Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res.

2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

ISSN 2278 – 0149 www.ijmerr.com

Vol. 2, No. 4, October 2013
© 2013 IJMERR. All Rights Reserved

Research Paper

A STUDY ON LEAN MANUFACTURING TOOLS AND

TECHNIQUES IMPLEMENTATION IN THE
ANDHRAPRADESH SILK PRODUCTION INDUSTRY

Y Sujatha1* and K Prahlada Rao1

*Corresponding Author: Y Sujatha,  ysujathareddy311@yahoo.com

The purpose of this study is to investigate the adoption of lean manufacturing tools and techniques
in the silk production Industry, A questionnaire survey was used to explore 14 key areas of lean
manufacturing namely, scheduling, inventory, material handling, equipment, work processes,
quality, employees, layout, suppliers, customers, safety and ergonomics, product design,
management and culture, and tools and techniques. The respondents were asked to rate the
extent of implementation for each of these areas. The average mean score for each area was
calculated and some statistical analyses were then performed. In addition, the survey also
examined various issues associated with lean manufacturing such as its understanding among
the respondent companies, its benefits and obstacles, the tools and techniques used, etc. The
survey results show that many companies in the Silk Production industry are committed to
implement lean manufacturing. Generally, most of them are “moderate-to-extensive”
implementers. All the 14 key areas investigated serve as a useful guide for organizations when
they are adopting lean manufacturing. In essence, this is perhaps the first study that investigates
the actual implementation of lean manufacturing in the Silk production industry.

Keywords: Lean manufacturing tools and techniques, Silk production industry, Andhra Pradesh

INTRODUCTION always embracing changes and improvements

Manufacturers in the silk production industry in their key activities or processes to cope with
have always faced heightened challenges such the challenges. One way to stay competitive
as rising customers’ expectation, fluctuating in this globalized market is to become more
demand, and competition in markets. There efficient. Lean manufacturing has been
is no doubt that these manufacturers are receiving a lot of attentions in the industry. The
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, J.N.T.U.A, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh, India.

59
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

effects claimed after implementing it are manufacturing, it is very difficult to find a

enormous. Lean manufacturing uses less of concise definition which everyone agrees.
everything compared to mass production-half Different authors define it distinctively. Lean
the human effort in the factory, half the manufacturing is most frequently associated
manufacturing space, half the investment in with the elimination of seven important wastes
tools, and half the engineering hours to develop to ameliorate the effects of variability in supply,
a new product (Womack et al., 1990). It has processing time or demand (Shah and Ward,
now become a production method for many 2007). Liker and Wu (2000) defined it as a
manufacturers to pursue. philosophy of manufacturing that focuses on
delivering the highest quality product on time
Little studies regarding lean manufacturing
and at the lowest cost. Worley (2004) defined
have been done in Andhra pradesh. A survey
it as the systematic removal of waste by all
needs to be carried out in order to gauge how
members of the organization from all areas of
organizations in this practice it. This research
the value stream. Briefly, it is called lean as it
was initiated with a focus to examine the
uses less, or the minimum, of everything
adoption of lean manufacturing tools and
required to produce a product or perform a
techniques in the silk production industry.
service (Hayes and Pisano, 1994). In a nutshell,
Various issues such as its understanding
lean manufacturing can be best defined as an
among the respondent companies, its benefits
approach to deliver the upmost value to the
and obstacles, the tools and techniques used
customer by eliminating waste through process
etc, were investigated. In addition, the degree
and human design elements.
of implementation of 14 key practice areas of
lean manufacturing was assessed. Lean manufacturing has become an
integrated system composed of highly inter-
This paper begins with a general overview
related elements and a wide variety of
of lean manufacturing tools and techniques
management practices, including Just-in-Time
and the key areas that characterize its
(JIT), quality systems, work teams, cellular
adoption. This is followed by an outline of the
manufacturing, etc. (Shah and Ward, 2003).
methodology employed for conducting the
The purpose of implementing it is to increase
survey. Findings of the survey together with the
productivity, reduce lead time and cost, and
results of some statistical analyses that were
improve quality (Karlsson and Åhlström, 1996;
applied are presented in the next section.
and Sánchez and Pérez, 2001).
Finally the paper ends with conclusions.
Lean manufacturing requires that not only
LITERATURE REVIEW should technical questions be fully understood,
Principles of lean thinking have been broadly but existing relationships between
accepted by many manufacturing operations manufacturing and the other areas of the firm
and have been applied successfully across should also be examined in depth, as should
many disciplines (Poppendieck, 2002). While other factors external to the firm (Womack and
many researchers and practitioners have Jones, 1994). As an integrative concept, the
studied and commented on lean adoption of lean manufacturing can be

