Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 270 275

49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (CIRP-CMS 2016)

A Proposal Simulation Method towards Continuous Improvement in

Discrete Manufacturing
Victor Emmanuel de Oliveira Gomesa,b, Luis Gonzaga Trabassoa*
a
Technological Institute of Aeronautics, So Jos dos Campos, Brazil
b
SENAI Institute of Technology in Metal Mechanics, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +0-000-000-0000 ; fax: +0-000-000-0000. E-mail address: (victor; gonzaga)@ita.br; victoreog@fiemg.com.br

Abstract

In kaizen improvement projects, the stages of analysis, and application of the proposed improvements are often a trial-and-error cycle carried
out by direct experimentation. This feature is a major source of uncertainty in resource dimensioning. This paper presents the design and
development of a sequence of activities that emphasizes the application of simulation capabilities as a tool to aid the continuous improvement
process at discrete manufacturing, in the context of the Lean Manufacturing approach.
2016
2015TheTheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier B.V.is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
B.V. This
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems (CIRP-CMS 2016).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
Keywords: kaizen improvement projects; discrete manufacturing; discrete event simulation.

1. Introduction
This work seeks to systematize the analysis for layout
modifications carried out during kaizen events in discrete
manufacturing companies. A method is proposed to execute
the process of discrete event simulation (DES) inserted into
kaizen activities.
Discrete manufacturing companies need often a flexible
manufacturing system that can develop quality and time-to-
market according to product demand fluctuations. These
requirements imply regular analyses in current production
processes to generate improvements related to costs or
operational practices, which can result in facility layout
modifications. A lot of companies have chosen to apply
changes in their shop floor by means of Kaizen events which
are characterized, in part, by direct experimentation and trial-
and-error cycles. Therefore, occasionally there are mistakes to
predict the behavior of future states.
Traditionally, the use of kaizen has assisted improvements
in production systems. However, when it is applied to more
complex problems, with greater amount of data to be
analyzed, some negative factors are highlighted [1.2]:
x Kaizen teams are not always knowledgeable about the
process under study or are not prepared for analysis of
complex processes;
x Variation must be addressed, both random and structural;
x Data must be fully analyzed to help understand the random
nature of system behavior;
x The interaction between system components must be
assessed;
x The future state must be validated before it is implemented
to minimize or eliminate the period of trial and error
adjustments;
x Alternatives to the future state must be systematically
identified and considered.
The mentioned factors are substantially related to the
knowledge of the process and precisely to the management
and analysis of data associated with the behavior of a
production system. This analysis can be done by means of
collaborative tools for manufacturing environment simulation,
since these tools are attached to the practices applied by the
corporation. In this context, the main contribution of this

