Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

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

Improving productivity in Indian SMEs

Alok Mathur , M.L. Mittal & Govind Sharan Dangayach

To cite this article: Alok Mathur , M.L. Mittal & Govind Sharan Dangayach (2012) Improving
productivity in Indian SMEs, Production Planning & Control, 23:10-11, 754-768, DOI:
10.1080/09537287.2011.642150

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2011.642150

Published online: 09 Jan 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 676

Citing articles: 27 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20
Production Planning & Control
Vol. 23, Nos. 10–11, October–November 2012, 754–768

Improving productivity in Indian SMEs

Alok Mathur*, M.L. Mittal and Govind Sharan Dangayach
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur, India
(Received in final form 10 November 2011)

The manufacturing environment is now so competitive that the companies must not only continuously improve
their performance, but also do it faster than others. Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) significantly
contribute to the industrial output of an economy, and must be competitive for the national economy to be
competitive in this era of international business. With almost all productivity improvement (PI) tools requiring a
working knowledge of statistics, the Indian SME manager with his semi-literate workforce with little or no
technical and mathematical training needs a simple and heuristic PI tool that addresses his particular needs. This
article proposes a simple scheduling heuristic to improve productivity quickly and effectively and demonstrates
its application and benefits through a case study in a spring manufacturing SME.
Keywords: productivity improvement; SME; world-class manufacturing; lean manufacturing

1. Introduction and inputs that include labour, capital, material and

Today’s manufacturing environment is getting increas-
ingly competitive than ever before, and manufacturing
companies are under increasingly diverse and mount-
ing pressures due to more sophisticated markets,
changing customer choice and global competition
(Dangayach and Deshmukh 2003). Indian industry,
too, is facing competition both from imports and
multinational companies in the domestic markets. The
globalised environment requires that manufacturers
have multiple competencies such as quality, delivery,
flexibility and cost (Dangayach and Deshmukh 2001).
In the manufacturing industry, efficient and effective
management of resources and operations is an essential
element in maintaining the competitive edge, and
companies need to pay attention to this important
aspect. Productivity improvement (PI) is increasingly
recognised and adopted by manufacturing firms as a
competitive strategy.
1.1. Productivity
Productivity is a concept as old as the industry itself. It
has been variously understood, defined, modified,
updated and modernised with the evolution of the
manufacturing function. In the context of manufactur-
ing industries, productivity measures the relationship
between output such as goods and services produced,
other resources. By ‘resources’, we mean all human and
physical resources, i.e. the people who produce the
goods or provide the services, and the assets with
which the people can produce the goods or provide the
services (Bernolak 1997). Production of more or better
goods from the same resources or production of same
goods from lesser resources results in increased pro-
ductivity. In mathematical terms, productivity may be
defined as the ratio of total output to total input.
Naturally, every manufacturing organisation is con-
cerned about productivity. As a result, productivity
and PI are assuming increasing significance as com-
petitive strategies for manufacturing organisations.
The Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) form
the backbone of Manufacturing Sector not only in this
country but also in the developed countries. In India,
the SMEs contribute to 45% of industrial output, 40%
of exports, employ 60 million people, create 1.3 million
jobs every year and produce more than 8000 quality
products for the Indian and international markets. The
contribution of Indian SMEs towards GDP was 17%
in 2009 which is expected to increase to 22% by 2012
(Small and Medium Business Development Chamber
of India 2011). Therefore, ensuring the competitiveness
of SME sector is important as it would help in overall
growth of Manufacturing Sector as well as the
National Economy. Globalisation provides both
opportunities and challenges for the SMEs. In a