60
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

characterized by a collective set of key areas higher carrying costs. Moreover, they
or factors. These key areas encompass a accumulate the risk of “products becoming
broad array of practices which are believed to obsolete”. Excess inventories are seen as
be critical for its implementation. They are, “evils” because they hide problems such as
scheduling, inventory, material handling, defects, production imbalances, late deliveries
equipment, work processes, quality, from suppliers, equipment downtime and long
employees, layout, suppliers, customers, setup time (Liker, 2004).
safety and ergonomics, product design,
Material handling is also crucial in lean
management and culture, and tools and
manufacturing because the cost attributed to
techniques (Wong et al., 2009). These 14
material handling is estimated between 15%
areas are the subjects of investigation in this
and 70% of the total manufacturing operation
study and each of them will be reviewed and
expenses (Tompkins et al., 1996). Karlsson
described now.
and Åhlström (1996) and Sánchez and Pérez
Scheduling has been widely discussed in (2001) stated that transporting parts not only
lean manufacturing (Sohal and Egglestone, does not add value to a product, it increases
1994; Harrison and Storey, 1996; and Karlsson manufacturing lead time. Hence, it is a major
and Åhlström, 1996). Effective schedules waste that needs to be eliminated. A steady
improve the ability to meet customer orders, material flow which moves frequently in small
drive down inventories by allowing smaller lot batches will allow a faster replenishment of
sizes, and reduce work in processes (Heizer materials. This will then shorten lead time and
and Render, 2006). Appropriate scheduling increase productivity.
methods are able to optimize the use of
resources. Pull methods such as Kanban, and The level of equipment support should be
lot size reduction are commonly used to reduce given attention in lean manufacturing (Mortimer,
storage and inventories and to avoid 2006) because some manufacturing
overproduction. Pull means to do nothing until processes rely heavily on their equipment to
it is required by the downstream process produce products. Unexpected machine
(Poppendieck, 2002). Minimizing lot sizes downtime would result in line stoppage and
enables a smoother production flow and decrease productivity. Therefore, equipment
maximizes productivity by eliminating is a vital area in which maintenance and
production line imbalances. reduction of setup time play an important role
to avoid process disturbance (Taj, 2005; and
Companies store inventories to enable
Shah and Ward, 2007). Lean manufacturing
continuous deliveries and overcome problems
requires machines which are reliable and
such as demand variabilities, unreliable
efficient. Inventories can be reduced when
deliveries from suppliers, and breakdowns in
machine downtime is minimized.
production processes. However, there is a
need to maintain inventories at the minimum Work processes across the value stream
level because excess inventories would should also be emphasized in lean
require more valuable spaces and result in manufacturing. Processes should be