2212-8271 2016 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 49th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.047
 Victor Emmanuel de Oliveira Gomes and Luis Gonzaga Trabasso / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 270 275
paper is on the systematic merging of a traditional discrete
event simulation method with the kaizen event method.
2. Related work
Some of difficulties regarding the use of Lean
Manufacturing approach are related to the planning towards
the effective implementation [3,4]. For this reason, simulation
tools have been used to support systems specifications for
manufacturing improvement in order to give greater
effectiveness for analysis of resource utilization on production
layout modifications.
Standridge & Marvel [1] approach the use of simulation in
kaizen projects and claim that the future state layout must be
validated through simulation before an improvement
implementation plan, in order to minimize or eliminate
periods of trial and error adjustments. Kumar & Phrommathed
[5] have applied discrete events simulation by means of
popular software tools to examine a paper sheet cutting
operation. The re-designed operation has resulted in setup
time reduction and productivity increased. Grimard et al. [6]
describe the validation of a future state of a re-designed
injector calibration work cell using a deterministic simulation.
The simulation results were used to refine initial estimates of
throughput and validate worker movement in the cell.
The works [1] [5] and [6] have used the method described
by Banks et al. [7] and Kelton et al. [8], applied for analysis
of future state in production systems. They report a better
evaluation and increase in the effectiveness of planning for
modifications by the use of DES. However, there is no
formalized routine for the integration of processes
improvement and simulation activities.
Khalil et al [9] proposed a routine for implementations of
improvements by means of DES intended to increase the
amount of potentials solutions generated towards the future
state of a production system. Nevertheless, roles and activities
were not assigned to kaizen team members, which have
prominent importance in improvement process [10].
Although closely related to this paper, there are some
important differences between these approaches and the
problem approached herein. These works use simulation tools
often under the domain of digital manufacturing experts, but
without leverage the companys collective knowledge, which
is so emblematic in the process improvement approaches.
A common problem faced by many companies looking to
employ simulation tools into manufacturing process is to
obtain the information that their users really need. [11]. In this
context, the effective use of these tools is related to
standardization of procedures of own corporate system. The
kaizen process is one of these procedures already applied in
many discrete manufacturing corporations and establishes an
opportunity of obtaining standard information needed by
simulation tools users and, consequently, their joint use can
help employers adhere to use of simulation tools.
Compared with [1], [5], [6] e [9], a differential approach in
this article is the formalization and a detailed description of a
method for more accurate diagnoses of future states during
kaizen events. The proposed method inserts discrete event
simulation routine into kaizen activities.
271
3. Simulation Process
Simulation is an experimental process which uses a
detailed model of a real system to determine responses to
changes caused in its structure, environments and boundary
[12]. A simulation analysis changes according to the type of
system analyzed and may be continuous or discrete. Discrete
event simulation is suitable for problems in which variables
change in discrete times and by discrete steps. On the other
hand, continuous simulation is suitable for systems in which
the variables can change continuously [8].
The automotive industries have increasingly used the
simulation as a prominent decision support tool. Most makes
use of discrete-event simulation (DES) to model manufacture
systems and analyze issues related to factory layout, process
flow, material handling systems, capacity planning, utilization
of manpower, investment in new equipment, production and
logistics scheduling [14].
The development of a computer program is just one of the
many activities of a simulation process. For this to be
successful, other activities should be followed. This set of
activities or process is known in the literature as simulation
methodology or lifecycle of a simulation model [7.8].
4. Simulation aided continuous improvement - MAPS
The term "kaizen event" is used to indicate a limited time
period where are realized identification and implementation of
improvements [15]. In a typical Kaizen Blitz project, a cross-
functional multilevel team of 6 to 12 members works
intensely, 12 to 14 hours a day, to rapidly develop, test, and
refine solutions to problems and leave a new process in place
in just a few days. [10].
The method developed in this work, called MAPS -
Melhoria Auxiliada por Simulaco (Simulation Aided
Improvement), has routines of a simulation process inserted in
Kaizen activities, with the purpose of increasing the level of
knowledge about the stages of Kaizen event process and
improve the decision making for modifications of factory
layout. The method MAPS contemplates the approach of
continuous improvement when it is considering that at one
point in the Future State becomes the Current State and
emphasizes the application of simulation capabilities in the
step to implement improvements, which traditionally occurs
on the third day of the event kaizen .
The MAPS considers that the corporation has already
defined the sector in which the project for improvement
application will be made. It is also considered that the kaizen
team is already formed and contains a simulation analyst, who
is responsible for setting the measurement team and the model
validation team within the team kaizen. The MAPS consists
of four steps:
x Step 1 Define the Project;
x Step 2 Current-State Analysis;
x Step 3 Computational Modeling;
x Step 4 Future-State Analysis.
272 Victor Emmanuel de Oliveira Gomes and Luis Gonzaga Trabasso / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 270 275
Fig. 1. MAPS (Simulation Aided Improvement).
4.1. Define the project
The first step is to define the project. Occur, necessarily,
the following activities: Description of the analyzed system;
Setting dates and procedures for application design
improvement; Definition of the goals of the simulation;
Presentation of project performance indicators; Setting the
Model validation team and measurement team.
The system description is taken by kaizen team leader, and
should contain characteristics, as productive resources,
provision of resources, number of operators, shifts etc.
Two members from kaizen team (necessarily, people who
know the production system under analysis) form the model
validation team along with the simulation analyst. Besides,
the measurement team is de-fined, in order to acquire data
from the shop floor.
4.2. Current-State Analysis
In this step the kaizen team goes to the shop-floor (Gemba
kaizen) to map the process and identify waste. This step
guides the current state mapping and provides data to the
conceptual modeling. It has three different activities, which
are described below:
x Process Mapping: The simulation analyst is responsible for
acquire information about the process, such as production
sequence, area, distances and relationship between
operations. This information, which represents a
description for the current state, is represented by means of
flowchart and the manufacturing floor plan. This mapping
also assists in obtaining the conceptual model, developed
by simulation analyst. The models developed are validated
by the model validation team, still during the activity.
x Identify opportunities for improvement: The kaizen team is
in charge of activities to identify opportunities for
improvement in the productive system under analysis.
Each waste is described, filmed (when necessary),
documented and presented to the kaizen team. After
analyzing the waste and make suggestions for
improvement, a plan of action shall be drawn.
x Collect operational data: Measurements are made by the
team of measurement. Probabilistic data collection (time of
supply, cycle times of machining operations, among
others) is supervised by the simulation analyst. He is also
responsible for the processing of data collected
(cronoanalysis results) and statistical inference.
4.3. Computational Modeling
After validate and verify the conceptual model, the
simulation analyst elaborates the computational model by
means of simulation software. Operational data collected are
analyzed through specific tools (e.g. DataFit, Minitab, Excel)
or other available simulation packages. Afterwards the
application of computer modeling software, the simulation is
performed and the results are validated by the validation team
models. The validation of the computational model is a
continuous process, which follows the entire life cycle of the
improvement project.
4.4. Analyze the Future State
This step uses the information gathered in the previous
steps to simulate experimental models and, with the kaizen
team, set the template for the Future State of the productive
system analyzed. It consists of the following activities.
x Conduct Experiments: This activity is characterized by the
development of computational models that meet the
requirements for the future state model of the production
system. From the information obtained in previous stages
or in corporation history, if any, the model validation team
defines models (as needed) to be analyzed with the kaizen
team during a workshop.
x Perform Workshop: This activity is characterized by
meetings organized by kaizen team for analysis and
improvement proposals, which will be implemented in the
simulation environment. The moderator of this workshop
should be part of the model validation team. Basically, this
workshop activities are developed in the following
sequence: Introduction, analysis of the current situation,
development of possible solutions; documentation.
The models suggested are presented by the model
validation team, containing a comparison of simulation results
between the model of the Current State and the models
suggested for the Future State. Subsequently, possible
 Victor Emmanuel de Oliveira Gomes and Luis Gonzaga Trabasso / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 270 275 273