*Corresponding author. Email: ashoom@gmail.com

ISSN 0953–7287 print/ISSN 1366–5871 online

ß 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2011.642150
http://www.tandfonline.com
 Production Planning & Control
situation where the protection through tariffs is rapidly
decreasing, the SMEs have to improve their compet-
itiveness to survive. Opportunities to grow in a global
market place are available to those SMEs which are
able to access entry into the global value chain by
virtue of their being internationally competitive. The
others would need to reposition themselves and
become competitive to meet the challenges if they
have to survive (National Strategy for Manufacturing
2006).
It is amply clear that the competitive enterprise, an
enterprise which has learned the lessons of global
competition, will be able to give a run to other
businesses in the domestic market also.
Consequently, domestic business will face the same
challenges. It follows that achieving global competi-
tiveness is important for all enterprises, whether they
wish to operate globally, or within the domestic market
only. Therefore, improved productivity and enhanced
competitiveness is becoming increasingly important for
the Indian SME.
1.2. Productivity improvement
Several strategies are available for improving produc-
tivity in a manufacturing organisation, and these are
continuously being researched, refined, adapted,
upgraded and modernised with the development of
new models of business as a result of the information
revolution. The journey began with mass manufactur-
ing – the breaking down of complex skilled work
practices into small elements capable of being per-
formed by unskilled labour with repetitive, though
monotonous, efficiency. Most of the production sys-
tems today are based on this mass manufacturing
concept attributed to Henry Ford. And there is the
other philosophy of lean manufacturing attributed to
the Toyota Motor Company, and known as the
Toyota Manufacturing System (TMS). TMS embodies
lean principles, known earlier as just-in-time (JIT).
Lean manufacturing is a suite of tools devised to
achieve PI through the identification and elimination
of waste in the manufacturing process. It relies on
reduction of inventory to expose the bottlenecks and
problem areas for improvement. The lean manufactur-
ing paradigm introduced a shift from a cost-driven
production focus to a quality-driven production focus.
This is evident in the many continual quality improve-
ment (QI) programmes that are associated with this
paradigm and the underlying principle that quality is
the main source of problems for productivity because
poor quality products or parts will result in reworks/
scraps that propagate down the production process
755
which incur unnecessary production resources (Lee
et al. 2006). These non-value adding activities are
referred to as waste and are addressed by the QI
programmes seen in the paradigm.
Several problem-solving tools have been refined in
order to identify and solve the problems so revealed.
The solution tools have been further targeted to iden-
tify the root cause of the problem instead of just the
immediately apparent reason, so as to fix not merely the
symptom, but the root cause of the problem to eliminate
its recurrence and thus secure sustained improvement.
Hayes and Wheelwright (1984) first coined the term
‘world-class manufacturing (WCM)’ and suggested
that a company could achieve superior performance
by adopting a set of best practices under the WCM
umbrella. WCM includes the best practices, inter alia,
in the fields of lean manufacturing, quality improve-
ment and supply chain management. Many researchers
have noted the growing number of WCM tools under
the lean manufacturing and quality improvement
umbrellas, as well as the supply chain management
(SCM) and enterprise resource planning (ERP) tools
for enterprise-wide co-ordination and improvement.
There are over 100 lean tools available and ‘there is no
way systematically to link a manufacturing organisa-
tion to its problems and to the possible tools to
eliminate these problems’ (Pavnascar et al. 2003). It is
difficult for the manufacturing manager to decide on
which tool to use in any particular situation. It has also
been highlighted in the literature that it is essential to
identify an appropriate improvement strategy/tool
consistent with the company’s needs and capabilities
to avoid the risk of failure. Some of the important tools
are briefly discussed in succeeding paragraphs.
1.3. Lean manufacturing
Lean manufacturing focuses on identifying and elim-
inating waste, thus releasing resources from hidden
wasteful activities or misutilisation. It is also known as
pull manufacturing, flow manufacturing, the Toyota
production system, or JIT manufacturing. These tech-
niques were initiated and perfected during the 1950s by
the Japanese, more specifically by the Toyota
Manufacturing Company. Initial efforts to implement
JIT in the US often resulted in only limited success due
to the ‘me too’ way in which it was often initially
implemented. Originally misunderstood as ‘inventory
reduction’, lean manufacturing is now recognised as a
philosophy of continuous improvement and increased
flexibility aimed at improved customer service and
satisfaction. Lean manufacturing is made up of several
tools and techniques, which are used together as
756 A. Mathur et al.
continuous improvement devices to identify and elim-
inate waste while increasing flexibility. Some of these
tools and techniques include value stream mapping, 5S
workplace organisation, total productive maintenance,
set-up reduction (SUR), Kanban and pull production
methods, cellular manufacturing, visual signals and
process standardisation.
1.4. QI tools
Several tools based on simple statistics are available for
quality and productivity improvement. Through the use
of statistics, management is better able to gain an
understanding of the system, and therefore make
informed decisions in regard to improving the system.
These tools include statistical process control (SPC)
techniques, process capability analysis, Pareto dia-
grams, cause-and-effect diagrams, continuous improve-
ment teams, Poka Yoke, etc. SPC uses control charts
and process capability studies to control the variability
in the manufacturing process. Control charts, con-
structed by plotting the output of a process on a graph,
provide a visual presentation of the variation in the
process enabling easy detection of trends and changes
within the process. While preparation of control charts
requires manpower trained in basic statistics, the moni-
toring becomes fairly simple with automatic measuring
and display when the operator himself can monitor the
process and consult the supervisor when in doubt.
Process capability studies are used to determine the
ability of a process to meet specification. When a
process does not meet specifications, it might be
possible to bring the process into specification by
making adjustments to the process. On the other
hand, if the process is inherently not capable to meet
the desired specifications, defects will be produced no
matter how the process average might be adjusted, and
it may be necessary to improve the process and may
require rebuilding or replacing equipment, more uni-
form quality of incoming material or better trained or
better skilled manpower. Cp and Cpk are two common
measures of process capability. Cp is a ratio, which
equals six standard deviations of the measured output
divided by the tolerance range. Cpk is similar to Cp
except that it takes into account the fact that many
processes are not adjusted so that the output mean is
centred between the specification limits. Pareto dia-
grams are based on the idea of the 80/20 Pareto
principle, which states that ‘80% of the problems
(nonconformities or defects) are created by 20% of
the causes’. Creating a histogram, and then rearranging
the factors in descending order, gives a Pareto diagram
and automatically provides a visual representation of
the causes in a decreasing order of importance. By
identifying and focusing on the important 20%, man-
agement is able to focus efforts where the greatest
impact can be achieved. While a Pareto diagram serves
to highlight the critical problems, it is not per se an
improvement tool. Cause-and-effect diagram, also
known as fishbone diagram or an Ishikawa diagram
after its inventor, is used while brainstorming to list all
possible causes of a problem to locate the root cause of
the problem. Poka yoke or mistake proofing is a method
of designing parts and processes in ways that make it
impossible to make mistakes. Quality improvement
directly contributes to productivity by reducing pro-
duction of rejects.
1.5. Obstacles to lean production and quality
improvement techniques for SMEs
Small manufacturers experience difficultly during
implementation of lean production and quality
improvement techniques. The reasons are (Johnson
2001) given as follows:
. Implementation of lean manufacturing
requires expertise, which often does not exist
within small organisations.
. Managers at small companies are forced to
wear many hats, which limits their ability to
become experts on individual topics.
. Insufficient expertise, unfortunately often
results in ad hoc adoption of individual
practices, but failure to establish the system-
wide philosophy and culture necessary to
support the practices.
. Lack of expertise could be overcome through
the use of outside consulting, but this option is
often not a possibility due to financial
constraints.
. Mostly small manufacturers are preoccupied
fighting fires, which should have been
prevented.
All these characteristics, common to most small
manufacturers, create fear of change making imple-
mentation of lean manufacturing even more difficult.
Small manufacturers face many of the same obstacles
during the implementation of a quality improvement
programme. Because of their size they are likely to
struggle with financial, technical and time constraints.
1.6. WCM and the small Indian industry
Implementation of supply-chain integration, lean
manufacturing and quality improvement is difficult
 Production Planning & Control
for any company. Small manufacturers in partic-
ular face unique challenges in this respect, and
should realise that application of WCM requires a
concerted effort. Because of the continuous improve-
ment nature of the practices and philosophies con-
tained in the model, it does not present itself as an
overnight solution to a manufacturer’s problems;
rather, they require substantial time and effort on an
ongoing basis.
The Indian industry is very different in its character
to the Western or Japanese industry. As such, it is
necessary to look at the WCM tools and techniques in
the perspective of SME in general and Indian SME in
particular. In most cases, SMEs produce items for
large-scale industries. Over recent years, large-scale
industries have undergone many changes in their
production environment by implementing WCM tech-
niques such as JIT, TQM, BPR, Lean and Agile
manufacturing, and technologies like FMS, CIM and
OPT with the objectives of improving productivity and
quality. They have also increasingly adopted ERP and
SCM implementation to gain competitive advantage.
However, the implementation of WCM techniques has
not received due attention from SMEs.
What is readily apparent from the literature is that
the WCM concepts were developed principally in
relation to the needs of larger scale manufacturers.
These must be made recognisable and relevant to the
SME for their adoption and use by the SME (Farsijani
and Carruthers 1996). Often in a bid to effect rapid
improvement, technological solutions are imposed
which necessitate the company to engage in an
organisational metamorphosis to effectively employ
them. This can often produce sub-optimal results.
Ideally, the reverse process should occur, where the
company progresses from a detailed understanding of
its problems which ensures that a particular technology
or technique is adapted to meet the needs of the
company. This process of adaptation should also take
into account the size and skills available in the
management and workforce. For any SME, becoming
‘world class’ does not always mean implementing the
most advanced technologies, instead its competitive-
ness may arise from the flexibility and skills of its
workforce, or a unique market niche and business
strategy (Farsijani and Carruthers 1996). The main
priority for such companies is primarily to acquire high
annual sales turnover with strategies largely emphasis-
ing increasing market share or entering new markets
with present products (Ong 1997).
Indian small industry has its own very special
problems. The workmen employed in these small
industries come from a poor and uneducated back-
ground. They learn their work by the informal
757
apprenticeship route, and they grow in their skills by
mistakes and practice. Such home-grown workmen,
with little or no formal technical training, are the
backbone of the industrial system. More often than
not, they are illiterate too, and the work progresses
more by verbal instructions, rather than relying on the
written document. Contrasting this, the Western and
Japanese workmen are literate and almost always
trained in the trade.
Womack et al. (1990), while introducing lean
manufacturing to the Western World in their book
‘The Machine That Changed The World’, stated that:
We pay little attention to the special features of the
Japanese society – the high savings rate, near universal
literacy, a homogeneous population, the often alleged
inclination to subordinate personal desires to group
needs, and the willingness, even the desire, to work
long hours – which some observers credit for Japanese
success, but which we believe are of secondary
importance.
While the learned authors have chosen to disregard
the setting in which lean manufacturing took root and
powered an industrial revolution, this author feels that
the background is important in the adoption and
development of any technique on a mass scale. One
major difference in the Japanese and the Indian
industrial societies is the extent of literacy and educa-
