Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 658–663
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

53rd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems

Manufacturing System Optimization with Lean Methods, Manufacturing

Process Objectives and Fuzzy Logic Controller Design
Tom Drewsa,∗, Paul Molendab,c , Oliver Oechslec , Jan Kollerc
a Freelance Researcher, Am Höllenberg 14, 07589 Bocka, Germany
b Universityof Bayreuth, Chair Manufacturing and Remanufacturing Technology, Universitätsstrasse 30, 95447 Bayreuth, Germany
c Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Universitätsstrasse 9, 95447 Bayreuth, Germany

Abstract
This paper presents an approach for the integration of lean methods and manufacturing process objectives through the usage of a fuzzy logic
controller. The fuzzy logic controller comprises twelve common lean methods, three manipulated variables (setup time, error rate and technical
availability) and five manufacturing process objectives, which are operationalized through the target variables Every Part Every Interval (EPEI),
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), Lead Time (LT), Quality Grade (QG) and Delivery Service (DS). The basic structure of the fuzzy logic
controller design and the modeling of the optimization effect on the manufacturing process level is shown.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 53rd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
Keywords: Manufacturing System; Lean Methods; Fuzzy; Process; Optimization

nowadays, the optimization potential for an objective-driven

1. Introduction
The globally increasing competition among manufacturing
companies mainly arises from major changes in the market and
customer perspective. These changes include e. g. increasing
product variants, shorter product lifecycles, new technologies
and digitalization. These external drivers of transformability are
significantly influencing today’s manufacturing companies and
the production perspective (see Fig. 1). [1, 2, 3]
According to Westkämper, manufacturing companies have
two possibilities to cope with the external drivers of transforma-
bility, namely, product and process innovations [4]. For process
innovation, the design and redesign (optimization) of manufac-
turing processes and systems is the most essential element to
cope with the external drivers of transformability [5, 6].
implementation of lean methods is estimated to be very high
[1]. Studies show that 50% of the productivity difference to
the best competitor is explained by the wrong implementation
of lean methods [6]. In 60% of the companies, the operational
and strategic objectives are not aligned and thus hampering the
objective-driven implementation of lean methods [9]. Addition-
ally, only 10% of the lean methods are fully implemented [10].
Therefore, this paper presents an approach for the integration
of twelve qualitatively described lean methods and five quan-
titatively measurable manufacturing process objectives (target
variables) through the usage of a fuzzy logic controller.
Market and customer perspective (external drivers of transformability)
Increasing product variant mixes Increasing costs and quality pressure
Shorter product lifecycles New technologies and digitalization
Heterogeneous and global markets Demographic change and scarcity

For the effectiveness of optimization activities, it is of ut- Production perspective (internal drivers of transformability)
most importance to implement lean methods in accordance Products
Manufacturing processes
and systems
with the objectives of manufacturing companies [6, 7]. Only
Assembly and Product Work materials Process Machines and
the objective-driven implementation of lean methods leads to component innovations and constructions innovations means of prod.
effective optimization of manufacturing systems [6, 8]. Even Integration of design Manufacturing engineering
and function and technologies
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: tom.drews@uni-bayreuth.de (Tom Drews). Fig. 1. External and internal drivers of transformability and sources of produc-
tion innovations according to Westkämper [1] based on [4, 7, 11, 12, 13]

2212-8271 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 53rd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
10.1016/j.procir.2020.04.145

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Tom Drews et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 658–663 659

2. Manufacturing systems, lean methods and objectives Tab. 1. Twelve common lean methods and the corresponding principles

Lean method Principle

2.1. Manufacturing systems and lean methods
1. 5S (M5S) Standardization
The relationship of output to input is significant for the pro- 2. Andon (MAN) Visual management
ductivity (efficiency) of a manufacturing process and thus the 3. Heijunka (MHE) Pull principle
4. Kanban (MKA) Pull principle
entire manufacturing system. One major possibility to improve 5. One Piece Flow (MON) Flow principle
the productivity of manufacturing processes is the correct usage 6. Poka Yoke (MPO) Zero defects principle
of design and optimization (lean) methods.1 Other design and 7. Processstandardization (MPR) Standardization
optimization approaches include the appropriate usage of mate- 8. Shopfloormanagement (MSH) Visual management
rials and manufacturing technologies as well as the capabilities 9. Single Minute Exchange of Die (MSM) Flow principle
10. Total Productive Maintenance (MTP) Zero defects principle
of the employees. [15] 11. Waste Evaluation (MVE) Avoidance of waste
When looking at design and optimization methods within 12. Employee Suggestion System (MVO) Avoidance of waste
lean manufacturing, there are specific terms such as (lean) con-
cepts, principles, methods and tools.2 These terms are all me-
2.2. Manufacturing objectives
thodical design approaches which can be differentiated by their
level of abstraction and level of operationalization (see Fig. 2).
Objectives describe future states, which are considered to
Aggregation of methodical design approaches & Effects of methods on productivity be desirable. Usually, objectives are derived from superordinate
&
strategies or visions, which manufacturing companies want to
Manufacturing
High

