Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 155

College of Engineering Department of Industrial Engineering

Decision Support System for Lean, Agile and Leagile Manufacturing

By: Eng. Hesham Al-Masoud

Supervised By: Dr. Abdulaziz Al-Tamimi

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the Industrial Engineering Department with the College of Engineering, King Saud University

Riyadh December 2007

We hereby approve the Master of Science Thesis report entitled:

"Decision Support System for Lean, Agile and Leagile Manufacturing"


Prepared by: Eng. Hesham Al-Masoud

COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

SUPERVISOR

Signature: ________________ Dr. Abdulaziz Al-Tamimi

EXAMINER

Signature: ________________ Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Ahmari

EXAMINER

Signature: ________________ Dr. Mohammed Ramadan

Riyadh October 2007

Acknowledgment

I wish to acknowledge the support of my advisor Dr. Abdulaziz AlTamimi for providing me with the opportunity to gain the host of goals and practices acquired through this thesis. I would also like to thank him for his patient guidance, collaboration in designing my internship experience. Furthermore, I am thankful to Dr. Abdulrahman Al-Ahmari and Mohammed Ramadan for their assistance on reviewing my thesis writing. .

Eng. Hesham Al-Masoud


December 2007

Contents

Acknowledgement List of Tables List of Figures

3 6 9

Abstract

10

Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1.1 Overview 1.2 Lean and Agile Manufacturing Concepts 1.2.1 Lean Manufacturing 1.2.2 Lean Manufacturing Tools 1.2.3 Agile Manufacturing 1.2.4 Agile Manufacturing Tools 1.2.5 Comparison of Lean and Agile manufacturing 1.3 Research Objective

11 11 12 12 14 16 17 17 18

Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 2.2 Previous Work Literature Conclusion

20 20 23

Chapter 3: Modeling of Lean, Agile and Leagile Manufacturing 3.1 3.2 3.3 Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Modeling the Manufacturing Strategies Using AHP Developing the Expert Opinions Rating

25 25 27 32
4

Chapter 4: Decision Support System (DSS) 4.1 Building a Decision Support System Using Visual Basic

39 39

Chapter 5: Case Studies 5.1 5.2 5.3 Saudi Mechanical Industries Company (SMI) 5.1.1 SMI Study Advanced Electronics Company (AEC) 5.2.1 AEC Study Saudi Lighting Company (SLC) 5.3.1 SLC Study

44 44 45 53 54 62 62

Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion References

70 72

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C

75 107 113

List of Tables
Table # Table (1.1) Table (2.1) Table (3.1) Table (3.2) Table (3.3) Table (3.4) Table (3.5) Table (3.6) Table (3.7) Table (3.8) Title Comparison of Lean and Agile Manufacturing Summary of related references for lean and agile manufacturing AHP Comparison Scale Characteristics Factors for the lead time Characteristics Factors for the cost Characteristics Factors for the quality Characteristics Factors for the productivity Characteristics Factors for the service level Characteristics Factors for the Measures Relative Impact with respect to Experts Opinions rating Table (5.1) Table (5.2) Table (5.3) Table (5.4) The feedback data input of the five measuring factors (SMI) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Lead Time (SMI) (SMI) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Quality (SMI) Table (5.5) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Productivity (SMI) 49 48 46 47 Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Cost 45 38 24 26 33 34 35 36 37 37 Page 18

Table # Table (5.6) Table (5.7) Table (5.8) Table (5.9) Table (5.10) Table (5.11) Table (5.12) Table (5.13) Table (5.14) Table (5.15) Table (5.16) Table (5.17) Table (5.18)

Title Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Service Level (SMI) Normalization of the Measuring Means of the three Decision Makers of Matrices (SMI) The feedback data input of the five measuring factors (AEC) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Lead Time (AEC) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Cost (AEC) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Quality (AEC) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Productivity (AEC) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Service Level (AEC) Normalization of the measuring Means of the three Decision Makers of Matrices (AEC) The feedback data input of the five measuring factors (SLC) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Lead Time (SLC) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Cost (SLC) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Quality (SLC)

Page

58 51 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 62 63 64 65

Table # Table (5.19) Table (5.20) Table (5.21)

Title Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Productivity (SLC) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Service Level (SLC) Normalization of the Measuring Means of the three Decision Makers of Matrices (SLC)

Page

66 67 67

List of Figures
Figure # Figure (1.1) Figure (3.1) Figure (3.2) Figure (3.3) Figure (3.4) Figure (4.1) Figure (4.2) Figure (4.3) Figure (4.4) Figure (4.3) Title Technical vs Organizational (Lean vs Agile) Hierarchical Approach of AHP Measures of Manufacturing Strategies Characteristics of Manufacturing and Related Methods Selection of the Manufacturing System Triangular Fuzzy -Cut of the Triangular Fuzzy Number The Manufacturing System Strategy The -Cut of the Example 30 39 40 41 43 43 Page 12 26 28

Model for Lean, Agile and Leagile Manufacturing 28

Abstract

The objective of this research is to develop a methodology for evaluating whether an existing manufacturing system operates under traditional, lean, agile or leagile manufacturing. The research is carried out as follows: Measuring factors and characteristics factors should be defines from the literature to built the model by Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). More after, a questionnaire was built to distribute it to internal and external experts according to their qualifications. The composed data is adjusted using Expert Choice (EC) software to get the Expert Opinions Ratings. Other questionnaire was developed to dispense to plants for getting their response. a Decision Support System (DSS) using a Visual Basic was developed to come with an Existing Evaluating Rating of plant. Finally, the Experts Opinion Rating and Existing Evaluating Rating were compared to conclude that either the manufacturing system strategy is traditional, lean, agile or leagile manufacturing.. To resolve the manufacturing system in order to become lean, agile or leagile; a lot of tools will help in becoming lean like Cellular Manufacturing, Total Quality Management, ,Pokayoke, Kaizen , Value Stream Mapping, 5 S, Takt Time, address issues within its supply chain management, increase its focus on customer service and improve the quality of its IT applications. and so on. Three case studies have been carried out with reference to the three companies which are Saudi Mechanical Industries (SMI) Company, Advanced Electronics Company (AEC) and Saudi Light Company (SLC).

10

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Overview Over the past two decades a powerful drive by enterprises and academic institutions has boosted the development and adoption of new manufacturing initiatives to enhance business in an increasingly competitive market. Several studies have discussed the concepts of lean and agile manufacturing and their tools as a means of improving the efficiency and performance of organizations, which leads to improvement in the success of said organizations. Lean manufacturing focuses on cost reduction by eliminating nonadded activities so that several advantages can be obtained such as minimization/elimination of waste, increased business opportunities and more competitive organizations. Agile manufacturing focuses on the introduction of new products into rapidly changing markets, achieving the ability of expected short market life, pricing by customer value, and high profit margins. The tools and techniques of lean manufacturing have been widely used in the industry, starting with the introduction of the original Toyota Production Systems and more recently including total productive maintenance and better utilization of labours and setup reduction. The tools of agile manufacturing include short life cycle and flexibility. The concepts of lean and agile manufacturing in industry can be summarised by Figure (1.1). Lean manufacturing deals with technical/operational issues inside the factory such as minimizing or
11

eliminating waste, improving the work environment and the organization of teams. Agile manufacturing is concerned with organizational issues outside the industry such as supply chain strategy and the strength or weakness of the market [1].
Lean Manufacturing Agile Manufacturing