tion of the workers. Most of the lean techniques as well
as the quality improvement techniques are based on
collection and analysis of data. A basic knowledge of
mathematics and statistics is needed to effectively use
any of these techniques. This makes the adoption of
these techniques in Indian small industries very tricky
and impractical. The selection of appropriate tools for
manufacturing improvement, together with their appli-
cability, incorporation and acceptance within opera-
tions is a major problem for many companies (Herron
and Braiden 2006).
The co-existence of both mass production
and lean manufacturing production paradigms pre-
clude blind application of any one PI tool to
any situation. Therefore, any PI initiative must be
tailored to the individual company, its size and mode
of manufacture, its manufacturing philosophy, its
present level of sophistication, the knowledge and
understanding of the modern management techniques
by its management, the education level of its
manpower, the economy in which it operates and
similar other considerations. It is therefore important
to select proper productivity tools consistent with
the company’s characteristics in order to achieve a
successful implementation and sustained benefits.
This problem has received the attention of researchers,
and special efforts have been made over the last few
758 A. Mathur et al.
years to identify and shortlist the improvement tools
particularly relevant to an SME environment. Some
succinct guidelines for the selection and implementa-
tion of improvement tools are also found in the
literature. These are discussed in the succeeding
paragraphs.
1.7. Considerations for selection of tool for
improving productivity in a make-to-order SME
The typical difficulties faced by a make-to-order
(MTO) SME that will ultimately result in long
manufacturing lead times and delay in customers’
delivery have been identified by Ong (1997) as follows:
. non-standardised parts and specifications lar-
gely because of the obligation to fulfil cus-
tomers’ needs and requirements in order to
secure the deals;
. customers’ ongoing changes partly owing to
the long product manufacturing time which
allow customers the opportunity to vary their
product specifications;
. improper shop floor layout resulting in non-
value-added and redundant work.
SMEs focus on acquiring high annual sales turn-
over with strategies largely emphasising increasing
market share or entering new markets with present
products. Small companies are constrained with lim-
ited capital, manpower and resources to improve their
technology. With a rapidly changing environment and
in order to be successful, certain ‘tools’ have to be
created for small companies which have limited bud-
gets. These tools must be able to be quickly imple-
mented and most importantly they must have a
significant impact on the companies upon implemen-
tation (Ong 1997). There are over 100 lean tools
available and that ‘there is no way systematically to
link a manufacturing organisation to its problems and
to the possible tools to eliminate these problems’
(Pavnascar et al. 2003). Bhasin and Burcher (2006)
suggested that the company should implement all or
most of the lean practices in order to succeed in lean
implementation. At the same time, reviews show that
the SMEs are incapable to implement all practices at
once (Gunasekaran et al. 2000, Rose et al. 2011). Shah
and Ward (2007) identified 48 items to represent lean
production. Anand and Kodali (2009) suggest imple-
menting 65 lean practices by an organisation.
Implementing 65 lean practices or even 48 appears to
be a tall order for SMEs due to the know-how and
resources crunch. One alternative is for SMEs to
sequentially run the feasible practices which form
the easiest or cheapest lean practice (Lee 2004).
In an effort to further simplify implementation of LP
for SMEs, a review of highly cited journals led to a
discovery of 17 ‘must implement’ best practices iden-
tified as reduce set up time, cell layout, Kanban, small
lot size, supplier management, preventive maintenance,
multifunction employees, uniform workload, visual con-
trol, employee involvement (quality circles), Total
quality management, training, teamwork, production
smoothing, continuous improvement, 5S and standardi-
zation (Rose et al. 2011).
Mohanty et al. (2007) have advised the following
basic principles for implementation of any improve-
ment effort:
(1) Any improvement effort must be made at the
lowest possible organisational level in accor-
dance with a scientific method based on logical
reasoning.
(2) Any improvement initiative must be guided by
systems engineering thinking.
(3) Make continuous improvement process a team
effort and ensure that everyone involved has
the opportunity to take ownership of the
process.
(4) Instead of focusing attention on too many
issues, set priorities and focus on vital few
issues.
(5) Strive for some small tangible early successes
and make the most of these through recogni-
tion and publicity
In accordance to the above guidelines, we may
define the main attributes of the proposed PI tool as
follows:
(1) The tool should be simple to understand and
use.
(2) The tool should directly address an identified
problem.
(3) The improvement should be measurable and
demonstrable.
(4) The tool should produce immediate results.
(5) The changes must be adopted, not imposed.
(6) The changes must be sustainable, leading to
continuous improvement.
This article discusses the formulation and applica-
tion of a simple PI methodology in an Indian MTO
SME, and extends it to similar MTO Indian SMEs.
The rest of this article is organised as follows. Section 2
presents the general background of the case company.
Section 3 discusses the proposed PI tool. Section 4
describes the implementation of the proposed tool.
Discussion of the results and concluding remarks are
presented in Section 5.
 Production Planning & Control
2. The company
2.1. The company background
The Company, established in 1987, has an employee
base of 70, and an annual turnover of INRs 350 lakhs
(US $0.8 million approximately). The company man-
ufactures Helical Springs, Wire Forms, Precision
Pressed Components and Dipstick assemblies. Helical
Springs are further classified as Compression Springs,
Tension Springs and Torsion Springs. The company
manufactures springs made of round, square and
rectangular wires of spring steel gr2, gr3; stainless
steel and bronze in wire sizes from 0.1 to 8 mm by
machine coiling and up to 12 mm by hand winding.
The company specialises in development of new
components and develops sample lots for its potential
customers to help in design proving and finalisation.
An analysis of the product-wise contribution to the
production quantum and turnover for the financial
year revealed that Helical Springs and Wire Forms
contributed to nearly 89% of the company’s annual
turnover. The spring coiling and forming activity done
using CNC Spring Coiling and CNC Spring Forming
machines is the major production activity.
2.2. Production set-up
The company has an advanced set-up for manufactur-
ing of springs consisting of top of the line multi-axis
CNC Spring Coilers and Multi-Slide Spring formers.
Some of these machines have additional attachments
for rotating the spring for forming in additional planes,
as also for rotating the quill holding the spring. The
company also uses automatic probes for monitoring
and controlling spring lengths and angles of spring
ends. These can be used only on selected machines. The
company has not established any electro-plating,
painting and injection moulding facilities. Jobs requir-
ing these operations are sub-contracted. The company
maintains its focus on its core-competencies, i.e. spring
coiling and forming operations. Some end-forming
operations are carried out manually.
2.3. Observations
The planning of production by the firm is totally
dependent on production schedules of the customers.
Some of the characteristics of the firm’s operations are
given as follows:
. Major customer operates their ERP. The firm,
as a vendor, is a part of their ERP.
759
. Many customers’ orders are open orders with
delivery schedules released by them through
their ERP module only.
. Many times the customer schedules are
finalised late, and deliveries are required with
short delivery schedules.
. There is a restriction on early supply. The
company needs specific delivery clearance from
its major customer without which the customer
may not accept delivery or withhold payment.
The company follows a MTO policy of producing
against firm orders or firm delivery schedules. The
company also undertakes development activities and
accepts small orders for new items. Raw material needs
to be purchased for full year requirement due to small
overall requirement of each variety, and is sourced
indigenously both from manufacturers and dealers.
2.4. The regular production process
The company prepares a process plan and a Machine
Setting Data Sheet for every job for future reference.
During every production set-up, a sample of 20
numbers is drawn from the initial production and
checked for dimensional conformance. These are then
subjected to the required post-coiling operations like
end-bending, end grinding, etc. and to the required
stress-relieving heat treatment, after which these are
checked for final parameters. Bulk production clear-
ance is given by QA if the lot is found to be within
specified limits of final parameters. This process may
take from half-an-hour to 3 h, and the machine is
stopped for this duration till QA clearance is obtained.
Periodic checking of dimensions is done by the
production operator during the production run to
ensure that the process is under control. Setting is
checked and adjusted, if necessary, whenever the raw
material spool is changed.
2.5. Quality control
The company has an independent quality control
department reporting to the proprietor. The quality
control department is organised into four functions
namely (1) incoming materials inspection, (2) in-
process inspection, (3) final inspection and (4) systems,
procedures and training for ISO/TS.
2.6. Stores organisation
The company has separate stores for raw materials and
finished goods (FG). FG store holds and ships final
760 A. Mathur et al.
accepted items, and is also responsible to obtain
customers’ plans and feed the ‘requirement’ to the
PPC department who base their production plans on
the basis of this information.
3. The proposed PI tool – total set-up time reduction
3.1. Set-up time
Changeover time or set-up time is the duration from
the last good piece produced in the previous lot to the
first good piece produced in the next lot, after steady-
state production is achieved. Thus, set-up time is not
just the time spent in changing tools or setting up a
machine or production process, but it also includes the
time required to produce a sufficient first lot, test it for
acceptability, consistency and stability of production
process, and carrying out of fine adjustments to the
process till it can be considered to be a stable process.
‘SUR’ implies that the set-up time and set-up effort is
reduced by use of one or several techniques. The
advantages of ‘SUR’, or of smaller set-ups are,
inter alia:
. reduced lot sizes and queues;
. smaller lead times;
. increased responsiveness;
. reduced w.i.p.;
. reduced FG inventories;
. lower inventory costs; lesser money tied up in
inventories;
. higher availability of cash due to lower
inventories;
. reduced wastage in setting.
Set-ups are dependent on many factors and,
accordingly, are defined and classified in different
ways. Set-up is sequence-dependent if its duration
(cost) depends on both the current and the immediately
preceding job, and is sequence-independent if its
duration (cost) depends only on the current job to be
processed. A further classification categorises set-up
problems as batch or non-batch. A batch set-up
problem occurs when part types are grouped into
batches (or product families) and a (major) set-up time
is incurred when switching between part types belong-
ing to different batches, and, in some applications, a
(minor) set-up is incurred for switching between part
types within batches (i.e. from the same product
families). In other words, a major set-up time depends
only on the batch being switched to, and the minor set-
up time depends only on the part type being switched
to. The consideration of sequence-dependent set-up
times is one of the most difficult aspects of production-
scheduling problems (Laguna 1999). Wilbrecht and
Prescott (1969) found that sequence-dependent set-up
times are significant when a job shop is operated at or
near full capacity. Flynn (1987) determined that
applications of both sequence-dependent set-up proce-
dures and group technology principles increase output
capacity in a cellular manufacturing shop, and
Wortman (1992) underlined the importance of consid-
ering sequence-dependent set-up times for the effective
management of manufacturing capacity.
3.2. Sequence-dependent non-batch set-ups
Unlike the sequence-independent set-up time problem
in which make-span is the same regardless of the
selected sequence, when set-up times are dependent on
the sequence, minimising make-span becomes equiva-
lent to minimising the total set-up time (TST). Ditts
and Ramsing (1989) investigated the effects of set-up
cost estimating methods on the lot sizing and sched-
uling of multiple products in multiple periods, and
concluded that it may be incorrect to use ‘conventional
wisdom’ when selecting an initial set-up cost estimator
(ISCE). Harikrishnan and Ishii (2005) have examined a
batch-scheduling problem on a single machine which
processes jobs with resource-dependent set-up and
processing time in the presence of fuzzy due-dates, and
constructed a polynomial algorithm based on linear
programming formulations of the corresponding prob-
lems. Ruiz and Andres (2007) have reported on
scheduling unrelated parallel machines with resource
assignable sequence-dependent set-up times, i.e. those
cases where the duration (cost) of the set-ups can be
reduced or extended according to the number of
resources assigned to them. Stecco et al. (2007)
introduce a tabu search heuristic for a production-