Concepts
system achieve. The usage of objectives implies actions to achieve the
Level of abstraction

Principlesa
desired future state. [30, 31]
Effect range

Division or
Principles
Medium

department The modern understanding of manufacturing systems dif-

Methods
Machine or ferentiates strategic and operational manufacturing objectives
work placec
[32, 33]. Furthermore, the objectives and their target variables
Low

Tools Methodsb
Method 1
Manufacturing
process
(operationalization of objectives) are embedded in various con-
Method 2
Effect intensity
trol systems for the effective and objective-driven management
Low Medium High
Level of operationalization Effect range and effect intensity Effect level of manufacturing systems. Ultimately, the target variables serve
as manipulated and/or controlled variables on the process level
Fig. 2. Principles and methods as design and optimization approaches for the
and are derived from different layers within manufacturing
productivity of manufacturing systems [1], a Principles are mainly derived from
a lean perspective [14]. b Methods comprise lean methods and other optimiza- companies (see Fig. 3). [13, 34]
tion methods. c This level is also known as work system in REFA [18].
Four layers of the control system model for the mgmt. of manufacturing sys.

In accordance with the VDI-Guideline 2870 these four terms 1. Normative management
Corporate culture, goals, principles, rules and philosophy
can be aggregated to the two terms ”principles” and ”methods”
[14]. As shown in Fig. 2, the methods have varying optimization Objectives & interest of stakeholder
2. Strategic management
effects on the different levels of the vertical structure of manu- Strategic corporate planning and definition of business units
facturing systems and thus on the manufacturing process itself.
Strategic manufacturing objectives
The effect can vary in range and intensity. Furthermore, meth- 3. Strategic manufacturing mgmt.
ods can be assigned to various principles as shown exemplarily Strategic design of manufacturing systems and strategic planning

in Tab. 1. The twelve methods shown in Tab. 1, are the basis Operational manufacturing objectives
4. Operational manufacturing mgmt.
for the analyses and approach presented in the paper at hand. Operational manufacturing planning, control and monitoring
The methods are the most common denominator among scien- Manipulated variables Controlled variables
tific approaches as well as industrial applications.3 Thus, they (target values) (actual values)
can be found in international guidelines like VDI and REFA
Work system
[14, 23], industrial handbooks [24, 25], scientific publications Manufacturing process
[26, 27] and academic research [28, 29]. The results of the de- Input Throughput Output
tailed analyses and evaluation of the lean methods is shown in
section 3. Fig. 3. Objectives and target values within the control system model for the
management of manufacturing systems [1] based on [13, 34, 35]
1
The terms ”lean methods” and ”methods” are used as synonyms. The ma-
jority of the technical terms is based on the VDI-Guideline 2870 for lean pro- As shown in subsection 2.1 (see Fig. 2), lean methods are
duction systems [14]. affecting manipulated variables of manufacturing processes and
2 The authors of the paper at hand acknowledge that the term ”lean” is more
thus optimizing the output-input relationship. The effectiveness
than just the implementation of (single) methods, thus also referring to thinking can be measured with actual values (controlled variables).
principles, philosophies of working and organizing as well as the well-known
Toyota Production System (TPS) [16, 17].
A great many objectives for manufacturing systems are used
3 The results of comprehensive empirical studies, e. g. from Rivera et al. and in the scientific community and within actual manufacturing
Shah et al., are part of the method selection process [19, 20, 21, 22]. companies today. A major part of the research conducted by

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 660 Tom Drews et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 658–663

the authors of the paper at hand dealt with empirical studies lean methods as well as the time horizon addressing the real-
and combined scientific approaches from a decision theory and ization within a manufacturing system. These aspects are also
operations management background. For the sake of simplicity widely covered in industrial handbooks or benchmarks for the
and the purpose of the paper at hand, Tab. 2 shows the five de- implementation of lean methods. Tab. 4 summarizes the evalu-
rived manufacturing process objectives and their corresponding ation concerning these aspects and illustrates the results in the
target variables, as one result of the conducted research.4 last three columns.
Tab. 2. Five manufacturing process objectives (first level means objectives) and
Tab. 4. Evaluation of lean methods regarding training effort, operation effort
target variables for the fundamental objective ”maximize performance” [1, 37]
and realization [1] based on [23, 24, 27, 39]
KUF = Short-term Existing evaluations of methods This Paper
Manufacturing process objective Target variable MIF = Mid-term
Training effort Operation effort Realization

Operation effort
LAF = Long-term

Ttraining effort
Maximize flexibility Every Part Every Interval (EPEI) n/a = Not available

Realization
 = High
Maximize availability Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE)  = Medium
Maximize efficiency Lead Time (LT)  = Low