61
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

performed with a minimum of non value added manufacturing company (Womack et al.,
activities in order to reduce waiting time, 1990).
queuing time, moving time, and other delays
Another key area of lean manufacturing is
(Pattanaik and Sharma, 2009). Besides this,
layout which determines the arrangement of
standardization of work processes is needed
facilities in a factory. A poor layout may have
to facilitate efficient, safe work methods and
several deteriorating effects such as high
eliminate wastes, while maintaining quality
material handling costs, excessive work-in-
(Kasul and Motwani, 1997). It ensures a
process inventories, and low or unbalanced
consistent performance and creates a
equipment utilization (Heragu, 1997). Layouts
foundation for continuous improvement.
that cause inventory accumulation and interrupt
Nowadays, a product with high quality is a process flow should be eliminated. On the
prerequisite for any manufacturer. Quality is a other hand, lean manufacturing needs flexible
major focus in lean manufacturing (Forza, layouts that reduce movements of both
1996; Shah and Ward, 2003; and Taj, 2005) materials and people, minimize material
because poor quality management would handling losses, and avoid inventories
result in many wastes such as scraps and between stations.
rejects. Appropriate quality management helps
to control a manufacturing process, and this Lean manufacturing is particularly
reduces “safety” buffers and exposes quality vulnerable not only to internal sources of
issues (Nakamura et al., 1998). Reduction of variability, but also to external resources
“safety” buffers will eventually lead to reduction (Davis, 1993). Suppliers have been reported
of inventories. as a critical factor for the success of lean
manufacturing (Keller et al., 1991) and they
Employees who are motivated and
have been given much attention by various
empowered are essential since people are the
researchers (Panizzolo, 1998; Lewis, 2000;
key element in lean manufacturing. Japanese
Sánchez and Pérez, 2001; and Wu, 2003).
regard people as assets (Sharp et al., 1999)
Particularly, it is important to encourage
because they are the ones who are going to
suppliers to develop JIT production
solve problems and improve processes in
capabilities as well as JIT delivery in order to
production. The phrase “No one knows the job
enhance long-term competitiveness (Helper,
better than those who do it” indicates that the
1991). A mutual goal between manufacturers
person who is experienced in his/her job is
and suppliers to reduce waste and cut down
most likely to have a better understanding on
cost is crucial to drive lean manufacturing to
it. Task rotation creates cross-trained and multi-
success.
tasked employees, and this enables them to
respond faster to changes in products and Relationship with customers is also crucial
processes. In addition, work teams are critical in lean manufacturing (Doolen and Hacker,
throughout the implementation of lean 2005; and Shah and Ward, 2007). Customers
manufacturing (Åhlström, 1998). It is said that decide what to buy, and when and how they
work teams are the heart of a lean are going to purchase a product. Since value

62
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

is determined by the customers, it is essential top management will serve as a booster for
to develop a good relationship with them. participation and continuous improvement. In
Setting up good relationships with customers addition, culture is the main pillar when
will enable an organization to understand and implementing lean manufacturing (Little and
meet their needs and predict their demands McKinna, 2005). A supportive culture that
accurately, as it is important to attain a perfect brings the employees to work, communicate
match between market demands and and grow together is essential to make the
production flows (Panizzolo, 1998). initiative successful.
Safety and ergonomics are incorporated as Finally, tools and techniques are
an area in lean manufacturing. Safety should indispensable in implementing lean
be emphasized since it is the foundation of all manufacturing. Many researchers such as
activities. Ergonomics is also important Sohal and Egglestone (1994), Kasul and
because it helps humans to improve Motwani (1997), Bhasin and Burcher (2006)
productivity, reduce injuries and fatigues and Abdulmalek and Rajgopal (2007) have
(Walder et al., 2007). By using ergonomic highlighted some critical lean manufacturing
features, unnecessary motions (one of the tools in their studies. Lean tools that are
major wastes) are decreased. This helps to systematically applied or implemented can
reduce mistakes caused by human errors, thus help to define, analyze and attack sources of
enhancing the quality of products. waste in specific ways. There are many
Product design is also important because excellent tools that are useful in different
the choices of product structures and materials circumstances. Using tools such as value
would affect the production methods and stream mapping, jidoka, 5S, kanban etc, will
costs. Karlsson and Åhlström (1996) found that assist organizations to go along with lean
concurrent engineering techniques play a vital manufacturing transformation. Lean tools are
role in a “lean” product development process. urged to be used in an integrated way (Cua
Moreover, continuous design improvements et al., 2001; White and Prybutok, 2001; and
had enabled Toyota to improve its quality even Liker, 2004) rather than applying them in
further (Womack et al., 1990). isolation.
Essentially, management and culture are
considered as a key area in this study. It is METHODOLOGY
critical for top management to understand and This research aims to find out the adoption of
give ample support to sustain the lean concept. lean manufacturing tools and techniques in the
Communication between senior managers silk production industry in Andhra pradesh. To
and employees is critical to ensure that the achieve this, data were collected via a
vision and mission of lean manufacturing is questionnaire survey. This method seems to
attainable. Evidence shows that management be the best data collection technique in
support plays a vital role in driving lean exploratory studies since it enables a larger
manufacturing implementation (Worley and amount of data to be gathered in a short period
Doolen, 2006). Recognition and rewards from of time.

