Buradasınız

Milk-run kanban system for raw printed circuit board withdrawal to surface-mounted equipment

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

DOI: 
http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.352
Abstract (2. Language): 
Purpose: The paper aims to present a case study and later simulation analysis on a kanban system that incorporating milk-run operation to draw in raw material to the process. Design/methodology/approach: Data collection at the case study company for ten weeks followed by a process study called value stream mapping. The proposed kanban model is simulated to test its various performances including total output, average flow time, average work-in-process, SME utilization, and average waiting time. Response surface methodology is adopted to generate suitable representative regression models. Findings: For all performance measures, simulation results showed that the proposed system consistently outperforms the push system currently practiced. Second, the system indicates the advantages of leveling, particularly in the event of machine failure and blockage. Third, operator in the proposed kanban system has a lower utilization, even with the additional material handling task. Research limitations/implications: This study only begins to reveal the implication of leveling for production control on multi-machine scenario. The simulation of the system is solely based only the case study. The control parameters critical to the case study, were naturally used. The furtherance of the research should include generalizing the system and devising the respective methodology to facilitate wider applications. Originality/value: The kanban system is proposed in the light of conflicting interests in handling the surface mounting and the related upstream processes. Such aspect is common to electronics assembly industry.
382-405

REFERENCES

References: 

Bonney, M.C., Zhang, Z., Head, M.A., Tien, C.C., & Barson, R.J. (1999). Are push and pull systems really so different?. International Journal of Production Economics, 59(1-3), 53-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00094-2
Bonvik, A.M., Couch, C.E., & Gershwin, S.B. (1997). A comparison of production-line control mechanisms. International Journal of Production Research, 35(3), 789-804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002075497195713
Cao, D., & Chen, M. (2005). A mixed integer programming model for a two line CONWIP-based production and assembly system. International Journal of Production Economics, 95(3), 317-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.01.002
Chan, F.T.S. (2001). Effect of kanban size on just-in-time manufacturing systems. Journal of Material Processing Technology, 116(2-3), 146-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(01)01022-6
Chen, L., & Meng, B. (2010). Application of value stream mapping based lean production system. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(6), 203-209.
Horbal, R., Kagan, R., & Koch, T. (2008). Implementing lean manufacturing in high-mix production environment. IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing), 257, 257-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77249-3_27
Liker, J.K. (2004). The Toyota way: 14 management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Marek, R.P., Elkins, D.A., & Smith, D.R. (2001). Understanding the fundamentals of kanban and CONWIP pull systems using simulation. Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 2, 921-929.
Matzka, J., Di Mascolo, M., & Furman, K. (2009). Buffer sizing of a heijunka kanban system. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 23(1), 49-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10845-009-0317-3
Ou, J., & Jiang, J. (1997). Yield comparison of push and pull control methods on production systems with unreliable machines. International Journal of Production Economics, 50(1), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(97)89131-1
Rother, M., & Shook, J. (1999). Learning to see: value stream mapping to create value and elimination muda. Massachusetts: The Lean Enterprise Institute.
Sadjadi, S. J., Jafari, M., & Amini, T. (2009). A new mathematical modeling and a genetic algorithm search for milk-run problem (an auto industry supply chain case study). International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 44(1-2), 194-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00170-008-1648-5
Savsar, M. (1997). Simulation analysis of a pull-push system for an electronic assembly line. International Journal of Production Economics, 51(3), 205-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(97)00055-8
Spearman, M.L., Woodruff, D.L., & Hopp, W.J. (1990). CONWIP: a pull alternative to kanban. International Journal of Production Research, 28(5), 879-894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207549008942761
Seidman, T.I., & Holloway, L.E. (2002). Stability of pull production control methods for systems with significant setups. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 47(10), 1637-1647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2002.803531
Tatsiopoulos, I.P., Avramopoulos, I., & Theoharis, I. (1997). A reference data model for production control in the electronics industry. Computers in Industry, 34(2), 221-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(97)00057-2
Takahashi, K., Myreshka, & Hirotani, D. (2005). Comparing CONWIP, synchronized CONWIP and kanban in complex supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics, 93-94, 25-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.06.003

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com