complementary solutions are developed by kaizen team, and if x Modification of bench arrangement.
there is new information from the improvement actions (e.g.
reducing the operations cycle time), these are documented to The results on the machines usage in the current state and
be implemented in the computational model chosen for the future state (F-S) were presented in terms of working, waiting
Future State. and blocked rates, and are illustrated in Figure 2. A significant
change stands out in the working rate allocated to OP20,
x Define Future State: After the final definition of the model which influenced the behavior of the subsequent operations.
for the Future State, the changes suggested in the
workshop are implemented in the computational model, as
well as the new information from the improvement actions.
Finally, the simulation results of the Future State are
compared with the results for the Current State.
Furthermore, the performance indicators are analyzed and
presented.

5. Case Studies

To check the feasibility, applicability, usability and

limitations of MAPS, it was applied to corporations operating
in the automotive manufacturing industry, using kaizen events
to implement improvements in their processes. Computational Fig. 2. Production resources usage rates for current and future states (F-S).
models were produced using Tecnomatix Plant Simulation TM
software and analyses of occupation of production resources The possibility of an operator removal from the
were performed in a DataFit from the same application. manufacturing cell, previously found in kaizen, was ratified
The Case Study-A emphasizes the comparison between the by the simulation results. It is observed that, in Figure 6, the
results of the improvement modifications obtained through transport time of operator 3 in operation 30 has decreased.
MAPS, with results obtained in a kaizen process without this This occurred due to the approach of benches and treadmills.
aid. The Case Study-B shows a layout modification performed As a result of an operator removal in the new layout, there
in the same company in a similar manufacturing cell, and was an increase in the waiting and blocked time rate for
highlights the use of historical data and best practices of operations 40/50, inspection and cleaning, besides an increase
kaizen simulated by MAPS. in the transporting time rate of operator 4.
At the end of the future state simulation, the productive
5.1. Case Study A capacity of the manufacturing cell increased by approximately
30%. The production efficiency of the operators also
The system is a manufacturing cell (MC) that monthly increased, as shown in Figure 3.
produces 7152 auto parts machined in pairs (right and left) by
six machines, and transported by five operators with the help
of treadmills. There are three work shifts daily, totaling 15
operators per day (figure XX).
The model validation and measurement teams were formed
by the kaizen leader and the specific goals for the kaizen
event were defined as:

x Free up one operator for other activities;

x Improve the productive capacity by 30 %.