Technical / Operational issues

Organizational issues)

Figure (1.1) Technical vs Organizational Issues (lean vs agile)

1.2 Lean & Agile Manufacturing Concepts 1.2.1 Lean Manufacturing The term lean manufacturing, which first appeared in 1990 when it was used to refer to the elimination of waste in the production process, has been heralded as the production system of the 21st century. Historically the concept of lean manufacturing originated with Toyota Production Systems (TPS) and has been implemented gradually throughout Toyota's operations since the 1950s. By the 1980s, Toyota had increasingly become known for its effectiveness in implementing Just-In-Time (JIT) manufacturing systems, and today Toyota is often considered one of the most efficient manufacturing companies in the world and the company that sets the standard for best practices in lean manufacturing. This started when Mr. Ohno led the development of the lean manufacturing concept. He recognized that keeping the production system running at maximum production

12

efficiency at all costs to minimize the cost of parts and cars lead to: (a) extensive intermediate inventory and (b) defects built into the cars as they passed down the line. He stated the importance of eliminating the waste rather than running at maximum efficiency because increasing the line speed could add waste if variability was injected into the flow of work. Zero time delivery of a car meeting customer requirements with nothing in inventory required tight coordination between the progress of each car down the line and the arrival of parts from supply chains [1]. Lean manufacturing can now be understood as a new way to design and make things different from mass and craft forms of production by the objectives and techniques applied on the shop floor, both in design and along supply chains. Lean manufacturing aims to optimize performance of the production system against a standard of perfection to meet unique customer requirements. [2] The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnerships Lean Network offers the following definition of lean manufacturing: A systematic approach to identifying and eliminating waste through continuous improvement of the flow of the product at the pull of the customer in pursuit of perfection. [3]. The main benefits of lean manufacturing are lower production costs, increased output and shorter production lead times. More specifically are the following factors: [4]

1) Defects and waste reduction of defects and unnecessary physical waste, including excess use of raw material inputs, preventable defects

13

and costs associated with reprocessing defective items and unnecessary product characteristics which are not required by customers. 2) Cycle Times reduction of manufacturing lead times and production cycle times by reducing waiting times between processing stages, as well as process preparation times and product/model conversion times. 3) Inventory levels minimization of inventory levels at all stages of production, particularly works-in-progress (WIP) between production stages. 4) Labor productivity improvement of labour productivity, both by reducing the idle time of workers and ensuring that when workers are working, they are using their effort as productively as possible (including not doing unnecessary tasks or unnecessary motions). 5) Utilization of equipment and space utilization of equipment and manufacturing space more efficiently by maximizing the rate of production though existing equipment, while minimizing machine downtime. 6) Flexibility acquisition of the ability to produce a more flexible range of products with minimum changeover costs and changeover time. 7) Output reduction of cycle times, increase in labour productivity. Companies can generally significantly increase output from their existing facilities.

1.2.2 Lean Manufacturing Tools Based on the definition of lean manufacturing, it is apparent that it is a set of tools and methodologies aiming for continuous elimination of waste in manufacturing processes. Lean Manufacturing Tools include [4]:

14

Cellular manufacturing: organization off the entire process for similar products into a group of team members including all the necessary equipment. Total Quality Management: a management philosophy committed to a focus on continuous improvement of products and services with the involvement of the entire workforce. Continuous improvement minimizes product defects. Rapid Setup (SMED): a method for a reduction of tool changeover times to facilitate increased capacity, smaller batch sizes, lower inventory and reduced lead times Kanban: a finished goods and components management system whereby the manufacturer keeps safety stock on hand at all times for each stage in the manufacturing process. Value Stream Mapping: a technique used in lean manufacturing that maps the flow of material/data and associated time requirements from initial supplier to end customer for a given business process. 5S: five terms beginning with 'S' utilized to create a workplace suited to visual control and lean production: 1- SORT: eliminate everything not required for the current work, keeping only the bare essentials. 2- STRAIGHTEN: arrange items in a way that makes them easily visible and accessible. 3- SHINE: clean everything and find ways to keep it clean; make cleaning a part of everyday work. 4- STANDARDIZE: create rules by which the first 3 Ss are maintained.

15

5- SUSTAIN: Keep 5S activities from unraveling. Pokayoke: supports problem solving and decision making in the context of any manufacturing organization that adopts lean production. Total Productive Maintenance: activity that targets zero

machinery/equipment downtime, zero defects and zero accidents by the proactive identification of potential problems. Standard Work: specification of tasks to indicate the best way to get the job done in the amount of time available while ensuring the job is done within a suitable timeframe. Takt Time: named after the German word for 'beat', this represents the pace at which the customer requires the product. Takt Time is the rate at which parts have to be produced to match the customer requirements. Kaizen: a Japanese word defined as the constant effort to eliminate waste, reduce response time, simplify the design of both products and processes and improve quality and customer service.

1.2.3 Agile Manufacturing The term Agile Manufacturing appeared at the beginning of the 90s. In 1991 the Iacocca Institute released its now famous document outlining their vision of manufacturing in the 21st century. Agile manufacturing is essentially the utilization of market knowledge and virtual corporation to exploit profitable opportunities in a volatile marketplace [5].

16

Agile manufacturing is a flexible manufacturing model that enables manufacturers to build and deliver a wider mix of customized products, faster and more cost effectively [5]. Agile manufacturing is the ability to respond to and create new windows of opportunity in a turbulent market environment, driven by the individualization of customer requirements cost effectively, rapidly and continuously. Essentially the customer, and more importantly the product requirements that they represent, is central to manufacturing profitability. These requirements must be met at the right price, to the right quality, and at the right time. However, due to changes in the business environment, the ability to fulfill these requirements is under permanent pressure from environmental turbulence. Agile Manufacturing sets out to identify and apply practical tools, methodologies and best practices that enable companies to achieve manufacturing agility within a turbulent business environment. [5]

1.2.4 Agile Manufacturing Tools Agile manufacturing allows a company to make rapid changes in a volatile marketplace. As a result of this, the essential tools of such a manufacturing concept will be: Customer Value Focus, IT Systems and Supply Chain Management[6].

1.2.5 Comparison of Lean and Agile manufacturing Lean manufacturing focuses on cost reduction by elimination of nonadded value, while agile manufacturing focuses on cost reduction by efficient response to a volatile market environment. Table 2.1 shows a comparison between lean and agile manufacturing.

17

Table (1.1) Comparison of Lean and Agile Manufacturing Agile Manufacturing Market driven Orders based on changing the market Checking samples on the line by workers Greater flexibility for customized products Focused on enterprise-wide operations Emphasis on virtual enterprises Emphasis on thriving in a market environment Unpredictable market demand High product variety High profit margin Marketability dominant cost Obligatory enrichment Lean Manufacturing Customer driven Orders based on customers Checking samples on the line by workers Flexible production for product variety Focused on factory operations Emphasis on supplier management Emphasis on efficient use of resources Predictable market demand Low product variety Low profit margin Physical dominant cost Highly desirable enrichment

1.3

Research Objective The objective of this research is to develop a methodology for

choosing whether the system exist for lean, agile or leagile manufacturing by the development of a Decision Support System using Visual Basic. This research will proceed in the following manner: a) The literature previously published to provide and define methods of lean, agile and leagile manufacturing, and Decision Support System (DSS). b) Applying the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed by [21] is prepared to help in getting a reference rating (Experts Opinion Rating) to compare it with the rating that comes from the Decision Support System

18

(DSS) (Manufacturing Strategy Rating) to discover the Manufacturing System of the industries which were evaluated. . c) Built a Visual Basic: computerized Decision Support System (DSS) to help in assessing manufacturing system lean, agile and leagile manufacturing. d) Use of developed DSS in case studies.