[27]

[24]

[23]

[27]

[24]

[23]

[27]

[39]

[23]
# Methods
Maximize effectiveness Quality Grade (QG) 1. 5S (M5S)       KUF KUF MIF   KUF
Maximize delivery performance Delivery Service (DS) 2. Andon (MAN)       KUF MIF KUF   KUF
3. Heijunka (MHE)  n/a   n/a  KUF MIF LAF   MIF
4. Kanban (MKA)       LAF MIF LAF   LAF
The five manufacturing process objectives of Tab. 2 are the 5. One Piece Flow (MON)  n/a   n/a  LAF LAF LAF   LAF
6. Poka Yoke (MPO)       KUF KUF KUF   KUF
first level of means objective for the fundamental objective 7. Processstandardization (MPR)       LAF LAF MIF   LAF
8. Shopfloormanagement (MSH) n/a   n/a   n/a KUF MIF   MIF
”maximize performance”. Other exemplary fundamental objec- 9. Single Min. Exchange of Die (MSM)       KUF KUF MIF   KUF
tives are ”minimize costs” or ”maximize sustainability”, which 10. Total Productive Maint. (MTP)       MIF MIF MIF   MIF
11. Waste Evaluation (MVE) n/a   n/a   n/a KUF MIF   MIF
would yield in other manufacturing process objectives and cor- 12. Employee Suggestion Sys. (MVO)       KUF KUF KUF   KUF
responding target variables.
The five target variables EPEI, OEE, LT, QG and DS repre- The last step of the evaluation is the introduction of a five-tier
sent the most common operationalization of the manufacturing maturity model for the description of the methods. The levels of
process objectives and are often used as Key Performance Indi- maturity are ”initial”, ”planned”, ”defined”, ”measurable” and
cators (KPI).5 The five target variables are furthermore a com- ”optimizing”.6 A five-tier maturity model for the qualitative de-
bination of various controlled variables of the manufacturing scription of lean methods is proven within scientific approaches
process, as shown in Fig. 3, and are influenced by the manipu- for manufacturing systems and is usually derived from the Ca-
lated variables. The relationship of the five target variables and pability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) [3, 40, 41, 42].
three manipulated variables (setup time, error rate and technical
availability) is shown in section 4.
4. Fuzzy logic controller design

3. Evaluation of lean methods 4.1. Structure of the fuzzy logic controller

The evaluation of lean methods focuses on finding qualita-
tive interdependencies, which can be used for the design of the
fuzzy logic controller (rule sets) in section 4. On the basis of the
analyses of Aull, Gerberich and Hines et al., the qualitative
interdependencies, shown in Tab. 3, are derived [26, 28, 29].
Tab. 3. Qualitative interdependencies between lean methods [1]
 = Strong interdependence
 = Medium interdependence
= Low interdependence
The design of the fuzzy logic controller is based on the ob-
servation, that a lot of aspects of lean methods are only de-
scribed qualitatively. Whereas the manufacturing process ob-
jectives, if derived and operationalized with appropriate target
variables, are quantitative in the majority of cases. The struc-
ture of the fuzzy logic controller as well as the input and output
Methods parameters are shown in Fig. 4.
12. MVO

e c t on
11. MVE
10. MTP


5. MON

9. MSM
6. MPO

ef
3. MHE

8. MSH
2. MAN

4. MKA

7. MPR
1. M5S

 = No immediate interdependence Input Fuzzy logic controller Output

# Methods parameters Second subsystem of the fuzzy logic controller parameters
1. 5S (M5S)            Fuzzification Inference Defuzzification
2. Andon (MAN)            Methods
First subsystem of the fuzzy logic controller
3. Heijunka (MHE)             Twelve methods
 Five levels of Fuzzification Inference Defuzzification
4. Kanban (MKA)           
maturity
𝜇𝜇(𝑥𝑥 )
1
Rule R1: 𝜇𝜇(𝑦𝑦 ) 1
Optimization
5. One Piece Flow (MON)            1 1
IF … AND … effects
Poka Yoke (MPO)
0,5
6.
0,5
           THEN …
Processstandardization (MPR) Realization 0 𝑥𝑥
 Setup time
7.
1
0 𝑦𝑦
           1

Shopfloormanagement (MSH)  Short-term  Error rate

8.            𝜇𝜇(𝑥𝑥2 )
Rule R2: 𝜇𝜇(𝑦𝑦2 )

 Technical
1

Single Minute Exchange of Die (MSM)  Mid-term 1

9.            0,5 IF … AND …
 Long-term 0,5
availability
10. Total Productive Maintenance (MTP)            0 𝑥𝑥2 THEN … 0 𝑦𝑦2

11. Waste Evaluation (MVE)            … …

Maturities 𝜇𝜇(𝑦𝑦𝑙𝑙 )
12. Employee Suggestion System (MVO)            𝜇𝜇(𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛 )
1
 Setup time 1
Rule Rm: 0,5

 Error rate 0,5

IF … AND … 0 𝑦𝑦𝑙𝑙
 Technical
Besides the qualitative interdependencies, the paper at hand
0 𝑥𝑥𝑛𝑛
THEN …
availability
also considers the effort for the training and operation of the
Fig. 4. Fuzzy logic controller structure for the determination of a quantitative
4
optimization effect [1], fuzzy logic principles based on [43, 44, 45, 46, 47]
Publications of the conducted research are [1, 27, 36, 37, 38].
5 Other target variables or KPI are also possible. 6 A more detailed evaluation of each level and method is shown in [1].