63
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

The samples of organizations were manufacturing practices. The items were

obtained from the. They were randomly designed based on the review of prior literature
selected from those which have complete and they were grouped into the 14 key areas
information and contact details. 350 discussed earlier. A five-point scale was used
manufacturers were identified and in this study to indicate the degree of
questionnaires were distributed to them using implementation for each of the items. This five-
postal mail. The questionnaires were point scale, 1 = no implementation, 2 = little
addressed to the General Managers or implementation, 3 = some implementation,
Managing Directors of the companies. They 4 = extensive implementation, and
were considered to be the best addressees 5 = complete implementation, was adopted
because they were likely to be the thought from Shah and Ward (2007). The average
leaders in charge of lean manufacturing. mean values would indicate the level of
However, it was up to the organization to assign implementation for each key area. Most of the
the most appropriate person who has questions in this study were close ended types,
knowledge to answer the questionnaire. To thus helping the respondents to answer them
increase the response rate, various in less time.
techniques such as providing self- addressed Reliability and validity tests were conducted
stamped envelopes, making telephone calls, to ensure that the questionnaire was reliable
and sending follow-up letters were employed. and valid. Reliability tests were performed for
Finally, a total of 52 responses were obtained. each key area and Cronbach’s Alpha with a
However, only 44 were valid for analysis, minimum value of 0.60 was acceptable in this
yielding a response rate of 12.6%. According study. This is because a value of 0.6 is
to Jusoh et al. (2008), this feedback rate in satisfying for a relatively new measurement
postal survey was not unusual in Andhra instrument (Sakakibara et al., 1997) while 0.7
pradesh as they obtained a response rate of is sufficient (Nunnally, 1978). As can be seen
12.3%. Likewise, a response rate of 11.5% in Table 1, one item in layout was deleted to
was obtained by Ahmed and Hassan (2003) achieve a satisfying Cronbach’s Alpha. Apart
in their study in Andhra pradesh. Therefore, the from this, all the other key areas show a
response rate for this research was construct reliability that is above the minimum
considered to be reasonable. limit. Content validity was determined by
The questionnaire consists of two parts. The experts and by referring to the literature. Pilot
first section surveyed the organization’s studies were conducted involving 6
background such as the total number of academics and 2 practitioners in lean
manufacturing. Based on their feedbacks,
employees and the products manufactured.
some alterations were made before the
Awareness, benefits and obstacles of
questionnaires were distributed.
implementing lean manufacturing were also
studied in this part. The second section To assess construct validity, principal
consists of 52 items or elements that components analysis was used. Items that did
investigate the implementation of lean not load into a single factor were eliminated

64
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

Table 1: Reliability and Validity Test Results

% Items for Items

Cronbach’s Items Eigen KMO
Key Areas Variance Loading
Alpha Deleted Value Deletion Value
Explained Range

Scheduling 0.688 None 1.893 63.095 None 0.767-0.814 0.671

Inventory 0.869 None 2.892 72.303 None 0.818-0.890 0.754
Material Handling 0.842 None 2.289 76.296 None 0.853-0.897 0.719
Equipment Work 0.878 None 2.413 80.424 None 0.887-0.916 0.735
Processes Quality 0.856 None 3.228 64.566 None 0.687-0.867 0.797
Employees 0.819 None 2.681 67.021 None 0.685-0.916 0.732
Layout Suppliers 0.864 None 2.850 71.250 None 0.795-0.929 0.720
Customers 0.600 1 1.431 71.552 None 0.846 0.500
Safety and Ergonomics 0.702 None 1.892 63.063 1 0.621-0.906 0.540
Product Design 0.780 None 2.140 71.342 None 0.798-0.888 0.680
Management and 0.812 None 2.226 74.194 None 0.785-0.945 0.569
Culture 0.821 None 2.263 75.420 None 0.774-0.918 0.662
Tools and Techniques 0.947 None 4.143 82.860 None 0.864-0.931 0.883
0.817 None 2.923 58.458 None 0.685-0.867 0.749