The schedule established by the model validation team

lasted ten days between the phases Set Design and Analyze
the Future State, forecasted in MAPS. After the steps of
Fig. 3. Rates of parts manufactured monthly (current and future states).
process mapping, data collection and identification of
opportunities for improvement, a computational model was
Traditionally, at the end of the fifth day of kaizen events an
developed from the Current State, and then validated by the
analysis of benefits is performed to compare the current state
models validation team. The future state models were
to the estimated future state. This analysis is based on
analyzed during the workshop referred in MAPS, and the
indicators of system performance and verifies the influence of
changes made in the current state model of the MC, as shown
the proposed changes. Furthermore, it serves to justify
in Figure 4, were:
investment of resources. However, treatment of the time
variable for the analysis of the MCs resource behavior
x Modification of material flow direction;
influences directly in the estimated results.
x Modification of operations 20 and 30 sequence;
274 Victor Emmanuel de Oliveira Gomes and Luis Gonzaga Trabasso / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 270 275
When using mean times for machine processing and
operator handling, variations derived from randomness in the
system behavior are not considered. Consequently, the results
of the estimates for the MCs future state may present
significant differences. This means that it can estimate gains
that are not real. This case study illustrates this type of
occurrence, and confirms that the results obtained by
computer simulation are closer to the behavior of the real
system than those obtained by calculations in spreadsheets.
The Table 1 details this aspect. The initial data of kaizen
event, corresponding to the current state of the manufacturing
cell, and also data of parts production for the future state are
presented. The data called conventional were obtained by
calculations in spreadsheets, the simulated data were obtained
through the simulation process, using the method proposed in
this paper.
Table 1. Comparison of estimated capacity increase for future state.
Production Amount Productive
(parts/ of capacity
month) operators (parts/H
(H) x (3 month)
shifts)
Initial data 7152 15 476
Conventional 8333 12 694
Simulated 7405 12 617
It is observed that the results estimated by the conventional
method, without simulation, indicate an increase in production
capacity by 46% for the future state. If compared with the
results estimated by MAPS, with the help of simulation, the
increase in production capacity is expected to be 30%. Errors
in the assessment of the future state can lead to misguided
investments. Whereas the simulation minimizes these errors,
the great difference in the results of this comparison shows
the limitation of evaluation in decision making for changes in
kaizen processes, when simulation tools are not used.
For this case study, the difference in results can be
considered punctual, as this work was carried out only for one
manufacturing cell. However, the greater the complexity of
the real system, in other words, the larger the number of
components of the production system (manufacturing cells)
and their interactions, the larger the errors caused by the
random behavior of their resources (machines, operators,
conveyors) will be, both in simulation processes and
estimation by spreadsheets.
Because it is a process of continuous improvement,
restrictions and waste will be identified over time to increase
the productive efficiency of the MC. The computational
models used for this MC will serve as references for new
changes in the same MC and for similar MCs, and the data
acquired will remain in the database of simulated models.
Thus, the next kaizen events may contain much more
information, resulting in greater efficiency in the
improvement process and faster kaizen event.
5.2. Case Study B
The case study B was conducted in a manufacturing cell
(MC) presented in Figure 4 which produces two types of
similar automotive parts (Part type-A and Part type- B),
machined in pairs.
Parts type-B are produced by machines on the left, as
represented in figure 8, while type-A parts are produced by
the machines on the right. Both sides present the OP10
(Operation 10), OP20, OP30, OP40/50, OP60 and OP70. Just
OP80, visual inspection, it is common to both. The MC has a
total of 10 operators.
The schedule established by the model validation team
lasted 20 days and the specific objectives of the kaizen event
were defined as:
x Provide 30% of manpower for other activities;
x Provide a machining center (OP20/30) to another sector of
Productive the company;
capacity x Increase production capacity by 40%.
increase
-
46%
30%
Fig. 4. case study B Current state layout.
Upon completion of the data collection activity, the current
state's computational model is designed to be subsequently
validated by the model validation team. Figure 10 shows a
screenshot of this model. He assisted to visual verification of
bottlenecks and its effects on the capacity, and served as a
reference for the elaboration of the model of the future state.
The proposed changes by MAPS workshop were modeled
and simulated after the current state model validation. These
changes are listed and illustrated in Figure 11, according to
the numerical order shown below:
1. Remove a machining center of OP20 and OP30;