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Tom Drews et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 658–663 661

The input parameters comprise the twelve lean methods with basis for the calculation of the optimizing effect on the manip-
five maturity levels, the time-dependable realization of the lean ulated variable setup time. The optimizing effect on the manip-
methods (see last column in Tab. 4) and the maturity of the ma- ulated variables error rate and technical availability is based on
nipulated variables (setup time, error rate and technical avail- the aggregated maturity level (AML) of the method Total Pro-
ability). The input parameters are used in two subsystems of ductive Maintenance (MTP).8
the fuzzy logic controller. The first subsystem accounts for 296
0 1 : I F AML−MSM IS LO AND ML-ST IS LO AND RT IS ST
fuzzy (implication) rules (seven bases of rules), upon the qual- THEN OPE-MSM-ST IS HI ; / / High
itative interdependencies shown in Tab. 3. Fig. 5 shows an ex- 0 2 : I F AML−MSM IS MO AND ML-ST IS LO AND RT IS ST
THEN OPE-MSM-ST IS VH ; / / VeryHigh
cerpt from the rule base for the determination of the total matu- 0 3 : I F AML−MSM IS HI AND ML-ST IS LO AND RT IS ST
rity level (TML) of the method Single Minute Exchange of Die THEN OPE-MSM-ST IS VH ; / / VeryHigh
0 4 : I F AML−MSM IS LO AND ML-ST IS MO AND RT IS ST
(MSM) in dependence of the maturity levels (ML) of dependent THEN OPE-MSM-ST IS MO ; / / Moderate
methods (M5S, MAN, MPR, MTP and MVO; see Tab. 3). 0 5 : I F AML−MSM IS LO AND ML-ST IS LO AND RT IS MT
THEN OPE-MSM-ST IS MO ; / / Moderate
0 6 : I F AML−MSM IS MO AND ML-ST IS LO AND RT IS MT
0 1 : I F ML-M5S IS LO AND ML-MAN IS LO AND ML-MPR IS LO AND
THEN OPE-MSM-ST IS HI ; / / High
ML-MTP IS LO AND ML-MVO IS LO THEN TML-MSM IS VL ; / / VeryLow
0 7 : I F AML−MSM IS HI AND ML-ST IS LO AND RT IS MT
0 2 : I F ML-M5S IS HI AND ML-MAN IS LO AND ML-MPR IS LO AND
THEN OPE-MSM-ST IS VH ; / / Very High
ML-MTP IS LO AND ML-MVO IS LO THEN TML-MSM IS VL ; / / VeryLow
0 8 : I F AML−MSM IS LO AND ML-ST IS MO AND RT IS MT
0 3 : I F ML-M5S IS LO AND ML-MAN IS HI AND ML-MPR IS HI AND
THEN OPE-MSM-ST IS LO ; / / Low
ML-MTP IS LO AND ML-MVO IS LO THEN TML-MSM IS LO ; / / Low
0 9 : I F AML−MSM IS LO AND ML-ST IS LO AND RT IS LT
0 4 : I F ML-M5S IS LO AND ML-MAN IS LO AND ML-MPR IS HI AND
THEN OPE-MSM-ST IS LO ; / / Low
ML-MTP IS HI AND ML-MVO IS LO THEN TML-MSM IS LO ; / / Low
1 0 : I F AML−MSM IS MO AND ML-ST IS LO AND RT IS LT
0 5 : I F ML-M5S IS HI AND ML-MAN IS HI AND ML-MPR IS LO AND
THEN OPE-MSM-ST IS MO ; / / Moderate
ML-MTP IS LO AND ML-MVO IS HI THEN TML-MSM IS MO ; / / Moderate
0 6 : I F ML-M5S IS LO AND ML-MAN IS LO AND ML-MPR IS HI AND
ML-MTP IS LO AND ML-MVO IS HI THEN TML-MSM IS MO ; / / Moderate Fig. 6. Excerpt from an exemplary rule base (10 of 54) within the second sub-
0 7 : I F ML-M5S IS LO AND ML-MAN IS HI AND ML-MPR IS HI AND system of the fuzzy logic controller on the basis of the aggregated maturity
ML-MTP IS LO AND ML-MVO IS HI THEN TML-MSM IS HI ; / / High levels (AML) of the dependent methods from the first subsystem of the fuzzy
0 8 : I F ML-M5S IS HI AND ML-MAN IS HI AND ML-MPR IS HI AND
ML-MTP IS LO AND ML-MVO IS HI THEN TML-MSM IS HI ; / / High logic controller, the maturity level of the setup time (ML-ST) and the realization
0 9 : I F ML-M5S IS LO AND ML-MAN IS HI AND ML-MPR IS HI AND time (RT) for the determination of the optimization effect (OPE) of the method
ML-MTP IS HI AND ML-MVO IS HI THEN TML-MSM IS VH ; / / VeryHigh Single Exchange of Die (MSM) on the setup time (ST)
