simplicity-usability methods for industry
4.0. In: 19th triennial congress of the IEA, Melbourne, Aus-
tralia, Vol. 9, p.14.
Wang L and Wang G (2016) Big data in cyber-physical systems,
digital manufacturing and industry 4.0. International Journal
of Engineering and Manufacturing (IJEM) 6(4): 1–8.
Womack J and Jones D (2003) Lean Thinking: Banish Waste
and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. London: Free Press.
Zhou K, Liu T and Zhou L (2015) Industry 4.0: Towards
future industrial opportunities and challenges. In: 12th
international conference on fuzzy systems and knowledge
discovery (FSKD), Zhangjiajie, China, 15–17 August
2015, pp.2147–2152. IEEE.
Abd Rahman et al. 13

Author biographies
Ts. Mohd Soufhwee Abd Rahman received his Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering
(Industrial) in 1999 and has 10 years’ experiences in manufacturing industries before joined the
university as academia in 2009. His research interest is in lean manufacturing, quality engineering
and management systems related to Industry 4.0.

Associate Professor Ts. Dr. Effendi Mohamad received Bachelor of Engineering in

Manufacturing from University of Malaya Kuala Lumpur in 2001, Master of Science in
Engineering Business Management from Coventry University United Kingdom in 2007 and
Doctor of Engineering in Intelligent Structures and Mechanics Systems Engineering from
University of Tokushima, Japan in 2013. He has been serving as academician at Universiti
Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) since 2005 and is currently the Director of Centre For
Community Development and I-COE, Office of Assistant Vice Chancellor (Industry and
Community Network). He is active in consultation and research works particularly in Lean
Manufacturing, Industrial Engineering, technology management and simulation of manufactur-
ing system.

Ir.Dr.-Ing. Azrul Azwan Rahman received his Bachelor of Engineering (with honours) in
Mechanical Engineering from the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, in 2002, Master of Science in
Global Production Engineering from the Technische Universität Berlin, Germany, in 2005, and
Doctor of Engineering in Assembly Technology and Factory Management from the Technische
Universität Berlin, Germany in 2013. Since 2003, he has been with the Faculty of Manufacturing
Engineering at the Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM), where he is currently the
operational manager at the UTeM Teaching Factory. His research interests lie in the area of inte-
grated manufacturing systems, ranging from the theory of design to implementation, cyber physi-
cal system, manufacturing automation and simulation of manufacturing system.