19

Chapter 2 Literature Review


This literature review covers previous work that has been carried out on the related subjects of lean and agile manufacturing and decision support systems. It represents the current accepted thinking for these manufacturing strategies and their applications in industry.

2.1 Previous Work Naylor et al [1] discuss both approaches, focusing on the aggregate output of the total value related to service, quality, cost and lead-time. They show the appropriate application according to product variety and demand variability requirements. In addition, a case study is given and they conclude that there are advantages in considering both approaches. Brown [2] surveys the application of quality and manufacturing strategies and their relations to lean manufacturing. He concludes that lean manufacturing combines all quality principles and manufacturing strategies. Storch et al. [3] describe the concepts of lean thinking and lean manufacturing by exploring the use of the flow principle of lean manufacturing in the shipbuilding industry. They propose an approach to move the industry closer to lean manufacturing in terms of flow by offering a metric to determine the value of closeness to ideal flow. Banamyong and Supatan [4] compares the effects of lean and agile strategies on the process of aquarium manufacture. He also discusses the benefits of lean and agile manufacturing in enhancing competitiveness.

20

Mukunda and Dixit [5] discuss the problems associated with the Indian Electronics Industry, and suggest how agile manufacturing can provide a solution to these problems. Christian et al [6] provide an overview of the framework and tools developed in agile manufacturing. The framework is based on four main pillars: auditing of the company, auditing of the operating environment, benchmarking and learning from best practice. Abraham Kandel [7] explains the specific area of fuzzy expert systems. He identifies the basic features of the evaluation of expert systems and fuzzy expert systems and describes the uncertainty in said systems. Ashish Agarwal al et [8] discuss the relationship among lead time, cost, quality and service level. This paper concludes that there is justification for a framework which represents the effect of market winning criteria and market qualifying criteria on the three types of manufacturing state Saaty [9] introduces a new method of making decisions in a complex environment. His method utilizes a users experience, along with judgments supported by explanations, to ensure a sense of realism and broad perspective. He describes how to structure a complex situation and identify its criteria and factors. Niam et al [10] present the concept of leagility as opposed to leanness and agility. They describe the similarities and differences between these three concepts and the application of each one. They also describe the application of leagility in various issues such as house building Zadeh [11] introduces the theory of fuzzy numbers as a means to represent uncertainty. He also describes fuzzy events and fuzzy statistics, fuzzy relation and fuzzy logic.

21

Groover

[12]

compares

both

approaches

(lean

and

agile

manufacturing) and concludes that lean deals more with technical and operational issues while agile deals with organizational issues. Hence lean manufacturing applies to the factory while agile manufacturing applies to the enterprise. Der Gaag and Helsper [13] discuss how knowledge can be represented using production rules and frames. They claim that knowledge-based systems are used to solve real-life problems which are typically not predefined. Chiadamrong and Brien [14] present a decision support tool to assist decision makers in choosing the best alternative in manufacturing a production system in a given situation. Quarterman [15] discusses the implementation of lean manufacturing. He states that every factory is different. These differences require unique approaches and sequences of implementation, and many other details differ from factory to factory. David Ashall et al [16] suggest that companies within a turbulent market environment will need to operate in a more responsive manner and adopt an agile philosophy. The authors opinion is that both lean and agile philosophies will be able to operate within differing types of supply chain and areas of business. Yanchun Luo and Zhou [17] present a mathematically sound model for the design and optimization of a supply chain in terms of performance indices such as cost, cycle time, quality and environmental impact. They also state that agile manufacturing can produce the desired products with minimum environmental impact over their life cycle. Moore [18] discusses the necessary issues of agility (such as product uniqueness, volume, quality, speed of delivery and cost) with respect to their

22

benefits and restrictions. He states the possibility of providing a solution for creating lean and agile operations within the same organization to focus on differing operational needs. Cellura et al [19] present and define a mathematical model to assess the whole environmental performance of urban systems and to control the developing trends towards sustainability as a result of differing human management scenarios. They develop a user-friendly software programme as a decision support system for policy makers during the process of multicriteria selection among differing planning and management options. Mekong [20] describes the introduction of lean manufacturing. He also explains the tools, methodology and implementation of lean manufacturing. Knuf [21] investigates the use of benchmarking in the transformation of a conventional organization into a lean enterprise. Toshiro Terano et al [22] introduce the practical application of fuzzy theory. They describe the concept of fuzzy linear programming and discuss the forms of fuzzy control rules and inference methods. Arnold Kaufmann et al [23] present a comprehensive and selfcontained theory of fuzzy numbers and their application. They claim that fuzzy numbers are a broad tool for dealing with uncertainty. 2.2 Literature Conclusion A survey of twenty-seven references has been made above, with nineteen references focusing on lean, agile and leagile manufacturing, three on a Decision Support System (DSS), four on Fuzzy Logic and one on an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Table (2.1) summarizes the nineteen lean, agile and leagile references which provide measures and criteria for manufacturing strategies. The table 2.1 shows that all fifteen of the related references discuss lead time and cost, fourteen of the fifteen discuss quality, eleven of the fifteen
23

discuss service level, nine of the fifteen discuss productivity and so on. Hence, it can be concluded that lead time, cost, quality, service level and productivity are main measures. Thus, they represent the objectives to be achieved by manufacturing strategies.

Table (2.1) Summary of related references for lean and agile manufacturing
Information technology 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 Market sensitivity 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 elimination of waste 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 productivity 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 9 flexibility 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 service level 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 11 quality 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 cost 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 lead time 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 Ref.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 18 19 21 Total

The other criteria flexibility, elimination of waste, market sensitivity and information technology represent the characteristics of manufacturing system which affect the objective criteria. these characteristics should be considered when identifying the manufacturing strategies.

24

Chapter 3 Modeling of Lean, Agile and Leagile Manufacturing

The achievements of the manufacturing strategies (Lean, agile, or leagile) depend on several factors which are composed of complex multidecision variables. They are defined as changing factors in a model that is determined by decision makers. These variables are composed of the criteria and strategies through which alternative solutions can be found. One of the main methods used is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method [7]. This technique is used to identify the experts opinions - which are the objective of this section - for selecting one of the strategies. In the following sections a brief description of the method and the developed model will be given.