1 0 : I F ML-M5S IS HI AND ML-MAN IS HI AND ML-MPR IS HI AND
ML-MTP IS HI AND ML-MVO IS HI THEN TML-MSM IS VH ; / / VeryHigh Within the second subsystem of the fuzzy logic controller,
Fig. 5. Excerpt from an exemplary rule base (10 of 32) within the first subsys-
aggregated versions of the methods Single Minute Exchange of
tem of the fuzzy logic controller on the basis of the maturity levels (ML) of five Die (MSM) and Total Productive Maintenance (MTP) are used,
dependent methods for the determination of the total maturity level (TML) of because the optimization effects of these methods on the three
the method Single Minute Exchange of Die (MSM) manipulated variables can easily be quantified by the usage of
The total maturity level (TML) is calculated for each of the empirical data (e. g. [48, 49, 50]). Thus the qualitative maturity
twelve methods. For the method Single Minute Exchange of level of the lean methods can be individually quantified depend-
Die (MSM), the calculation comprises 32 rules, since five meth- ing on the industry branch and manufacturing processes.
ods have a qualitative interdependence (effect) on MSM (see
Tab. 3) and each effect is formulated with the linguistic terms 4.2. Manufacturing process integration
high and low (25 = 32).7
The optimization effect on the output side of the fuzzy logic
The results of the first subsystem of the fuzzy logic con- controller represents a change in the three manipulated vari-
troller are used for the second subsystem, which defines the op- ables setup time, error rate and technical availability on the
timization effect on the three manipulated variables setup time, manufacturing process level. This can be achieved through
error rate and technical availability (output parameters). The the usage of the general input-throughput-output understanding
second subsystem contains 162 fuzzy (implication) rules with of manufacturing processes (see Fig. 3). The main theoretical
three bases of rules. Each of the three manipulated variables has background of such an understanding is the relationship of in-
its own rule base. The goal of the second subsystem of the fuzzy ventory/work in process (WIP), lead time (LT) and cycle time
logic controller is the quantification of the optimization effect (CT). This relationship is also known as Little’s Law within the
on the three manipulated variables. queuing theory (see Eq. 1). [51]9
On the one hand, this is done by calculating an aggregated W = 1/λ · L (1)
maturity level (AML) for the methods Single Minute Exchange
of Die (MSM) and Total Productive Maintenance (MTP). On 1/λ Expected time between two consecutive arrivals or cycle time
the other hand, the time-dependent realization (RT) of each L Expected number of units in a system or work in process
method and the maturity level (ML) of each of the three ma- W Expected time spent by a unit in the system or lead time
nipulated variable is considered. An excerpt from an exemplary The paper at hand uses this fundamental relationship on the man-
rule base of the second subsystem of the fuzzy logic controller ufacturing process level, to integrate the three manipulated variables
is shown in Fig. 6. The complete rule base of Fig. 6 builds the
8 Each of the three rule bases in the second subsystem has 54 rules.
7The distribution of the other methods (number of rules) is: M5S (32), MAN 9 There is a close connection of Little’s Law to the Funnel Model and Logistic
(32), MPR (64), MVO (64), MSH (8) and MTP (64). Operating Curves by Nyhuis and Wiendahl [52].