(or considered in another factor) and the

Table 2: Profiles of the Respondent
analysis was re- performed. As shown in Table Companies
1, the Eigen value of each factor exceeds the
minimum threshold of 1.0 and the explained No. of Companies Percent

variance of each factor is greater than 50%. a) Size of the Companies

All factor loadings are greater than 0.5 which Small and Medium
Enterprises 14 31.82
are acceptable. Additionally, the Kaiser–
Large Organizations 30 68.18
Meyer–Olkin (KMO) values for sampling
Total 44 100
adequacy are satisfying since all of them
b) Types of Product Manufactured
exceed the minimum score of 0.5. In short, it
Silk Industry 26 59.09
can be said that all the factors or key areas
Home Silk Industry 18 40.91
are reliable and valid, and thus can be used
Total 44 100
for further analyses.
c) Number of Years Adopted Lean Manufacturing

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION <5 years 23 52.27

5-10 years 8 18.18
Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for the
>10 years 13 29.55
respondent companies in terms of their sizes,
Total 44 100
types of industry and the number of years for
which they have adopted lean manufacturing. Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) while
It can be seen that only 31.82% were from the remainder was large organizations. The

65
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

classification of companies’ size was based In an attempt to discover the understanding

on the definition provided by the Andhra of lean manufacturing among the respondents,
pradesh SME Development Council (2011). they were asked to indicate what they thought
In this research, large companies are those it was associated with (eight choices were
that have more than 150 employees in total. given). Waste reduction and continuous
Apparently, there are more large organizations improvement were the highest ranked which
than SMEs which have implemented lean scored 88.64% and 84.09% respectively. It is
manufacturing. This is consistent with the remarkable that most respondents identified
findings of Shah and Ward (2003) as they lean manufacturing as an approach for waste
found that larger plants across a variety of reduction and continuous improvement since
industrial sectors were more likely to implement it is a concept that emphasizes on these two
lean manufacturing practices. principles. The respondents seem to have a
high understanding of lean manufacturing in
This survey also investigated the number of which its basic is to use lesser resources for
years for which the respondent companies further improvement and growth. 54.55% of the
have been involved in lean manufacturing to respondents perceived it as tools and
indicate their maturity in the field. It appears techniques to improve operations. Interestingly,
that more than half of the respondents have only 36.36% associated it with the Toyota
been involved in lean manufacturing for less Production System which is the root of lean
than five years, 18.18% have adopted it for manufacturing. Figure 1 summarizes the
five to ten years, while 29.55% have respondents’ answers regarding their
implemented it for more than ten years. understanding of lean manufacturing.

Figure 1: Understanding of Lean Manufacturing

66
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

The respondents were also asked to identify More than 80% of the respondents have
the benefits of lean manufacturing in their gained these benefits after embarking on lean
respective companies. It was clear that they manufacturing. However, only 43% were able
gained various benefits after practicing lean to improve flexibility after implementing it.
manufacturing (as shown in Figure 2). The Based on the results, there is a clear
highest benefit is reduced cost, followed by relationship between lean manufacturing and
improved productivity and reduced waste. productivity.

Figure 2: Benefits of Lean Manufacturing

In order to further verify whether the Table 3: Tools Applied in the Respondent
respondent companies had really embarked Companies
on lean manufacturing, they were asked to Tools and Techniques Overall % Rank
indicate which tools they had implemented 5S 88.64% 1
from a list of 18 tools. As can be seen in Table Kaizen 84.09% 2
3, a majority of them were found to be
Standardized Work 70.45% 3
implementing 5S (88.64%) and Kaizen
PDCA 70.45% 3
(84.09%). This shows that in general, keeping
Poka-Yoke 63.64% 5
the manufacturing plant in order and
Kanban 61.36% 6
maintaining a good housekeeping seem to be
JIT 54.55% 7
the highest priority among the respondents.
TPM 54.55% 7
However, Group Technology (6.82%) was the
One Piece Flow 40.91% 9
least adopted in the silk production industry
TQM 40.91% 9
probably because it demands a large
VSM 36.36% 11
investment in equipment and facilities (White
and Prybutok, 2001). Cellular Layout 34.09% 12