3.1

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a method used in management and economics for the ranking of a set of strategies and the selection of the most suitable one. AHP allows improved understanding of complex decisions by breaking down the problem into a hierarchically-structured design. AHP can be thought of as answering the questions: Which one do we choose? or Which one is the best? by selecting the best alternative that matches all of the decision makers criteria. The implementation of the AHP method involves the following steps:

25

(1)

The problem is reduced to a hierarchy of levels as shown in Figure

(3.1). The highest level corresponds to the overall objective. The lowest level is formed by a set of strategies by which objective can be achieved. The intermediary levels are composed of hierarchical criteria levels which measure the objective achievement.
Objective

Criterion 1

Criterion 2

Criterion 3

Criterion 2-1

Criterion 2-2

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Figure (3.1) Hierarchal Approach of AHP

(2)

The elements of any level are subjected to a series of paired

comparisons on the Saatys scale (ranging from 1/9 to 9/9) and a paired comparison matrix is built.
Table (3.1) AHP comparison scale Definition Intensity relative importance Intensity of relative importance Factor i and j are of equal importance Factor i is weakly more important than j Factor i is strongly more important than j Factor i is more strongly more important than j Factor i is absolutely more important than j intermediate 1 3 5 7 9 2,4,6 and 8

26

(3) All required judgments are obtained.

There are n(n-1)/2 paired

comparisons to be obtained for each matrix developed.

(4) The sum of the values in each column is calculated.

A 1 A 2 A 3 ( A + A2 + A3) 1

B 1 B 2 B 3 (B + B2 + B3) 1

C 1 C 2 C 3 (C + C2 + C3) 1

(5)

The values in each column are divided by the corresponding column

sums (note that the sum of the values in each column is 1). Then the average of each row is calculated:

A + A + A 1 2 3 A 2

B B 1 + B B B 1 + B B B 1 + B

1 2 2 2 2 2

C + B 3 C 1 +C C + B 3 C 1 +C C + B 3 C 1 +C

1 2 3 2 3 2

+C

= Avrg 1

A + A + A 1 2 3 A 2

+C

= Avrg 3 = Avrg 3

A + A + A 1 2 3

+C

3.2 Modeling the Manufacturing Strategies Using AHP Since several strategies can structure a particular manufacturing system which in turn provides certain strategies (lean, agile, or leagile manufacturing), a value should be obtained based on measuring factors and

27

characteristics factors for this particular manufacturing system in order to identify the strategies. Therefore for a proper decision to be made, these factors modeling using AHP as shown in figure 3.2 according to survey given in chapter 2 section 2.2.
Measuring measures factors (Objective
Lead time Cost Quality Productivity Service

Characteristics Characteristic factors

Elimination Of waste

Flexibility

Information Technology

Market Sensitivity

Sub (sub .characteristics characteristic

o Over-production o Inventory transportation waiting o Knowledge Misconec

o Manufacturing flexibility, o Delivery flexibility o Source flexibility

o Electronic data interchange; o Means of information and data accuracy o Data and knowledge bases

o Delivery speed o New product introduction o Customer responsiveness

Manufacturing System (Manufacturin strategies


St t i )

Lean Manufacturing

Agile Manufacturing

Leagile Manufacturing

Figure (3.2) Model for Lean, Agile and Leagile Manufacturing

The model is obtained from combined measure factors, characteristics factors and Manufacturing strategies which are descried as follows. A) The Measuring Factors

The main measuring factors for lean, agile and leagile strategies are depended on five measures (lead time, cost, quality, productivity, service level) shown in Figure (3.3)

The Measures

Lead time

Cost

Quality

Productivity

Service Level

Figure (3.3) Measures of Manufacturing Strategies

28

a.

Lead Time: indicates the ability of the manufacturing firm to execute a

particular job - from the date of ordering to the date of delivery - quickly and as soon as the order is placed. Lead-time needs to be minimized in lean manufacturing as by definition excess time is waste, and leanness calls for the elimination of all waste. Lead-time also has to be minimized to enable agility, as demand is highly volatile and thus difficult to forecast. The essence of the difference between leanness and agility in terms of the total value provided to the customer is that service is the critical factor calling for agility, whilst cost, and hence the sales price, is clearly linked to leanness. [8] b. Cost: indicates the extent to which the minimization of expenses is

manifested in company operations (the cost of capital, overhead and any recorded cost of production and distribution). This is an essential factor to be minimized in lean and agile manufacturing in order to maximize the profit of factory.[8] c. Productivity: indicates how well resources are used to produce

marketable goods (i.e. the amount of output per unit of labour input, equipment, and capital). Productivity needs to be maximized in leanness in the form of zero non-value-added-production while at the same time covering the market requirement.[8] d. Service Level: indicates the extent to which customer orders can be

executed with market-acceptable standards of delivery. [8] e. Quality: indicates the standard of the finished product, and needs to be

maximized in lean and agile manufacturing in the form of minimal defects and maximal reliability, thus satisfying customers with the desirability of the products properties or characteristics [8].

29

B)

The Characteristic Factors

A characteristic can be defined as the feature of the property which is obtained by considering several parameters. Hence the manufacturing system in a described state performs under closely specified conditions that produce a metric value. Figure (3.3) shows four key characteristics for lean and agile manufacturing with their related parameters. These characteristics are taken from [9]

The characteristics

Elimination Of Waste

Flexibility

Information Technology

Market Sensitivity

o Over-production o Inventory transportation waiting o Knowledge misconnection

o Manufacturing flexibility, o Delivery flexibility o Source flexibility

o Electronic data interchange; o Means of information and data accuracy o Databases and Knowledge Bases

o Delivery speed o New product introduction o Customer responsiveness

Figure (3.4) Characteristics of Manufacturing and Related Methods

a) Elimination of waste This is common sense, yet it continues to be a problem for many companies in every sector and activity. The various kinds of waste include: process waste (things that manufacturers do as a function of their production system design), business waste (things all businesses do as a function of their business process design) and pure waste (things we all do because they are more convenient than changing our habits). [9] b) Flexibility: The ability to respond quickly to changes in market environment by adapting with little penalty in time, effort, cost or performance [lean production and agile manufacturing Flexibility is also considered to be the ease with which a
30

system or component can be modified for use in applications or environments other than those for which it was specifically designed. System flexibility leads to lead time compression and higher service level [lean production system control. Flexibility can be obtained by several methods such as: manufacturing flexibility, delivery flexibility and source flexibility.[9]

d) Information technology: Information is a term with many meanings depending on context, but as a rule it is closely related to such concepts as meaning, knowledge, instruction, communication, representation and mental stimulus [modeling the metric of lean, agile and leagile supply chain: ANPbased approach MMLA]. Depending on the type offered, every product should include some aspect of information. In addition a company must achieve cost development of the new product. Information technology is obtained by several methods such as electronic data interchange, means of information and data accuracy - which enable the firms to manufacture in accordance with real time demand - and databases and knowledge bases.[9] d) Market sensitivity: A market is a mechanism which allows people to trade, normally governed by the theory of supply and demand. Both general and specialized markets, where only one commodity is traded, exist. Markets work by placing many interested sellers in one place, thus making them easier to find for prospective buyers. Sensitivity is the awareness and understanding of facts, truths or information gained in the form of experience or learning. It involves issues related to quick response to real-time demand, so it has to improve quality, lead time comparison and service level (modeling the metric of lean, agile and leagile supply chain: ANPbased approach MMLA). Market sensitivity

31

is characterized by methods such as delivery speed, delivery, new product introduction and customer responsiveness. [9] Hence, Based on the AHP technique, a model for lean, agile and leagile manufacturing strategies has been developed to assist in making decisions regarding the defining of the degree to which to apply the strategies of lean, agile, and/or leagile manufacturing in accordance with the criteria. 3.3 Developing the Expert Opinions Rating To find a reference measurement rating for manufacturing strategies a questionnaire was designed as shown in Appendix A to seek expert opinion about the requires rating for implementing lean, agile and leagile manufacturing strategies in industries. The opinions provide the necessary data which are captured from internal and external experts according to their qualifications. The composed data is adjusted using Expert Choice (EC) software which is a multi-objective decision support tool based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Expert Choice is designed for the analysis, synthesis and justification of complex decisions and evaluations for use in individual or group settings. It can be for a variety of applications such as resource allocation, source selection, HR management, employee performance evaluation, salary decisions, selecting strategies and customer feedback [10]. After running the software, the experts opinion rating was founded in the following tables as the characteristics factor rating . Appendix A shows in detail the program. The output of the program are shown in table 3.2 to table 3.8.