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 662 Tom Drews et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 658–663

setup time, error rate and technical availability through the cycle times DQ ps Demanded quantity of process ps
of single processes. This approach is based on the lean methodology EPEI ps Every part every interval for process ps
value stream design and its operationalization by Erlach [53]. The cal- MQ ps Manufactured quantity of process ps
culations of the cycle time are shown in Eq. 2 to Eq. 7 [53]. OEE ps Overall equipment effectiveness for process ps
PR ps Performance rate of process ps
GR NE ST QL UP
CT ps = CT ps + CT ps + CT ps + CT ps (2) QG ps Quality grade of process ps
NE PT var, ps OT var, ps QR ps Quality rate of process ps
CT ps = = (3) WIP ps Work in process for process ps
RS ps OQvar, ps · RS ps
i
ST NE S T var, ps PCEvar, ps
CT ps = CT ps · · i (4) The optimization effect of the fuzzy logic controller on the three
LS var, ps · PT var, ps 
var=1 PCEvar, ps manipulated variables setup time, error rate and technical availability,
var=1
QL NE
as well as the calculation of the five target variables, can be done for
CT ps = CT ps · ER ps (5) multiple manufacturing processes. This enables also the analyses of
 
UP
CT ps = T T ps · 1 − T A ps (6) process chains in terms of entire manufacturing systems.
WD ps · WT ps
T T ps = (7)
i 5. Conclusion and outlook
PCEvar, ps
var=1
The paper at hand presents an approach for the integration of lean
GR
CT ps Gross cycle time of process ps methods and manufacturing process objectives through the usage of
NE
CT ps Net cycle time of process ps a fuzzy logic controller. The usage of common and well-known tar-
QL
CT ps Time losses through quality defects of process ps get variables, manipulated variables and lean methods, makes the ap-
ST
CT ps Time losses through setup time of process ps proach very suitable for the industrial application within manufac-
UP
CT ps Time losses through breakdowns of process ps turing companies. Furthermore, it is possible to integrate company-
ER ps Error rate of process ps specific maturity levels and individual manufacturing process data.
LS var, ps Lot size of variant var of process ps The approach could also be used for the integration of ecological
OT var, ps Operating time of variant var of process ps and economic aspects and analyses within a supply chain. Further fu-
OQvar, ps Operating quantity of variant var of process ps ture research could also focus on additional aspects concerning the
PCEvar, ps Pieces of variant var of process ps management of manufacturing systems, e. g. the production program.
ps Index for n process step
PT var, ps Processing time of variant var of process ps
RS ps Number of identical resources of process ps Acknowledgements
S T var, ps Setup time of variant var of process ps
T A ps Technical availability of process ps This research was made mainly possible through the project “em-
T T ps Customer takt of process ps power” at the University of Bayreuth and the Fraunhofer Society. The
var Index for i product variant project was funded by the Upper Franconia Foundation. The authors
WD ps Available working days of process ps would like to thank the foundation and all participating partners.
WT ps Available working time of process ps
References
The three manipulated variables setup time S T var, ps , error rate ER ps
and technical availability T A ps are changed by the fuzzy logic con-
[1] T. Drews, Zieldeterminierte Gestaltung von Produktionssystemen, Shaker,
troller and directly influencing the time losses of each manufacturing
ST QL Düren, 2019.
process through setup time CT ps (see Eq. 4), quality defects CT ps (see [2] P. Molenda, Mehrzielige Betriebspunktoptimierung von Produktionssyste-
UP
Eq. 5) and breakdowns CT ps (see Eq. 6). men für Einwegprodukte, Shaker, Düren, 2020.
With the determined data of Eq. 2 to Eq. 7 is also possible to calcu- [3] O. Oechsle, Entwicklung eines ganzheitlichen Vorgehensmodells zur
late the five target variables Every Part Every Interval (EPEI), Overall Gestaltung und Optimierung industrieller Logistiksysteme und Logis-
Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), Lead Time (LT), Quality Grade (QG) tikprozesse, Shaker, Aachen, 2015.
and Delivery Service (DS) on a manufacturing process level (see Eq. 8 [4] E. Westkämper, Towards the Re-Industrialization of Europe: A Concept
to Eq. 12) [1, 53]. for Manufacturing for 2030, Springer, Berlin, 2014. doi:10.1007/
978-3-642-38502-5.
i
 i
 [5] M. Landherr, E. Westkämper, Integrated Product and Assembly Configu-
LS var, ps · PT var, ps + S T var, ps ration Using Systematic Modularization and Flexible Integration, Procedia
var=1 var=1 CIRP 17 (2014) (2014) 260–265. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.01.
EPEI ps = (8)
RS ps · T A ps · WT ps 036.