2. Replace machine OP10 (type-A);
3. Install mats on the side to reduce risk and beats;
4. Modify machine placement of OP40 and OP50 to decrease
movement of operators and allow an operator to occupy
more than one workstation;
5. Insert the OP60 (inspection 1) and the OP70 (inspection 1)
at OP80.
 Victor Emmanuel de Oliveira Gomes and Luis Gonzaga Trabasso / Procedia CIRP 57 (2016) 270 275
A comparison between the current state and future state is
presented in Table 2. At the end of kaizen, their goals were
met. An observation made six months after modification
layout indicated a decrease in the rate of scrap parts by 60%.
Regarding the method MAPS, using data from
computational models performed for the case study A helped
in the development of algorithms used in computational
models of the case study B. This reduced the time for
development of computational models.
Table 2. Productive capacity comparison between current state and future
state.
Product Current Future
Type State State
Productive capacity Type-A 417 701
(parts/H month)
Type-B 436 552
Type-A+ 853 1253
Type-B
Amount of operators Type-A+ 11 7 36%
(H) Type-B
6. Conclusions
This work achieved the objective to systematize the
application of simulation into continuous improvement
process on the shop floor, using a method that formalizes
simulation activities in conjunction with the kaizen tasks.
The case studies highlighted the importance of the use of
simulation techniques applied to support the continuous
improvement process. The main positive factor of method
MAPS is to increase the level of knowledge of the behavior of
the analyzed system. The use of probabilistic data considers
the random behavior of the real system and can avoid gross
errors in estimating earnings improvements. The comparison
of the results of kaizen with deterministic and probabilistic
data, shown in case study 1, illustrates this situation.
It is emphasized that historical data and computational
models from MAPS can be used in future analyses. This fact
minimize the time to develop new similar computational
models to the same company.
The access to information is the main limitation of MAPS.
When the simulation analyst is not familiar with the real
system analyzed, there is more time spent with the modeling
process and the possibility of errors in this activity. Access to
historical data on the operation of systems is an important
factor for the time taken to validation activity and
computational modeling.
If the mapping of all the company's processes becomes a
common practice, along with the creation of a data base (with
275
input and output data) for computational models, simulation
processes to aid in modifying layouts will be faster and more
efficient, and consequently improvement projects will be
more effective.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank FAPEMIG (Minas Gerais State
Foundation for Research Development) for the financial
support.
References
Gains
[1] STANDRIDGE, C.R.; MARVEL, J.H. 2006. Why Lean Needs
67% Simulation. In: Winter Simulation Conference, Piscataway, Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, p. 1907-1913.2006.
[2] OLIVEIRA, C. S. Aplicao de Tcnicas de Simulao em Projetos de
26%
Manufatura Enxuta. Estudos Tecnolgicos - Vol. 4, n 3: 204-217. 2008.
46% [3] WOMACK, J.P.; JONES, D.T. A mentalidade enxuta nas empresas. 3
ed., Rio de Janeiro, Campus, 408 p. 2004.
[4] Ibrahim A. Rawabdeh, (2005),"A model for the assessment of waste in
job shop environments", International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 25 Iss: 8 pp. 800 822.
[5] KUMAR, S., PHROMMATHED, P. Improving a manufacturing process
by mapping and simulation of critical operations. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(1), 104-132. 2006.
[6] GRIMARD, C.; MARVEL, J.H.; STANDRIDGE, C.R. Validation of The
Re-Design of a Manufacturing Work Cell Using Simulation. In: Winter
Simulation Conference, Piscatawa, p.1386-1391. 2005.
[7] BANKS, J.; CARSON, J.; NELSON, B. Discrete-event system
simulation. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996.
[8] KELTON, W. D., SADOWSKI, R. P., SADOWSKI, D. A.Simulation
with ARENA. 3 Ed, New York, McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. 2004.
[9] KHALIL, R., KANG, P., STOCKTON, D. Integration of Discrete Event
Simulation with an Automated Problem Identification, IMECS
(International Multi-Conference of Engineers and Computer Scientists),
Hong Kong. 2010.
[10] MIKA, G.L. Kaizen Event Implementation Manual, Kaizen Sensei,
Wake Forest, NC. 2002.
[11] DE CARLI, P.C.; DELAMARO, F.C.; SALOMON, V.A.P.
Identificao e Priorizao dos Fatores Crticos de Sucesso na
Implantao de Fbrica Digital, Revista Produo. So Paulo. 2010.
[12] HARREL, Charles R.; MOTT, Jack R. A.; BATEMAN, Robert E.
BOWDEN, Royce G. GOGG, Thomas J. Simulao: Otimizando
sistemas. 2. ed. So Paulo, SP: Instituto IMAM. 134 p. 2002.
[13] BERTRAND, J. W. M.; FRANSOO, J. C. Modeling and simulation:
operations management research methodologies using quantitative
modeling. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
v. 22, n. 2, p. 241-264, 2002.
[14] KUEHN, W. Digital factory: integration of simulation enhancing the
product and production process towards operative control and
optimization. International Journal of Simulation, v. 7, n. 7, p. 27-29,
2006.
[15] SNCHEZ, A. M., PREZ, M. "Lean indicators and manufacturing
strategies", International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 21 Iss: 11, pp.1433 1452, 2001.