67
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

The tools implemented were also analyzed most implemented tools in the companies that
based on the number of years for which the have practiced lean manufacturing for more
respondent companies have implemented than 10 years. As the companies become
lean manufacturing (see Table 4). The five most more advanced and knowledgeable in this
adopted tools among the beginners in lean field, lean manufacturing is practiced in a wider
manufacturing (less than 5 years of scope involving TPM to prevent the
implementation) were Standardized work, 5S, breakdowns of equipment or facilities.
Kaizen, Kanban, and PDCA. This is According to Herron and Braident (2007), lean
understandable since most of these tools are tools should not be implemented in isolation;
simple techniques which require less time to they were developed for a reason, which was
be planned and implemented. While for the 5 to support an overall strategy. Bhasin and
-10 years implementers, most of them were Burcher (2006) also suggested that it was
implementing 5S, Poka-yoke, Kaizen, JIT, and better to embrace more lean tools rather than
Standardized work. Poka-yoke needs more practicing one or two isolated ones. The
time and funding support because some analysis above shows that the respondent
instruments or jigs and fixtures or even design companies have been implementing various
changes are needed to implement mistake- lean tools concurrently.
proofing features. Likewise, JIT is a long term The obstacles of implementing lean
manufacturing philosophy that would require manufacturing were also investigated. From
the whole organizational system to change. 5S, Figure 3, backsliding to the old ways of
Kaizen, PDCA, TPM and JIT were the five working was the biggest problem, followed

Table 4: Tools Ranking Based on the Number of Years of Lean Manufacturing

Implementation

< 5 Years of Implementation 5-10 Years of Implementation > 10 Years of Implementation

Tools % Tools % Tools %

Standardized Work 82.60% 5S 100.00% 5S 100.00%

5S Kaizen 78.30% Poka-Yoke 100.00% Kaizen 92.30%
Kanban 78.30% Kaizen 87.50% PDCA 76.90%
PDCA 69.60% JIT 87.50% TPM 69.20%
Poka-Yoke 69.60% Standardized Work 75.00% JIT 53.80%
One Piece Flow 60.90% Kanban 62.50% TQM 53.80%
TPM 47.80% PDCA 62.50% Poka-Yoke Kanban 46.20%
JIT 47.80% Andon 50.00% Standardized Work 46.20%
Cellular Layout 43.50% TPM 50.00% Heijunka 46.20%
VSM 39.10% Cellular Layout 37.50% One Piece Flow 30.80%
Heijunka 39.10% SMED 37.50% VSM 30.80%
TQM 34.80% One Piece Flow 37.50% Cellular Layout 30.80%
n = 23 n=8 n = 13

68
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

Figure 3: Obstacles of Implementing Lean Manufacturing

by employee resistance. Therefore, the major determined by calculating the average mean
roadblocks of implementing lean score for each of the key practice areas
manufacturing in the respondent companies mentioned earlier. A higher average mean
seem to be the “people” factor. The value implies a higher degree of
employees reverted to the old ways of implementation. The results are shown in Table
working probably because lean 5. The average mean scores were ranged from
manufacturing initiatives might have burdened 3.174 to 4.250. When the key areas were
them with additional work. Resistance from arranged in order of magnitude, customers
employees might be due to the “fear factor” were shown to be the highest implemented
that they would lose their jobs if they find out area, with an average mean score of 4.250.
that their jobs do not add values, since lean The 2nd highest ranked was management and
manufacturing is about eliminating non value culture (average mean score = 4.114) and the
added activities. Therefore, it is crucial that lowest ranked was product design (average
top management gives ample support as well mean score = 3.174). The variability observed
as job security to the workers to obtain their was almost similar for each of the key areas.
“buy-in”. Lean manufacturing potential
Customers have the highest degree of
benefits should also be made known to all implementation, thus indicating that the
employees to ensure that they are supportive respondent companies were giving the highest
and have a common goal to achieve it.
priority to their clients. Focusing on customers
The primary objective of this research was is a universal aim, as value is determined by
to explore the extent of lean manufacturing them. In fact, lean manufacturing begins with a
implementation in the silk industry in Andhra focus on customers’ desires and an
pradesh. The extent of implementation was organization should drive out activities that do