32

Table 3.2 explains the characteristics factors for the lead time with respect to lean, agile and leagile manufacturing strategy. a consistency ratio was calculated by the software to check the applicability of the paired comparisons The value consistency ratio should be 10 percent or less. Therefore, all the consistency ratio of the below table is less than 10 % [9].

a28

Table (3.2) Characteristics Factors Rating for the Lead Time


Consistency 0.02 0.04 0 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.02 Leagile 0.625 0.637 0.5 0.582 0.667 0.547 0. 493 0.547 0.443 0.499 0.54 0.55 Agile 0.238 0.258 0.25 0.309 0.222 0.345 0.311 0.345 0.387 0.396 0.297 0.24 Lean 0.136 0.105 0.25 0.109 0.111 0.109 0.196 0.109 0.169 0.105 0.163 0.21 Characteristics Factors Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

Table 3.3 demonstrates the manufacturing performance for the cost with respect to lean, agile and leagile manufacturing strategy. a consistency ratio was calculated by the software to check the applicability of the paired comparisons The value consistency ratio should be 10 percent or less. Therefore, all the consistency ratio of the below table is less than 10 % [9].

33

Table (3.3) Characteristics Factors Rating for the Cost


Consistency 0.01 0.02 0.01 0 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.05 Leagile 0.416 0.387 0.297 0.400 0.311 0.416 0.466 0.443 0.625 0.416 0.443 0.493 Agile 0.126 0.443 0.163 0.400 0.493 0.458 0.433 0.169 0.136 0.458 0.169 0.311 Lean 0.458 0.169 0.540 0.200 0.196 0.126 0.100 0.387 0.238 0.126 0.387 0.196 Characteristics Factors Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

Table 3.4 expresses the manufacturing performance for the quality with respect to lean, agile and leagile manufacturing strategy. a consistency ratio was calculated by the software to check the applicability of the paired comparisons. The value consistency ratio should be 10 percent or less. Therefore, all the consistency ratio of the below table is less than 10 % [9]

34

Table (3.4) Characteristics Factors Rating for the Quality


Consistency 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.01 Leagile 0.376 0.443 0.416 0.413 0.493 0.376 0.376 0.493 0.413 0.327 0.387 0.540 Agile 0.149 0.169 0.126 0.327 0.311 0.474 0.474 0.196 0.260 0.413 0.169 0.297 Lean 0.474 0.387 0.458 0.260 0.196 0.149 0.149 0.311 0.327 0.260 0.443 0.163 Characteristics Factors Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

Table 3.5 expresses the manufacturing performance for the productivity with respect to lean, agile and leagile manufacturing strategy. a consistency ratio was calculated by the software to check the applicability of the paired comparisons The value consistency ratio should be 10 percent or less. Therefore, all the consistency ratio of the below table is less than 10 % [9].

35

Table (3.5) Characteristics Factors Rating for the Productivity


Consistency 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.01 0 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 Leagile 0.320 0.333 0.280 0.588 0.528 0.260 0.634 0.333 0.387 0.443 0.376 0.550 Agile 0.122 0.140 0.094 0.122 0.140 0.413 0.192 0.333 0.433 0.387 0.149 0.210 Lean 0.558 0.528 0.627 0.320 0.333 0.327 0.174 0.333 0.169 0.169 0.474 0.240 Characteristics Factors Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

Table 3.6 expresses the manufacturing performance for the service level with respect to lean, agile and leagile manufacturing strategy. a consistency ratio was calculated by the software to check the applicability of the paired comparisons The value consistency ratio should be 10 percent or less. Therefore, all the consistency ratio of the below table is less than 10 %. [9].

36

Table (3.6) Characteristics Factors Rating for the Service Level


Consistency 0.05 0.02 0.02 0 0.03 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.05 0 0.02 0.02 Leagile 0.376 0.320 0.387 0.286 0.405 0.416 0.396 0.268 0.327 0.400 0.443 0.443 Agile 0.474 0.558 0.443 0.571 0.481 0.458 0.499 0.614 0.413 0.400 0.387 0.387 Lean 0.149 0.122 0.169 0.143 0.114 0.126 0.105 0.117 0.260 0.200 0.169 0.169 Characteristics Factors Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

The above results are summarized for measuring factors of lead time, cost, quality, productivity and service level as shown in table 3.7. a consistency ratio was calculated by the software to check the applicability of the paired comparisons. The value consistency ratio should be 10 percent or less. Therefore, all the consistency ratio of the below table is less than 10 %. [9].
Table (3.7 Characteristics Factors Rating for the Measures Factors
consistency 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 Leagile 0.549 0. 408 0.421 0.390 0.366 Agile 0.311 0.33 0.248 0.215 0.485 Lean 0.140 0.262 0.332 0.396 0.149 Measuring Factors Lead Time Cost Quality Productivity Service Level

37

Hence the experts opinions rating is shown in table 3.8 . a consistency ratio was calculated by the software to check the applicability of the paired comparisons. a consistency ratio was calculated by the software to check the applicability of the paired comparisons The value consistency ratio should be 10 percent or less. Therefore, all the consistency ratio of the below table is less than 10 %. [9].

Table (3.8) Relative Impact with respect to Experts Opinions rating


consistency 0.09 Leagile 0.423 Agile 0.319 Lean 0.258 Expert Opinions Overall Rating

To vary the above Experts Opinions Ratings to fuzzy numbers , these ratings should be added and subtracted from their constancy. Accordingly, table 3.9 shows the fuzzy numbers of Experts Opinions Ratings fuzzy numbers.

Table (3.9) Relative Impact with respect to Experts Opinions rating fuzzy numbers
consistency 0.09 Leagile 0.333 to 0.513 Agile 0.229 to 0.409 Lean 0.168 to 0.348 Expert Opinions Overall Rating

38

Chapter 4 Decision Support System (DSS)

4.1 Building a Decision Support System Using Visual Basic A decision support system (DSS) is built using visual basic (VB) to acquire an existing manufacturing rating based on the illustration shown in figure 4.1. This is described as follows:

Figure 4.1 Selection of the Manufacturing System 1- Finding the input data of an existing manufacturing system in plant by evaluating their measuring factors and characteristics factors. Appendix B shows the questionnaire that were given to

39

plants to get their feedback data of measuring and characteristics factors. 2- Analyzing the given factors by fuzzy system to get the existing manufacturing rating. the data from the questionnaire was entered into the visual basic program as an input data. afterward, the visual basic program analyze these data by the fuzzy method to obtain the manufacturing strategy rating. Then, the experts opinion rating was acquired. Zadeh [11] introduced fuzzy system theory to solve problems involving the uncertain absence of criteria. A fuzzy system is a quantity whose value is imprecise, rather than exact (single-valued) numbers. There are types of fuzzy numbers like triangular fuzzy numbers, trapezoidal fuzzy number and normal fuzzy number. (The triangular fuzzy number ) T is very popular in fuzzy applications to get the manufacturing strategy rating . A triangular fuzzy number ~ can define as a triplet A = (a1 , b1 , c1 ) and it is defined as shown in figure 4.2.