scheduling problem with sequence-dependent and
time-dependent set-up times on a single machine, i.e.
where the set-up time between two jobs is also a
function of the completion time of the first job.
Koulama and Kyparisis (2008) studied single-machine
scheduling problems with past-sequence-dependent
set-up times. Schaller and Gupta (2008) presented a
heuristic approach to the problem of scheduling a
given number of jobs on a single machine to minimise
total earliness and tardiness when family set-up times
exist. A comprehensive review of scheduling problems
involving set-up times is found in Allahverdi et al.
(1999, 2008).
It is noted from the literature that complex oper-
ations research methods have been applied in problem
formulation and devising their solutions. It therefore is
to be recognised that most of these are far removed
from the practicing engineer, who has to work in a
 Production Planning & Control
real-time situation under complex decision situations.
The analytical solutions are therefore rejected by the
shop floor manager, as neither knowledge nor time is
available with him to indulge in detailed problem
formulation and determining solutions, which anyway
are workable only under assumptions made by the
researcher to simplify the problem. The value of these
exercises lie in the insight they provide and their
contribution in enabling formulations of the heuristics
and general dominance and priority rules which can be
directly adopted by the shop floor manager.
Patel et al. (2001) have observed that
the process of set-up time reduction can be achieved
through both a traditional work study type approach
(e.g. Lee 1986) and application of the Single Minute
Exchange of Die (SMED) system (e.g. Shingo 1985a).
Using both techniques will improve the effectiveness of
the exercise.
3.3. Production planning approach – lot sizing and
scheduling
Production planning needs to minimise the TST within
the given constraints of delivery and inventory. The
objectives a production planning department needs to
meet in an SME environment may be summarised as
follows.
(1) Provide sufficient lead time to production – at
least the time required to complete the current
production run, change the set-up and to
produce the required quantity of the new item
to meet the customer requirement and effect
delivery in time. This will necessitate the
maintenance of a certain amount of inventory
as a buffer stock to meet unforeseen and
sudden changes in the customers’ requirement
without upsetting the production schedule.
(2) Allocate available resources in a manner to
allow production to process all requirements
within the available resources. Raw materials
common to more than one part must be so
allocated that required quantities of all the
parts can be manufactured without running out
of material. It should not happen that the
production of some parts gets held up for want
of raw material or man–machine time, just
because a large quantity of one part is pro-
duced for stock.
(3) Set-up costs should be minimised consistent
with objective 1.
(4) Inventory should be minimised consistent with
objectives 1 to 3.
761
Production planning tries to meet the above objec-
tives through ‘Lot Sizing’ and ‘Scheduling’.
3.3.1. Lot sizing
Various techniques have been developed for lot sizing.
Literature exists for determining lot sizes under differ-
ent conditions and to satisfy different single or multiple
criteria. Staggemeier and Clark (2001) presented a
survey of lot sizing and scheduling models emphasising
the single-stage cases. However, complex analytical
tools are not suitable for our purpose, as explained
above. They would be of little use to the shop floor
manager or the shop planner, who neither has the
training nor the time available to the advanced
researcher. Therefore, while the literature shows that
a variety of lot-sizing tools have been developed by
researchers to serve a widely varied range of objectives,
the economic manufacturing quantity or economic lot
sizing tool is found to be both simple to use and best
suited to the objective of minimisation of set-up time.
The economic lot sizing tool is readily understood and
can be used with ease and confidence by production
and inventory planners with a basic knowledge of
arithmetic and a rudimentary understanding of inven-
tory principles. The low sensitivity of the cost function
to variation in the lot size from the theoretical
Economic Lot Size in its immediate vicinity permits
the rounding off of the quantities to a convenient batch
size without appreciably affecting the total costs. This
makes it an ideal tool for lot sizing in the Indian SME
environment where the objective is to minimise the
TSTs. Lot sizing using the simple EOQ formula is best
for reducing set-up time as compared to finite sched-
uling, which are better for delivery performance or
inventory cost (Bacon and Choudhuri 1987).
The economic lot size (L) is given by
L ¼ f½2ðannual productionÞðset-up costÞ
=½annual carrying cost per unit of FGg0:5 ð1Þ
The number of lots (N ) to be produced in a year
are then calculated as:
N ¼ annual production=economic lot size ð2Þ
The calculations for the number of lots will
generally result in a fraction. This fraction may then
be rounded off to the nearest integer, and the lot size
recalculated as per the revised number of lots. This
recalculation, while theoretically affecting the econ-
omy, increases the costs only slightly, as the cost
sensitivity of the Economic Lot Model is low. The lot
sizes and/or number of lots are then adjusted by the
production planner from his personal specialised
762 A. Mathur et al.
knowledge of the interdependence of the factors like
product, customer, raw materials, machine and subse-
quent processing.
3.3.2. Sequencing of jobs
Sequencing of jobs plays a particularly important part
in the TST where individual set-up times are dependent
not only on the job being scheduled, but also on the
immediately preceding job, i.e. in a sequence-depen-
dent set-up time scenario. The problem has received
the attention of researchers, and various algorithms
and procedures have been evolved to address the
various complex problems of minimising make-span,
set-up times, tardiness, etc. in a flow/shop/job-shop
having n-jobs and m-machines. A survey of literature
on the problem of scheduling of jobs in a sequence-
dependent set-up time environment reveals that all the
researchers have opined that such problems need to be
broken down into sub-problems with limited complex-
ity, when they can be formulated as operations
research problems capable of being solved with stan-
dard problem-solving methods of linear programming
and transportation models within a reasonable time of
CPU usage. Several heuristic and meta-heuristic solu-
tions have been proposed in literature.
In the present case, we are concerned with jobs
being processed entirely on one machine, and therefore
need not go into complex procedures. By the very
nature of the company, simple procedures only would
be effective due to ready and greater adoption by staff.
While the ideology of breaking down the problem into
sub-problems is excellent and adopted, the formulation
of the sub-problems into operations research problems
for deterministic solutions is avoided since
. no operations research expertise is available in
the company;
. the complexity of the problem, once broken
down into sub-problems, is of sufficient sim-
plicity to allow manual working.
Therefore, the data was analysed with the help of
the company’s staff, and jobs grouped as per the
machine on which they can/will be processed. A simple
heuristic is framed for sequencing of jobs on a
machine, and tested by making a detailed schedule
for one machine based on the heuristic procedure.
3.3.3. Proposed sequencing procedure
The sequencing procedure is outlined below:
. Prepare an aggregate monthly plan in the
usual manner depending upon the customer
requirements and available inventory.
. Break down the aggregate monthly plan into
monthly plans for every machine. Perform
necessary adjustments to shift loads from
heavily loaded machines, if any, to other
machines capable of the job and having lighter
loading.
. Revise and update the monthly plan by adding
additional production load on machines with
spare capacity. The load to be added must
only be from available firm orders, even
though their delivery may not be immediately
due. The additional load may be from the
same raw materials as are being used in the
planned production. As a second preference,
quantities of the items planned for production
may be increased to fully utilise the available
production hours, if the items are of regular
nature and firm orders exist with the
company.
. Do the sequencing of the planned production.
Sequencing is to be done for each machine
separately.
3.3.4. The guidelines for sequencing
The next job to be sequenced must be selected such
that set-up change is avoided or minimised. This may
be done by:
. Sequencing a job using the same set of tooling.
For this, form a set of products, sequence the
product using the maximum operations first,
so that subsequent products can be sequenced
such that they progressively use lesser tooling
from the same set.
. Sequencing products so that a minimum
number of tools need to be changed and reset.
. Sequencing products so that a minimum
number of Cams need to be changed.
. Sequencing such that the same raw material is
used so that the raw material need not be
changed for product change.
. Sequencing such that the same size of raw
material is used so that the feed mechanism
and quill need not be changed for product
change.
Discuss the sequenced production plan with the
production supervisor to check the feasibility and
sequencing. Revise, if required.
3.4. Single Minute Exchange of Dies
Single Minute Exchange of Dies (SMED) is a tech-
nique for performing set-up operation within 10 min,
 Production Planning & Control
i.e. in a number of minutes expressed in a single digit.
Dr Shigeo Shingo is the originator and proponent of
the SMED concept. The concept was developed in
Japan in the 1950s in relation to heavy presses used in
automobile work and revolutionised manufacturing
management. The concepts and techniques became
available to other countries in the late 1970s and
gained acceptance in the 1980s. The SMED technique
is based on the fundamental observation that the set-
up activities can be classified into the two types:
internal set-up and external set-up.
3.4.1. Internal set-up
Such machine or process set-up activities that can be
performed only when the machine is stopped are
termed internal set-up. Tool and die changes are one
example of internal set-up.
3.4.2. External set-up
Set-up activities that can be performed even while the
machine is running and is in production are termed
external set-up. Issue and transport of raw material
and tools from and to the stores, checking availability
of all tools, materials, drawings, manufacturing and
inspection procedures, setting aids, preparation of raw
material, such as cutting of strips, are activities which
can be performed quite easily for the next job while the
machine is still producing the current job.
Dr Shingo explained that the external set-up,
properly identified and carried out without stopping
the machine, will save considerable set-up time and
reduce the machine idle time. In addition, he discov-
ered that many set-ups considered to be internal set-
ups could be converted into external set-ups with
proper planning, use of simple aids and adopting
innovative approaches. The use of quick-change tool
posts for centre lathes is an example of such a
conversion of internal to external set-up. The use of
external tool pre-setting is another example of conver-
sion of internal set-up to external set-up.
The recognition of the fact that the externality of a
lot of the existing internal set-up is not realised and is
performed as internal set-up is a major contribution by
Dr Shingo. Further, Dr Shingo contributed the revo-
lutionary concept that converting an internal set-up
into an external set-up is highly desirable even at some
extra cost as
. it reduces set-up time;
. increases flexibility;
. permits reduction in lot size;
. allows frequent change-over;
. reduces delay in supplies to customer;
763
. enables higher responsiveness to customer
needs.
The realisation of the advantages of SUR led to
devising of special methods for conversion of set-up
from external to internal. The technique can be
adopted in practically all situations and all processes,
and results into immediate improvements in produc-
tivity and responsiveness. Using the SMED procedure
at Toyota, Dr Shingo was able to reduce the set-up
time required to change over a stamping die from
many hours to less than 10 min.
Greg Hart, President, Hart Innovative Solutions
Inc. (www.hartinnovations.com) identifies five phases
of set-up time reduction as
(1) Identify internal and potentially external
elements.
(2) Convert internal elements to external.
(3) Reduce set-up processing time.
(4) Optimise set-up processes.
(5) Standardise set-up – the right way, the same
way – every time.
SMED focuses on reducing the time taken in each
set-up as distinct from planning techniques, which
focus on reducing TST given the individual set-up
times. Thus, both the techniques are complementary.
3.5. Methodology for reduction in set-up time – the
proposed heuristic
The methodology for achieving the objective of SUR
in the spring manufacturing industry is proposed as
following:
(1) Do lot sizing using economic manufacturing lot
sizing tool.
(2) Study the set-up procedure. Determine
sequence dependence of the set-ups with the
help of production staff.
(3) Consult the production staff about desirable
sequences to minimise set-up. Develop the
sequencing heuristic in simple descriptive
statements.
(4) Try the sequencing heuristic for one case.
Discuss the results with the production super-
visor. This will help in demonstrating the
benefit.
(5) Discuss the heuristic and the sample scheduling
with the production planning supervisor.
Perform optimum sequencing of actual past
production of 6 months to 1 year. Highlight the
reduction in TST.
764 A. Mathur et al.