69
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

Table 5: Average Mean Score and Standard Deviation of Each Key Area

Key Areas Average Mean Std. Deviation Rank

Customers 4.25 0.663 1
Management and Culture 4.114 0.614 2
Safety and Ergonomics 3.871 0.656 3
Material Handling 3.826 0.861 4
Employees 3.773 0.715 5
Work Processes 3.741 0.752 6
Inventory 3.693 0.861 7
Tools and Techniques 3.655 0.762 8
Equipment 3.598 0.894 9
Layout 3.489 0.695 10

not add values from their perspectives. A manufacturing because the overall average
greater customer satisfaction would enable a mean score obtained was 3.658.
larger market share to be obtained (Katayama
Another important area worth exploring was
and Bennett, 1996).
whether there was any significant difference
The high degree of implementation in between SMEs and large companies with
management and culture reveals that most of regard to their level of lean manufacturing
the companies were committed in adopting implementation. A two-sample, non parametric
lean manufacturing. In order to achieve Mann Whitney test was used to compare the
success in the initiative, support from two respondent groups for each of the key
management is crucial. It is also important to areas. The advantage of using a non
create a culture where knowledge associated parametric test is that the data do not
with lean manufacturing is shared across the necessarily need to be normally distributed.
organization. When knowledge is shared, it As shown in Table 6, significant differences
becomes cumulative and embedded within (p < 0.05) were found in a few key areas
an organization’s processes and services namely, scheduling, inventory, work processes,
(Demarest, 1997; and Wong and Aspinwall, employees, safety and ergonomics, and tools
2006). and techniques. Specifically, the average mean
The low adoption of lean manufacturing scores for large organizations were
practices in product design might be due to significantly higher than those for SMEs. This
many of the organizations were contract implies that large companies have
manufacturers and subsidiary companies implemented lean manufacturing practices to
that did not design their product. Therefore, a greater extent than their smaller counterparts
they had no formal system which emphasized in the six key areas above. This is justifiable
on product design. As a whole, the because large companies have more
respondent companies were all “moderate- resources and a broader range of expertise
to-extensive” implementers of lean within their organizations (Doolen and Hacker,

70
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

Table 6: Mann Whitney Test for the Degree of Implementation Between SMEs
and Large Companies

Key Areas SMEs Large Companies p-value Result

Scheduling 3.02 3.66 0.013 Sig.
Inventory 3.43 3.82 0.042 Sig.
Material Handling 3.76 3.86 0.247 Not Sig.
Equipment Work 3.40 3.69 0.342 Not Sig.
Processes Quality 3.27 3.96 0.005 Sig.
Employees 3.05 3.53 0.120 Not Sig.
Layout 3.45 3.93 0.012 Sig.
Suppliers 3.50 3.48 0.937 Not Sig.
Customers 2.90 3.33 0.060 Not Sig.
Safety and Ergonomics 4.26 4.20 0.907 Not Sig.
Product Design Management and 3.50 4.04 0.005 Sig.
Culture Tools and 2.81 3.34 0.086 Not Sig.
Techniques 4.13 3.97 0.630 Not Sig.
3.20 3.79 0.006 Sig.

2005; and Wong, 2005) to deploy these areas

which are more challenging. In addition, large Table 7: Correlation Between
Successfulness and Each of the Key Areas
companies are likely to be overseas
Spearman’s
subsidiaries of multinational companies Key Areas p-value
Coefficient
(Wong, 2008) that have implemented lean
Scheduling 0.591 0.000
manufacturing.
Inventory 0.629 0.000
Ultimately, the respondents were asked to Material Handling 0.514 0.000
rate the degree of successfulness of their lean Equipment 0.606 0.000
manufacturing initiative using a four-point Work Processes 0.701 0.000
scale. Four choices were given which were: Quality 0.598 0.000
not successful, slightly successful, successful, Employees 0.587 0.000
and very successful. Those who selected the Layout 0.420 0.002
last two categories were regarded as Suppliers 0.526 0.000
companies that had successfully implemented
Customers 0.595 0.000
lean manufacturing. In order to test the
Safety and Ergonomics 0.583 0.000
relationships between successfulness and
Product Design 0.522 0.000
each of the key areas, Spearman correlation
Management and Culture 0.452 0.001
tests were performed. As can be seen in Table
Tools and Techniques 0.601 0.000
7, all the p values are less than 0.05, thus
implying that there is a significant relationship individual key areas. Since all the correlation
between successfulness and each of the coefficients are positive, it can be concluded