Poor 1

Fair

Good

V. Good

Excellent

40

~ ~ Figure 4.2 Triangular Fuzzy

Let A and B be two fuzzy numbers represented by the triplet

(a1 , a 2 , a 3 )

and (b1 , b2 , b3 ) , respectively, then the operations of triangular fuzzy numbers are expressed as [24]:

~ ~ A (+) B = (a1 , a 2 , a 3 ) + (b1 , b2 , b3 ) = (a1 + b1 , a 2 + b2 , a 3 + b3 ) ~ ~ A (-) B = (a1 , a 2 , a 3 ) - (b1 , b2 , b3 ) = (a1 b1 , a 2 b2 , a 3 b3 ) ~ ~ A (x) B = (a1 , a 2 , a 3 ) x (b1 , b2 , b3 ) = (a1b1 , a 2 b2 , a 3 b3 ) ~ ~ A ( ) B = (a1 , a 2 , a 3 ) (b1 , b2 , b3 ) = (a1 b1 , a 2 b2 , a 3 b3 ) .
( A + B )/n = ( a1 , a 2 , a 3 ) (/ (b1 , b2 , b3 ) ) = ( (a1 b1 , a 2 b2 , a 3 b3 ) )/ n For example; The triplet good is (3,5,7), the triplet excellent is (7,9,9) and so on. The mean of triplet good and triplet excellent is (3+7,5+9,7+9) divided by three to get (3.33,4.67,5.33). these ways were the questionnaire was filled. An important concepts of fuzzy system is the -cut, [0,1] as shown in figure 4.3. Moreover, (the -cut of the triangular fuzzy number) can be calculated as

_ cut = (a 1 , a 2 , a 3 ) = (((a 2 a1 ) + a1 ), ((a3 a 2 ) + a3 ))


1

41

a1

a2

a3

-cut 3)Figure 4.3 -cut of the triangular fuzzy number by the expert opinions comparing the existing manufacturing rating rating which is given in chapter 3. if the manufacturing strategy rating lies beneath lean manufacturing rating; then the manufacturing system is traditional manufacturing. Moreover, if the manufacturing strategy rating lies between lean manufacturing rating and agile manufacturing rating ; then the manufacturing system is lean manufacturing. Furthermore, if the manufacturing strategy rating lies between Agile manufacturing rating and leagile manufacturing rating ; then the manufacturing system is Agile manufacturing. Finally, if the manufacturing strategy rating lies beyond leagile manufacturing rating and; then the manufacturing system is leagile manufacturing.

4) finding the manufacturing strategy system of the plant. To find the manufacturing system strategy, the existing manufacturing rating should be obtained. However, after getting the existing manufacturing rating, this rating should be vary to fuzzy number according to consistency ratio to compare with the experts opinions ratings which is covered into chapter 3. For more calcification figure 4.3 shows the comparison to evaluate the manufacturing system strategy.

42

Traditional 0 0.258

Lean 0.319

Agile 0.423

Leagile 1

Supposing 0.31 is existing manufacturing rating with existing manufacturing rating = 0.312 Figure 4.4
Manufacturing System Strategy = Lean