[6] H. Wildemann, Produktionssysteme: Leitfaden zur methodengestützten
OEE ps = AR ps · PR ps · QR ps (9)
Reorganisation der Produktion, 15th Edition, TCW Transfer-Centrum,
GR
LT ps = WIP ps · CT ps (10) München, 2017.
[7] E. Abele, T. Meyer, U. Näher, G. Strube, R. Sykes (Eds.), Global Produc-
QG ps = 1 − ER ps (11)
tion: A Handbook for Strategy and Implementation, Springer, Berlin, 2008.
MQ ps doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71653-2.
DS ps = (12)
DQ ps [8] U. Dombrowski, T. Mielke, S. Schulze, Lean Production Systems as a
Framework for Sustainable Manufacturing, in: G. Seliger (Ed.), Sustain-
AR ps Availability rate of process ps able Manufacturing, Springer, Berlin, 2012, pp. 17–22. doi:10.1007/
DS ps Delivery service of process ps 978-3-642-27290-5_3.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Tom Drews et al. / Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 658–663
[9] W. A. Günthner, M. Dörnhöfer, Einsatz von Kennzahlensystemen in der
Automobillogistik: Aktueller Entwicklungsstand und Handlungsbedarf,
Lehrstuhl für Fördertechnik Materialfluss Logistik (fml), München, 2014.
[10] Miebach Consulting GmbH, Erfolgsfaktoren integrierter Produktion & Lo-
gistik, Miebach Consulting GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, 2014.
[11] J. Fisel, N. Duffie, E. Moser, G. Lanza, Changeability: A Frequency Per-
spective, Procedia CIRP 79 (2019) (2019) 186–191. doi:10.1016/j.
procir.2019.02.043.
[12] H.-P. Wiendahl, J. Reichardt, P. Nyhuis, Handbook Factory Planning and
Design, Springer, Berlin, 2015. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-46391-8.
[13] H.-P. Wiendahl, H. A. ElMaraghy, P. Nyhuis, M. F. Zäh, H.-H. Wiendahl,
N. Duffie, M. Brieke, Changeable Manufacturing: Classification, Design
and Operation, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 56 (2) (2007)
783–809. doi:10.1016/j.cirp.2007.10.003.
[14] VDI Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V., Lean Production Systems. Basic
Principles, Introduction, and Review. 2870 Part 1 (2012-06-01).
[15] T. Nebl, Production Management: Produktionswirtschaft, Oldenbourg,
Berlin, 2018. doi:10.1515/9783486812107.
[16] J. K. Liker, The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s
Greatest Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004.
[17] T. Ohno, Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production, Tay-
lor & Francis, London, 1988.
[18] REFA Bundesverband e.V., Arbeitsorganisation erfolgreicher Un-
ternehmen - Wandel in der Arbeitswelt, Carl Hanser, München, 2016.
[19] D. F. Manotas Duque, L. Rivera Cadavid, Lean Manufacturing Mea-
surement: The Relationship Between Lean Activities and Lean Met-
rics, Estudios Gerenciales 23 (105) (2007) 69–83. doi:10.1016/
S0123-5923(07)70026-8.
[20] L. Rivera, F. F. Chen, Measuring the Impact of Lean Tools on the Cost–
time Investment of a Product Using Cost–time Profiles, Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 23 (6) (2007) 684–689. doi:10.
1016/j.rcim.2007.02.013.
[21] R. Shah, P. T. Ward, Lean Manufacturing: Context, Practice Bundles, and
Performance, Journal of Operations Management 21 (2) (2003) 129–149.
doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00108-0.
[22] R. Shah, P. T. Ward, Defining and Developing Measures of Lean Produc-
tion, Journal of Operations Management 25 (4) (2007) 785–805. doi:
10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.019.
[23] REFA Bundesverband e.V., Industrial Engineering: Standardmethoden
zur Produktivitätssteigerung und Prozessoptimierung, 2nd Edition, Carl
Hanser, München, 2016.
[24] N. Baszenski, Methodensammlung zur Unternehmensprozessoptimierung,
3rd Edition, Wirtschafts Bachem, Köln, 2008.
[25] P. Ostbo, M. Wetherill, R. Cattermole, Leading Beyond Lean: The Seven
Drivers of Productivity, Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2016. doi:10.
1007/978-1-349-94948-9.
[26] P. Hines, N. Rich, J. Bicheno, D. Brunt, D. Taylor, C. Butterworth, J. Sul-
livan, Value Stream Management, The International Journal of Logistics
Management 9 (1) (1998) 25–42. doi:10.1108/09574099810805726.
[27] R. Steinhilper, T. Drews, P. Molenda, O. Oechsle, J. Siebert, G. Beneken,
M. Kucich, F. Hummel, Entwicklung methodenbasierter produktionslogis-
tischer Wertschöpfungsprozesse: Ein Entscheidungsunterstützungskonzept
zur Effizienzsteigerung in produzierenden kleinen und mittleren Un-
ternehmen, Universität Bayreuth, Bayreuth, 2017.
[28] F. Aull, Modell zur Ableitung effizienter Implementierungsstrategien für
Lean-Production-Methoden, Herbert Utz, München, 2013.
[29] T. Gerberich, Lean oder MES in der Automobilzulieferindustrie: Ein
Vorgehensmodell zur fallspezifischen Auswahl, Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2011.
[30] N. Slack, A. Brandon-Jones, R. Johnston, Operations Management, 7th
Edition, Pearson, Harlow, 2013.