71
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

that as the level of implementation in any of is shown that the respondent companies are
the areas increases, there is a corresponding “moderate-to-extensive” adopters of these key
improvement in the success of lean areas, but the degree of implementation varies
manufacturing. among organizations. Large companies are
found to have implemented a few areas more
Hence, all the 14 key areas need to be
rigorously as compared to SMEs. In addition,
emphasized and none of them should be
statistical analysis shows that individually, each
neglected or overlooked in order to transform
of the 14 key areas has a significant positive
an organization into an effective lean enterprise.
relationship with the success of lean
In essence, they represent a comprehensive list
manufacturing. Therefore, companies in the
of factors for organizations to deal with when
silk production industry need to give attention
adopting lean manufacturing. This list helps to
to the implementation of all the key areas from
ensure that all the relevant issues are covered
a holistic perspective. It is hoped that the
when companies are planning and
information accrued from this article will trigger
implementing a lean manufacturing initiative. It
more studies to be conducted in lean
also provides a common framework for
manufacturing.
academics and practitioners to understand and
develop the discipline. REFERENCES
1. Abdulmalek F A and Rajgopal J (2007),
CONCLUSION
“Analyzing the Benefits of Lean
This paper has provided important insights into Manufacturing and Value Stream Mapping
the current status of lean manufacturing Via Simulation: A Process Sector Case
implementation in the silk production industry Study”, International Journal of
in Andhra pradesh, as well as highlighted some Production Economics, Vol. 107,
associated issues. Firstly, the respondent pp. 223-236.
companies’ general backgrounds (e.g., their
2. Åhlström P (1998), “Sequences in the
size, their involvement in lean manufacturing,
Implementation of Lean Production”,
etc.) have been discussed. The companies are
European Management Journal, Vol. 16,
found to have a good understanding of lean
pp. 327-334.
manufacturing, and since its implementation,
they have gained many benefits such as 3. Ahmed S and Hassan M (2003), “Survey
reduced cost and improved productivity. It is and Case Investigation on Application of
also apparent that the companies have Quality Management Tools and
implemented various tools and techniques to Techniques in SMIs”, International Journal
support lean manufacturing, and they do not of Quality and Reliability Management,
adopt a single tool in isolation. In order to Vol. 20, pp. 795-826.
assess the extent to which they have 4. Bhasin S and Burcher P (2006), “Lean
implemented lean manufacturing, 14 key areas Viewed as a Philosophy”, Journal of
or factors which comprehensively characterize Manufacturing Technology
the discipline have been evaluated. Overall, it Management, Vol. 17, pp. 57-72.

72
Int. J. Mech. Eng. & Rob. Res. 2013 Y Sujatha and K Prahlada Rao, 2013

5. Cua K, McKone K and Schroeder R G Dimensions”, International Journal of

(2001), “Relationships Between Operations and Production
Implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and Management, Vol. 16, pp. 63-76.
Manufacturing Performance”, Journal of
11. Hayes R H and Pisano G P (1994),
Operations Management, Vol. 19,
“Beyond W orld Class: The New
pp. 675-694.
Manufacturing Strategy”, Harvard
6. Davis T (1993), “Effective Supply Chain Business Review, January-February,
Management”, Sloan Management pp. 77-86.
Review, Vol. 34, pp. 35-45.
12. Heizer J and Render B (2006),
7. Demarest M (1997), “Understanding
Operations Management, 8th Edition,
Knowledge Management”, Long Range
Pearson Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
Planning, Vol. 30, pp. 374-384.
River, New Jersey.
8. Doolen T L and Hacker M E (2005), “A
13. Helper S (1991), “How Much has Really
Review of Lean Assessment in
Changed Between US Automakers and
Organizations: An Exploratory Study of
Lean Practices by Electronics their Suppliers?”, Sloan Management
Manufacturers”, Journal of Manufacturing Review, Vol. 15 (Summer), pp. 15-28.
Systems, Vol. 24, pp. 55-67. 14. Heragu S S (1997), Facilities Design,
9. Forza C (1996), “Work Organization in PWS Publishing Company, Boston, MA.
Lean Production and Traditional Plants, 15. Herron C and Braident P M (2007),
What are the Differences?”, International “Defining the Foundation of Lean
Journal of Operations & Production Manufacturing in the Context of its Origins
Management, Vol. 16, pp. 42-62. (Japan)”, Proceedings of the IET
10. Harrison A and Storey J (1996), “New International Conference on Agile
Wave Manufacturing Strategies, Manufacturing (ICAM 2007), pp. 148-157,
Operational, Organizational and Human United Kingdom.

73