The Manufacturing System Strategy

Suppose

a 1 = 1 .5

a 2 = 2 and a 3 = 2 .5 , Hence

-cut = ((2-1.5)0.31+1.5,(-2.5+2)0.31+2.5 =(1.65,2.4)

`````

0.31

1.5

1.64

2 -cut

2.4

2.5

43

Figure 4.5 the -cut of the example

Chapter 5 Case Studies


A questionnaire was built as shown in appendix B to seek manufacturing system of the plant. The questionnaires were distributed to three companies: Saudi Mechanical Industries Company (SMI), Advanced Electronics Company (AEC) and Saudi Light Company (SLC). Three employees from each company were met with to discuss their feedback on the questionnaire.
5.1) Saudi Mechanical Industries Company (SMI)
Saudi Mechanical Industries Co. (SMI), located in Riyadhs Second Industrial City, is an integrated entity for the manufacture of mechanically engineered products serving the domestic market of Saudi Arabia as well as the international markets of the Middle East, Europe and the USA.

SMI was founded in 1982 as a manufacturer of pipes, tubes, and shafts along with other related parts of the Vertical Turbine Pumps. The 1990s witnessed a thrust of growth for SMI with increased production of advanced manufacturing equipment, the manufacture of Right Angle Gear Drives, the setting up of the Round Steel Bar operation and the completion of a fully integrated Quality Control System. And in the years that followed came a yet greater increase in manufacturing capability and capacity, particularly with the advent of Computer Numerical Controlled (CNC) manufacturing equipment. In 2002 SMIs new plant for Continuous Cast Bronze bars and bronze centrifugal casting came online. This focused approach to growth has yielded a company that today stands as a pre-eminent world producer of
44

quality engineered products and components. Since 1982 SMI has specialized in the manufacture of Electric Submersible pumps under license from the National Pump Company (USA) to cater for various commercial, industrial, residential, municipal and agricultural requirements. The continued growth of SMI can be attributed to its focus on customer service, its attention to quality, its ongoing product development and its increasing product range. The company currently has nine offices in Saudi Arabia. SMI can be described as the only company in the Middle East with the proven capabilities that have gained it a leading position in its field. The combination of high quality raw materials, precision manufacturing processes and top-level quality control procedures ensures a product of reliability and high performance. The company was awarded ISO 9002 certification in October 1999 and since then has fully implemented the documented Quality Management System, which conforms to the requirements of ISO9001/2000.
5.1.1 SMI Study

A committee of three Decision Makers (D1, D2 and D3) was formed to evaluate the existing manufacturing rating. The feedback data input of the five measuring factors that were filled out in the questionnaire is shown in table 5.1. Appendix C shows the relevant screenshots from Visual Basic Windows.
Table 5.1 The feedback data input of the five measuring factors
Mean ( 0.23,0.43,0.63) ( 0.23,0.43,0.63) ( 0.23,0.43,0.63) ( 0.17,0.37,0.57) D3 Good Good Fair Fair D2 Fair Fair Good Good D1 Good Good Good Fair Measuring Factors Lead time Cost Quality Productivity

45

( 0.23,0.43,0.63)

Good

Good

Fair

Service Level

Then, the feedback data input of the characteristics factors are shown in tables 5.2,5.3,5.4,5.5,5.6. These tables show the characteristic factors for each decision D1, D2, D3. Table 5.2 demonstrates the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of lead time.

1. Lead time

Table (5.2) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Lead Time (SMI)


Measuring Factors D3 V. Good Good V. Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair V. Good Fair ( 2.67,4.67,6.67) D2 V. Good Good Good Fair Fair Good Good Good V. Good V. Good Fair Fair ( 2.83,4.83,6.83) D1 Fair Fair Fair Fair Good V. Good Good Good Fair Good V. Good Fair ( 2.33,4.33,6.33) Characteristics Factors

Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness
mean Lead time

46

2. Cost

Moreover, Table 5.3 demonstrates the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of cost.
Table (5.3 ) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Cost (SMI)
Measuring Factors D3 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair ( 2,4,6) D2 V. Good Good Good Fair V. Good V. Good Good Fair Fair Good Fair Good ( 2.83,4.83,6.83) D1 Good Good Good Fair Fair Good Fair Good V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good ( 3.17,5.17,7.17) Characteristics Factors

Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness
mean Cost

47

3. Quality

Furthermore, Table 5.4 shows the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of Quality.

Table (5.4) ) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Quality (SMI)


Measuring Factors D3 Good Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair ( 2.17,4.17,6.17) D2 Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good V. Good V. Good Fair Good ( 2.33,4.33,6.33) D1 Good Good Good V. Good V. Good Fair Fair Fair Good Good Fair Good ( 2.67,4.67,6.67 ) Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

Quality

mean

48

4. Productivity

in addition, Table 5.5 shows the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of productivity.

Table (5.5) ) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Productivity (SMI)


D3 V. Good V. Good D2 Good Fair D1 V. Good V. Good Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

Measuring Factors

V. Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good V. Good V. Good ( 3.33,5.33,7.33)

Fair Fair Good Good Good Fair Good Good V. Good V. Good ( 2.67,4.67,6.67)

V. Good V. Good Good Good Fair Good Good V. Good V. Good V. Good ( 4,6,8)

Productivity

mean

49

5. Service Level

as well, Table 5.6 shows the characteristics factors of the measuring factor for service level.

Table (5.6) ) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Service Level (SMI)


Measuring Factors D3 Fair Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good ( 1.67,3.67,5.67) D2 Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Good Fair ( 3.5,5.5,7.5) D1 Fair Fair Fair Good V. Good V. Good V. Good Good Good Good Good V. Good ( 3.17,5.17,7.17) Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility

Service Level
Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

mean

After entering the input, the data output of the program is shown in table 5.7, Normalization all the above means of characteristics factors by dividing by 10. [9]

50

Table (5.7) Normalization of the Measures Factors Means of the three Decision Makers (SMI) Service Level Productivity Quality Cost Lead Time ( 0.32,0.52,0.72) ( 0.4,0.6,0.8) ( 0.27,0.47,0.67) (0.32,0.52,0.72) ( 0.23,0.43,0.63) ( 0.35,0.55,0.75) ( 0.27,0.47,0.67) ( 0.23,0.43,0.63) ( 0.28,0.48,0.68) ( 0.28,0.48,0.68) ( 0.17,0.37,0.57) ( 0.33,0.53,0.73) (0. 22,0.42,0.62) ( 0.2,0.4,0.6) ( 0.27,0.47,0.67)

D1 D2 D3

The normalized means of table 5.7 is multiplied by The means of feedback data input of the five measuring factors table 5.1 to obtain the following
( 0.23,0.43,0.63) ( 0.28,0.48,0.68) ( 0.27,0.47,067) ( 0.32,0.52,0.72) ( 0.28,0.48,0.68) ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.27,0.47,0.67) ( 0.23,0.43,0.63) ( 0.22,0.42,0.62) ( 0.4,0.6,0.8) ( 0.32,0.52,0.72) ( 0.27,0.47,0.67) ( 0.35,0.55,0.75) ( 0.33,0.53,0.73) ( 0.17,0.37,0.57)

(0.23,0.43 ,0.63) (0.23,0.43 ,0.63)) (0.23,0.43 ,0.63) ( 0.170.37,0 .57) (0.23,0.43 ,0.63)

The result of the multiplication is


(0.33,1.06 ,2.18) (0.27,0.94 ,2) (0.25,0.91 ,1.97)

Average

= 1.19 = 1.07 = 1.04

Average

1.097

Then applying the equation

1 . 097 0 . 18 = 0.28 3 . 52 0 . 18

where 1.097 is the result of multiplication

and 0.18 and 3.52 are constant. The resulting 0.28 is multiplied by the certainty constant (0.70) to get 0.196. Figure (4.4) is consulted to conclude that SMI is below the 0.258 which represents the lean baseline.
0.196 Traditional Lean Agile Leagile

51

0.258

0.319

0.423

Thus SMIs system is at present that of traditional manufacturing. In order to facilitate its evolution to lean manufacturing, SMI should implement the following tools (described earlier in Section 1.2.2):

Cellular Manufacturing Total Quality Management Value Stream Mapping 5-S, Pokayoke Kaizen Takt Time

-cut = ((1.07-1.04)0.196+1.04,(-1.19+1.07)0.196+1.19 = (1.05, 1.16)

0.196

1.04 1.05

1.07 -cut

1.16

1.19

52

5.2 Advanced Electronics Company (AEC)

AEC was established in 1988 with a paid-up capital of SR 110.5M, under a directive of the Saudi Government to create local capabilities in strategic areas such as advanced manufacturing technologies, communications systems and product support. AEC's efforts have been directed towards developing national capabilities in strategic areas, thereby enhancing the Kingdom's self-sufficiency and improving the operational readiness of advanced systems through local maintenance. AEC has been able to acquire considerable technological knowledge and has developed substantial design, manufacturing and TPS design/build capabilities. It has become the leading electronics company in the region, capable of manufacturing sophisticated military and commercial electronic products, and exceeding the most demanding military and commercial standards. AEC, including its R&D operations, is currently certified to various military standards and ISO9001. The company continues to invest in expanding its capabilities in the fields of R&D, manufacturing, test process and manpower development. AEC plans to diversify its activities and product base in the military and commercial fields to encompass manufacturing, support and systems integration. It expects to work with leading, quality-orientated international companies which are seeking dependable and world-renowned partners in the Kingdom.