[31] R. D. Reid, N. R. Sanders, Operations Management, 5th Edition, John Wi-
ley & Sons, Hoboken, 2013.
[32] N. Gronau, M. Lindemann, Einführung in das Produktionsmanagement,
GITO, Berlin, 2010.
[33] R. Kämpf, Zentrale Aufgabenstellungen des Produktionsmanagements,
in: H. Gienke, R. Kämpf (Eds.), Handbuch Produktion, Carl Hanser,
München, 2007, pp. 25–33.
[34] G. Schuh, T. Brosze, S. Kompa, C. Meier, Real-time capable Production
This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
663
Planning and Control in the Order Management of built-to-order Com-
panies, in: H. A. ElMaraghy (Ed.), Enabling Manufacturing Competitive-
ness and Economic Sustainability, Springer, Berlin, 2011, pp. 557–562.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23860-4_91.
[35] P. Gomez, Integrated Value Management, International Thomson Business
Press, London, 1999.
[36] T. Drews, P. Molenda, J. Siebert, Identifying and Structuring Objectives for
the Design of Lean Processes in Manufacturing Companies: Approach and
Results of an Empirical Survey among Small and Medium-Sized Enter-
prises, Proceedings of The Third International Conference On Advances
in Civil, Structural and Mechanical Engineering - ACSM 2015 3 (2015)
(2015) 66–71. doi:10.15224/978-1-63248-083-5-29.
[37] T. Drews, P. Molenda, O. Oechsle, R. Steinhilper, Value-focused Design
of Lean Production Systems Based on a System Dynamics Approach, Pro-
cedia CIRP 50 (2016) (2016) 478–483. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.
05.058.
[38] J. Käppler, J. Siebert, T. Drews, P. Molenda, Using Objectives to Improve
Decision-Making in Manufacturing Companies, in: T. Spengler, W. Ficht-
ner, M. J. Geiger, H. Rommelfanger, O. Metzger (Eds.), Entscheidungsun-
terstützung in Theorie und Praxis, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2017, pp.
15–36. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-17580-1_2.
[39] VDI Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V., Lean Production Systems. List of
Methods. 2870 Part 2 (2013-02-01).
[40] F. Jorgensen, R. Matthiesen, J. Nielsen, J. Johansen, Lean Maturity, Lean
Sustainability, in: J. Olhager, F. Persson (Eds.), Advances in Production
Management Systems, International Federation for Information Process-
ing, Boston, 2007, pp. 371–378. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74157-4_
44.
[41] M. C. Paulk, B. Curtis, M. B. Chrissis, C. V. Weber, Capability Maturity
Model: Version 1.1, IEEE Software 10 (4) (1993) 18–27. doi:10.1109/
52.219617.
[42] G. Lanza, A. G. Jondral, J. Book, Capability Assessment and Valuation
of the Implementation of Lean Production Methods in Turbulent Environ-
ments, in: H. A. ElMaraghy (Ed.), Enabling Manufacturing Competitive-
ness and Economic Sustainability, Springer, Berlin, 2011, pp. 524–529.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23860-4_86.
[43] IEC International Electrotechnical Commission, Programmable Con-
trollers. Fuzzy Control Programming. 61131-7 Part 7 (2000-11-01).
[44] K. Michels, F. Klawonn, R. Kruse, A. Nürnberger, Fuzzy Control: Funda-
mentals, Stability and Design of Fuzzy Controllers, Springer, Berlin, 2006.
doi:10.1007/3-540-31766-X.
[45] T. J. Ross, Fuzzy Logic With Engineering Applications, 3rd Edition, John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 2010. doi:10.1002/9781119994374.
[46] H.-J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy Sets, Decision Making, and Expert Systems,
Vol. 10 of International Series in Management Science/Operations Re-
search, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1987. doi:10.1007/
978-94-009-3249-4.
[47] C. Moewes, R. Mikut, R. Kruse, Fuzzy Control, in: J. Kacprzyk,
W. Pedrycz (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Computational Intelligence,
Springer, Dordrecht, 2015, pp. 269–283.
[48] R. S. Jangaler, G. Ranganath, Enhancement of Overall Effectiveness of
Equipment by using TPM Concept, European Journal of Scientific Re-
search 101 (3) (2013) 387–399.
[49] R. S. Jangler, G. Ranganath, Enhancement of Overall Effectiveness of
Equipment for Grinding Machine by Using TPM, Research Journal of
Humanities and Social Sciences 8 (1) (2017) 52–58. doi:10.5958/
2321-5828.2017.00008.0.
[50] S. Tang, T. Ng, W. Chong, K. Chen, T. Deaconescu, A. Deaconescu, Case
Study on Lean Manufacturing System Implementation in Batch Printing
Industry Malaysia, MATEC Web of Conferences 70 (2016) (2016) 1–4.
doi:10.1051/matecconf/20167005002.
[51] J. D. C. Little, A Proof for the Queuing Formula, Operations Research 9 (3)
(1961) 383–387. doi:10.1287/opre.9.3.383.
[52] P. Nyhuis, H.-P. Wiendahl, Fundamentals of Production Logistics: The-
ory, Tools and Applications, Springer, Berlin, 2009. doi:10.1007/
978-3-540-34211-3.
[53] K. Erlach, Value Stream Design: The Way Towards a Lean Factory,
Springer, Berlin, 2013. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12569-0.