(6) Study the machine setting procedure in detail.
Note down the steps and time taken. Apply
SMED techniques.
(7) Identify currently internal and potentially
external elements.
(8) Convert internal elements to external.
(9) Reduce set-up processing time
(10) Optimise set-up processes
(11) Standardise set-up
(12) Create records of set-ups for reference while
repeating the set-up.
It is very important to ensure the following while
doing this:
(1) First of all, externalise only those existing
internal set-up steps which are easy and
simple to implement and do not interfere with
the normal working of the company, viz. issue
of work orders, material, tools etc., in advance.
(2) Steps requiring any investment or likely to
cause temporary disruptions in the process
must be discussed with the management, and
timed for trials during lean periods without
affecting the normal output of the company.
(3) Advise steps involving expenditure investment
only after first establishing reduction in TST by
simple measures.
(4) Measure and highlight the improvement at every
step in order to secure support for next steps in
improving productivity.
4. Implementation of reduction in set-up time
4.1. Production planning – lot sizing and sequencing
4.1.1. Lot sizing
The production data of the company for one complete
year April 2008 to March 2009 was analysed. It was
found that the company produced 288 varieties of
products in 890 lots. The number of lots varied from a
single lot to 11 lots during the year. Table 1 shows the
product-wise number of set-ups used by the company
during the year 2008–2009.
The proposed lot sizing methodology was applied
to the 2008–2009 production data of the company.
The economic lot sizes for each product were calcu-
lated for the 2008–2009 production data as per the
above guidelines. While the actual production was
done using 890 set-ups, the total number of set-ups
required for the same production reduces to 680 with
economic manufacture batch sizes. The details are
given in Table 2.
At the rate of an average 4 h per set-up (produc-
tivity norms presently followed by the company), a
total of (890  680)  4 ¼ 210  4 ¼ 840 machine hours
are saved due to reduction in the number of set-ups.
4.1.2. Sequencing of jobs
The production planning data for the production year
2008–2009 was examined to determine if any sequenc-
ing was being done on scientific principles. The data
for April 2008 for a particular machine was analysed.
It was found that 15 jobs were planned on the machine
involving nine sizes of spring wire, and no consecutive
jobs manufactured were of the same wire size. Thus, 15
set-ups were involved in manufacturing the 15 jobs.
Just by rearranging the jobs in a sequence where the
jobs made of the same wire size are processed one after
the other, it is revealed that two springs were
manufactured twice within the same month, which
would have been avoided by proper lot sizing. Also, a
change of wire feed mechanism would have been
avoided in five cases, saving 2.5 h at 30 min for wire
feed change. Thus, a total reduction of 6.5 h in set-up
time is achieved out of total 60 h of set-up time actually

Table 1. Details of number of set-ups.

Number of set-ups in year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total

Number of products 88 64 41 38 22 18 10 8 5 2 2 288

Number of set-ups 88 128 123 112 110 108 70 64 45 20 22 890

Table 2. Recommended set-ups with economic lot sizing.

Number of set-ups in year 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 12 Total

Number of products 99 87 53 22 13 11 1 1 1 288

Number of set-ups 99 174 159 88 65 66 8 9 12 680
 Production Planning & Control 765

used up in April 2008. This does not consider any
additional reduction due to set-up time reduction due
to existing tools and their settings being usable, if any.
The analysis is shown in Table 3.
The proposed sequencing heuristic algorithm was
then applied to the full year production data of a single
machine. The production data for 12 months of the
machine has been analysed and the sequence depen-
dence of the jobs determined with the help of the
Production Supervisor. The detailed computation
tables are not shown here due to space constraints. A
month-wise summary of actual set-up times and the
revised set-up times is shown in Table 4.
It is seen that a reduction of 10.3% is achieved by
adopting the revised sequence generated through the
proposed sequencing heuristic although no reschedul-
ing has been considered for March. Assuming similar
reduction for all the 11 machines, a 10% decrease in
set-up time can be considered to be available. This
would mean that a total of 0.10  (890  4) ¼ 356 h
would be released for direct production. In all, using
the lot sizing and sequencing heuristic, we have gained
a total of 840 þ 356 ¼ 1196 h, thereby reducing the
total hours used in set-up from 3560 to 2354 h. A
saving of more than 33% is achieved in set-up time
using the simple lot sizing and sequencing heuristic.
4.2. SMED approach implementation
The set-up process is analysed in detail and some
internal set-up activities are identified to be shifted to
external set-up. The following idle times in the process
are also identified:
. waiting for work order;
. collecting raw material, collecting tools and
accessories;
. changing/setting of tools;
. changing/setting of cams;
. waste of raw material in defective production
during cam and tool setting;
. machine idle time while sample lot is heat
treated and tested.
Modification in the setting procedure and operat-
ing style are proposed to minimise the wastes identified
above.
4.2.1. Proposed modifications
Production planning to issue the Work Order/machine
loading along with process sheet for the next job well
before the current job ends. This will enable produc-
tion (1) to get the material issued and transport it to

Table 3. Analysis of sequence of set-ups using April 2008 data for one machine.

Part. no. A B C1 D1 E1 F G H E2 I J K C2 D2 L

Wire diameter (mm) 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.0 1.4 1.8 2.0 1.9 1.4 2.1 1.4 1.6 2.3 2.0 1.5
Sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Part. no. E1 E2 J L K A F H D1 D2 G I B C1 C2
Wire diameter (mm) 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3
Revised sequencing group 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 8 9 9
Revised sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Table 4. Percentage reduction in set-up time with revised sequencing.

Month April May June July August September October November December January February March Total

Number 15 11 17 12 16 14 18 14 21 16 15 12 181
of jobs
Set-up time 55.5 42.5 66.0 43.5 56.0 52.5 62.0 54.5 82.0 55.0 59.5 43.0 672.0
original
sequence
Set-up time 46.0 42.0 65.5 42.0 36.5 47.0 58.5 48.5 72.0 48.0 53.5 43.0 602.5
revised
sequence
Hours gained 9.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 19.5 5.5 3.5 6.0 10.0 7.0 6.0 0 69.5
Reduction in 17 1 0.75 3.5 34.8 10.5 5.6 11 12.2 12.7 10 0 10.3
set-up
time (%)

Note: Analysis based on production data of year 2008–2009 for one machine. No re-sequencing has been done for March 2009.
766 A. Mathur et al.

the machine station from the stores, (2) to check and 2009 at the commencement of this PI exercise to 3.15 h
collect the necessary Cams, Tools, Tool Holders, per set-up in March 2010. The trend of the set-up time
accessories, and (3) to fix tools in the tool holders is graphically shown in Figure 1. A reduction of 22%
even while the machine is running and producing the in TST as represented by the average set-up time per
current job. set-up has been achieved by implementing simple steps.
Eliminate/minimise the need for tool change by using
group technology techniques, proper lot sizing and
scheduling. Similar springs made from the same raw
5. Conclusion
material stock on the same machine are likely to need
the same tooling, and will require much lesser tool Substantial improvement in productivity was achieved
setting, since a reference is already available. Some of in the case company using a simple heuristic stated in
the steps that can be totally eliminated in some cases by descriptive language for scheduling coupled with some
proper scheduling are handling of wire spool, changing simple modifications in machines and in operating
of feed mechanism, change of quill and collet, changing procedure. The case demonstrates that SUR is capable
of coiling point and cutting tool, adjustment of cutting of immediate results by simple modifications in plan-
tool. Lot sizing and sequencing has been discussed ning procedures, and careful segregation of internal
separately in detail above. and external set-ups using SMED techniques. A
Minimise Cam setting time by maintaining records of reduction of about 22% in TST has been achieved in
the Cam slide combinations and angular position of the present case by simple inexpensive measures in a
cams on the camshafts. However, this needs that the company typical of the Indian MTO SME. Small
Cams must have a reference point marking, and each Indian manufacturing companies, operate in similar
Camshaft must have graduated markings to enable a markets under similar economic and socio-political
proper record of Cam settings that can be subsequently environments and are characterised by (1) limited
reproduced. It was found that a record is kept only of financial resources, (2) MTO batch production,
the Cam-Slide combination with no record being (3) dependence on a few major customers, (4) no or
maintained of the angular position of the Cam with
reference to the Cam Shaft. Provision was made to
Table 5. Average set-up time from
record the angular position of Cam on the cam shaft in October 2009 to March 2010.
the process sheet. Some of the older machines that did
not have markings on the cam shafts were modified, Average
and angular markings were got engraved on the shafts set-up
of these machine. This helped in directly mounting the time per
cam in the proper position and resulted in a substantial set-up
Month in hours
saving in the set-up time of the machine.
Minimise Tool setting time by maintaining records of October 2009 4.07
tool positions. However, it was found that the November 2009 3.78
machines do not provide a simple way of generating December 2009 3.59
January 2010 3.53
tool position reference. An indirect way to generate a
February 2010 3.18
measurement of the position of the tool tip was March 2010 3.15
devised. After a study of the machines, it was found
that it is possible to make measurements of the
distance of the tool tip from the quill tip (Y parameter) Setup time trend
and of the radial distance of the tool tip from the 4.5 4.07
Average setup time per

3.78 3.59
central axis of the wire (X parameter) using the 4 3.53
3.18 3.15
setup in hours

3.5
machine elements in conjunction with the CNC digital 3
display. Thus, a method of measuring the tool 2.5
positions was devised. Maintaining the record of tool 2
1.5
position helped in reducing the set-up time. 1
The Set-up Time is monitored and is reported in the 0.5
0
monthly Machine Down Time reports of the company. Oct ‘09 Nov ‘09 Dec ‘09 Jan ‘10 Feb ‘10 Mar ‘10
The reports for October 2009 to March 2010 are
Month
summarised in Table 5. The trend clearly shows a
steady improvement from 4.07 h per set-up in October Figure 1. Set-up time trend after implementation of PI tool.
 Production Planning & Control
limited leverage with raw material suppliers, (5) staff
with low or none technical qualification, (6) many
workers with limited literacy and training, (7) are
flexible and resourceful and (8) have a desire to excel
and grow. The company selected for the project is a
typical sample from the vast population of small Indian
MTO manufacturing companies. It would therefore be
possible to extend the methodology and results obtained
to similar small MTO manufacturing companies in
India. Use of simple, almost equivalent to rules of
thumb, heuristic procedures devised with the help of the
company staff ensure their ownership and implementa-
tion, and can result into substantial gains. The use of
SUR tool for PI is equally well applicable to Small
Indian Made-to-Order companies in general, and can be
used as the first tool to effectively implement a PI
programme because of its simplicity and ease of imple-
mentation and capability to generate immediate demon-
strable gains without disrupting the ongoing operations
of the company. The improvement process is a never-
ending, continuous process, and no one tool can address
all the requirements. Yet, it is suggested that the
methodology developed in this article can be effectively
adopted for PI in similar made-to-order small Indian
companies.
As is usual in any such exercise, there are
several limitations. The proposed heuristic has been
developed for a specific type of situation and with
a specific objective to be served. Therefore, it can be
generalised only with a full understanding of
the governing parameters. On the other hand, the
philosophy underlying the development of the heuristic
method is general in nature, and is applicable in
almost all Indian SMEs. The article highlights
that substantial improvements in productivity are
possible by a systematic analysis of the operating
practices and devising simple and immediately imple-
mentable heuristic operating procedures in similar
companies.
Notes on contributors
Alok Mathur obtained his BE Hons
degree in Mechanical Engineering in
1970 from MREC, Jaipur. He has a
rich industrial experience of 33 years
in production process planning, pro-
duction, quality assurance, produc-
tion planning, unification, variety
reduction, procurement, R&D, indus-
trial management and subsequently,
4 years of teaching experience. He obtained his MTech
degree in Manufacturing System Engineering from MNIT,
Jaipur in 2008 and is presently pursuing his PhD from
MNIT, Jaipur. His main research interests are performance
measurement and productivity improvement.
767
Dr. M.L. Mittal is an Associate
Professor in the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Malaviya
National Institute of Technology,
Jaipur. He obtained his Bachelor of
Engineering degree in Mechanical
Engineering from University of
Rajasthan (India) in 1988, and
Master of Engineering in Production
Engineering from M. S. University of Baroda (India) in 1991.
Obtained his Ph.D degree in Industrial Engineering from
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi (India) in
2006. He worked in industry for about a year before joining
academics. His areas of interest include Production and
Operations Management, Total Quality Management,
Project Management. He has published more than 20
research papers in journals and conference proceedings.
Dr. Govind Sharan Dangayach is an
Associate Professor in Department of
Mechanical Engineering in Malaviya
National Institute of Technology
(MNIT), Jaipur. He graduated in
Mechanical Engineering from
M.B.M. Engineering College,
Jodhpur, in the year 1985. He
obtained his Master’s degree in
Production Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology
Delhi. His areas of interest include manufacturing strategy,
supply chain management, total quality management, and
performance measurement. He earned his Doctorate in
Industrial Engineering at Indian Institute of Technology,
Delhi. He has published 100 research papers in various
national and international journals. He is the Guest Editor of
two international journals, namely International Journal of
Manufacturing Technology and Management (IJMTM) and
International Journal of Business Performance Management
(IJBPM). He is the Reviewer of Eighten International
Journals. He is a Visiting Professor at School of
Management, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT),
Bangkok. He has delivered several Invited Lectures/ Key
note addresses in India and abroad. He has 25 years of
teaching and industrial experience. He is a Fellow Member of
the Institution of Engineers. He has organized several
conferences, and chaired several technical sessions in
conferences.
References
Allahverdi, A., Gupta, J.N.D., and Aldowaisan, T., 1999.
A survey of scheduling research involving set-up consid-
erations. OMEGA – International Journal of Management
Science, 27, 219–239.
Allahverdi, A., et al., 2008. A survey of scheduling problems
with setups times or costs. European Journal of Operational
Research, 187 (3), 985–1032.
Anand, G. and Kodali, R., 2009. Development of a
framework for lean manufacturing systems. International
Journal of Services and Operations Management, 5 (5),
687–716.
768 A. Mathur et al.
Bacon, R.E. and Choudhuri, A.N., 1987. A manager’s
dilemma: lot sizing and/or finite scheduling. Rochester,
NY: William E. Simon Graduate School of Business
Administration, University of Rochester. Working paper
series no. CMOM 87-08.
Bernolak, I., 1997. Effective measurement and successful
elements of company productivity: the basis of competi-
tiveness and world prosperity. International Journal of
Production Economics, 52 (1–2), 203–213.
Bhasin, S. and Burcher, P., 2006. Lean viewed as a
philosophy. Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, 17 (1), 56–72.
Dangayach, G.S. and Deshmukh, S.G., 2001. Manufacturing
strategy perspective on flexibility: a case of select Indian
companies. Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, 2 (2), 21–30.
Dangayach, G.S. and Deshmukh, S.G., 2003. Evidence of
manufacturing strategies in Indian industry: a survey.
International Journal of Production Economics, 83 (3),
279–298.
Ditts, D.M. and Ramsing, K.D., 1989. Joint lot sizing and
scheduling of multiple items with sequence-dependent
setup costs. Decision Sciences, 20, 120–133. DOI:
10.1111/j.1540-5915.1989.tb01400.x.
Farsijani, H. and Carruthers, A., 1996. World class
manufacturing: techniques for implementation for small
and medium sized enterprises. In: Proceedings on
symposium on managing virtual enterprises IEMC 96,
18–20 August 1996 Vancouver, BC. Canada: IEEE,
112–116.
Flynn, B.B., 1987. The effects of setup time on output
capacity in cellular manufacturing. International Journal of
Production Research, 25 (12), 1761–1772.
Gunasekaran, A., Forker, L., and Kobu, B., 2000.
Improving operations performance in a small company:
a case study. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 20 (3), 316–335.
Harikrishnan, K.K. and Ishii, H., 2005. Single machine
batch scheduling problem with resource dependent
setup and processing time in the presence of fuzzy
due date. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 4,
141–147.
Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.C., 1984. Restoring our
competitive edge: competing through manufacturing.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Herron, C. and Braiden, P.M., 2006. A methodology for
developing sustainable quantifiable productivity improve-
ment in manufacturing companies. International Journal of
Production Economics, 104 (1), 143–153.
Johnson, D.K., 2001. The impact of word-class manufacturing
practises on small manufacturers. Thesis (MSc). Brigham
Young University, Provo, UT.
Koulama, C. and Kyparisis, G.J., 2008. Single-machine
scheduling problems with past-sequence-dependent setup
times. European Journal of Operational Research, 187 (3),
1045–1049.
Laguna, M., 1999. A heuristic for production scheduling
and inventory control in the presence of sequence-
dependent set-up times. IIE Transactions, 31 (2), 125–134.
Lee, C.Y., 2004. TQM in small manufacturers: an
exploratory study in China. International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, 21 (2), 175–197.
Lee, W.G.K., et al., 2006. Towards a conceptual framework
of manufacturing paradigms. SIMTech Technical Reports,
7 (3), 169–177.
Mohanty, R.P., Yadav, O.P., and Jain, R., 2007.
Implementation of lean manufacturing principles in auto
industry. Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management.
Available from: http://www.ximb.ac.in/ximb_journal/
Publications/Article-01.pdf [Accessed 8 December 2011].
National Strategy for Manufacturing, 2006. A report of
national manufacturing competitiveness council. New Delhi,
India: National Manufacturing Competitiveness Council,
Government of India.
Ong, N.S., 1997. Productivity improvements for a small
‘made-to-order’ manufacturing environment. Industrial
Management and Data Systems, 7, 251–258.
Patel, S., Shaw, P., and Dale, B.G., 2001. Set-up time
reduction and mistake proofing methods – a study of
application in a small company. Business Process
Management Journal, 7 (1), 65–75.
Pavnascar, S.J., Gershenson, J.K., and Jambekar, A.B.,
2003. A classification scheme for lean manufacturing tools.
International Journal of Production Research, 41 (13),
3075–3090.
Rose, A.M.N., et al., 2011. Lean manufacturing best
practices in SMEs. In: Proceedings of the (2011) interna-
tional conference on industrial engineering and operations
management, 22–24 January, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
872–877.
Schaller, J.E. and Gupta, J.N., 2008. Single machine
scheduling with family setups to minimize total earliness
and tardiness. European Journal of Operational Research,
187 (3), 1050–1068.
Shah, R. and Ward, P., 2007. Defining and developing
measures of lean production. Journal of Operations
Management, 25 (4), 785–805.
Small and Medium Business Development Chamber of
India, 2011. Empowering Indian SMEs for global competi-
tiveness [online]. Available from: http://www.smechamber-
ofindia.com/ [Accessed 22 February 2011].
Staggemeier, A.T. and Clark, A.R., 2001. A survey of lot-
sizing and scheduling models. In: Proceedings of the 23rd
annual Symposium of the Brazilian Operational Research
Society (SOBRAPO), 6–9 November 2001, Campos do
Jordio, Brazil.
Wilbrecht, J.K. and Prescott, W.B., 1969. The influence of
setup time on job shop performance. Management Science,
16 (4), B274–B280.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., and Roos, D., 1990. The machine
that changed the world. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Wortman, D.B., 1992. Managing capacity: getting the most
from your firm’s assets. Industrial Engineering, 24, 47–49.