53

Major AEC customers include the Saudi Armed Forces, the Saudi Presidency of Civil Aviation, the Ministry of the Interior, Saudi Electricity Company (SEC), United Defense (FMC), Boeing and Ericsson.
5.2.1 AEC Study

A committee of three Decision Makers (D1, D2 and D3) was formed to evaluate the existing manufacturing rating. The feedback data input of the five measuring factors that were filled out in the questionnaire is shown in table 5.8. Appendix C shows the relevant screenshots from Visual Basic Windows.
Table (5.8) The feedback data input of the five measuring factors (AEC)
Mean ( 0.37,0.57,0.77) D3 Good D2 V. Good D1 Good Measuring Factors Lead time

( 0.37,0.57,0.77)

Good

V. Good

Good

Cost

( 0.43,0.63,0.83) ( 0.37,0.57,0.77)

V. Good Good

V. Good Good

Good V. Good

Quality

Productivity

( 0.37,0.57,0.77)

V. Good

Good

Good

Service Level

Then, the feedback data input of the characteristics factors are shown in tables 5.9,5.10,5.11,5.12,5.13. These tables show the characteristic factors for each decision D1, D2, D3. Table 5.9 demonstrates the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of lead time.

54

1. Lead time
Table (5.9) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Lead Time (AEC)
D3 V. Good V. Good D2 V. Good Good D1 Good V. Good Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

Measuring Factors

V. Good Good V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good Good V. Good V. Good ( 4.67,6.67,8.67)

V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good Good V. Good V. Good ( 4.67,6.67,8.67)

V. Good V. Good Good Good V. Good Good V. Good Good V. Good V. Good ( 4.17,6.17,8.17)

Lead time

mean

55

2. Cost

Moreover, Table 5.10 demonstrates the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of cost.

Table (5.10) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Cost (AEC)


Measuring Factors D3 Good V. Good V. Good Good Good Good V. Good Good V. Good Good V. Good Good ( 3.83,5.83,7.83) D2 Good V. Good V. Good Good V. Good Good V. Good Good V. Good V. Good Good Good ( 4,6,8) D1 Good V. Good V. Good Good Good V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good Good Good V. Good ( 4.17,6.17,8.17) Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

Cost

mean

56

3. Quality

Moreover, Table 5.11 demonstrates the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of quality.

Table (5.11) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Quality (AEC)


Measuring Factors D3 V. Good Excellent Excellent V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good V. Good ( 5.33,7.33,9) D2 V. Good Good Good Good V. Good Good Good V. Good V. Good Good V. Good V. Good ( 4,6,8) D1 V. Good V. Good Good V. Good V. Good Good Good Good V. Good Good V. Good Good ( 4,6,8) Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

Quality

mean

57

4. Productivity

in addition, Table 5.12 shows the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of productivity.

Table (5.12) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Productivity (AEC)


Measuring Factors D3 V. Good V. Good Good V. Good Good Good Good V. Good V. Good Good V. Good V. Good ( 4.33,6.33,8.17) D2 V. Good Good V. Good V. Good V. Good Good V. Good Good V. Good Good Good V. Good ( 4.17,6.17,8.17) D1 V. Good V. Good Good V. Good Good V. Good V. Good V. Good Good V. Good V. Good V. Good ( 4.5,6.5,8.5) Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

Productivity

mean

58

5. Service Level

in addition, Table 5.13 shows the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of service level.

Table (5.13) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Service Level (AEC)


D3 Fair Fair D2 Good Good D1 Good Good Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

Measuring Factors

Fair Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair ( 1.83,3.83,5.83)

Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Fair Fair Good ( 2,4,6)

Good Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Good Fair ( 2.33,4.33,6.33)

Service Level

mean

After entering the input, the data output of the program is shown in table 5.14, Normalization all the above means of characteristics factors by dividing by 10. [9]

59

Table (5.14) Normalization of the Measuring Means of the three Decision Makers Service Level Productivity Quality Cost Lead Time ( 0.23,0.43,0.63) ( 0.45,0.65,0.85) ( 0.40,0.60,0.80) ( 0.42,0.62,0.82) ( 0.42,0.62,0.82) ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.42,0.62,0.82) ( 0.40,0.60,0.80) ( 0.40,0.60,0.80) ( 0.47,0.67,0.87) ( 0.18,0.38,0.58) ( 0.43,0.63,0.82) ( 0.53,0.73,0.90) ( 0.38,0.58,0.78) ( 0.47,0.67,0.87)

F AZ AB

The normalized means of table 5.14 is multiplied by The means of feedback data input of the five measuring factors table 5.8 to obtain the following
( 0.42,0.62,0.82) ( 0.47,0.67,0.87) ( 0.47,0.67,0.87) ( 0.42,0.62,0.82) ( 0.40,0.60,0.80) ( 0.38,0.58,0.78) ( 0.40,0.60,0.80) ( 0.40,0.60,0.80) ( 0.53,0.73,0.90) ( 0.45,0.65,0.85) ( 0.42,0.62,0.82) ( 043,0.63,0.82) ( 0.23,0.43,0.63) ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.18,0.38,0.58)

( 0.37,0.57, 0.77) ( 0.37,0.57, 0.77) ( 0.43,0.63, 0.83) ( 0.37,0.57, 0.77) ( 0.37,0.57, 0.77)

The result of the multiplication is


(0.73,1.7, 3.07) (0.72,1.68 ,3.04) (0.76,1.74 ,3.1)

Average

= 1.83 = 1.82 = 1.87

Average

1.84

1 . 84 0 . 18 = 0.50 3 . 52 0 . 18

where 1.84 is the result of multiplication and 0.18 and 3.52 are constant.

The resulting 0.50 is multiplied by the certainty constant (0.70) to get 0.350. Figure (4.3) is consulted to conclude that AEC falls within the agile boundaries of 0.319 and 0.423.
0.35

60

Traditional 0 0.258

Lean 0.319

Agile 0.423

Leagile 1

Thus AECs system is at present that of agile manufacturing. There is no need to implement any of the lean manufacturing tools (described earlier in Section 1.2.2).

-cut = ((1.83-1.82)0.350+1.82,(-1.87+1.83)0.35+1.87 = (1.825, 1.86)

0.350

1.82

1.83 -cut

1.87

1.825

1.86

61

5.3 Saudi Lighting Company (SLC)

Saudi Lighting Company has continuously expanded and developed its products and manufacturing capability in response to rapid economic development and a changing market environment. In 1978 SLC began the production of outdoor lighting fixtures in a joint venture with Asia Swedish Company. In 1989 the company merged with Arabian Lighting Company and began expanding its product base with the manufacture of indoor lighting fixtures. Since this merger, SLC has grown to become the leading manufacturer of lighting fixtures in the Middle East and has continuously met ever-increasing customer demand for its products.

5.3.1 SLC Study

A committee of three Decision Makers (D1, D2 and D3) was formed to evaluate the existing manufacturing rating. The feedback data input of the five measuring factors that were filled out in the questionnaire is shown in table 5.15. Appendix C shows the relevant screenshots from Visual Basic Windows.

Table (5.15 The feedback data input of the five measuring factors (SLC)
Mean ( 0.17,0.37,0.57) ( 0.1,0.3,0.5) D3 Fair Fair D2 Good Fair D1 Fair Fair Measuring Factors Lead time

Cost

62

( 0.1,0.3,0.5) (0.23,0.43,0.63) (0.23,0.43,0.63)

Fair

Fair

Fair

Quality

Good Good

Fair Fair

Good Good

Productivity

Service Level

Then, the feedback data input of the characteristics factors are shown in tables 5.16,5.17,5.18,5.19,5.20. These tables show the characteristic factors for each decision D1, D2, D3. Table 5.16 demonstrates the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of lead time.
1. Lead time
Table (5.16) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Lead Time (SLC)
D3
Fair Fair

D2
Good Fair

D1
Fair Fair

Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction

Measuring Factors
Lead time

Fair

Fair

Good

Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair

Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Good Fair

Good Good Good Good Fair Good Fair Fair

63

Good ( 1.83,3.83,5.83)

Fair ( 2,4,6)

Fair ( 2,4,6)

Customer Responsiveness
mean

2. Cost

Moreover, Table 5.17 demonstrates the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of cost.

Table (5.17) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Cost (SLC)


Measuring Factors D3
Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Fair ( 2.17,4.17,6.17)

D2
Fair Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Good Fair Fair Good ( 2,4,6)

D1
Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Fair ( 2,4,6)

Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness
mean Cost

64

3. Quality

furthermore, Table 5.18 demonstrates the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of quality.
Table (5.18) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Quality (SLC)
Measuring Factors D3
Fair Good Good Good Fair Good Good Fair Fair Good Good Good ( 2.33,4.33,6.33)

D2
Fair Good Fair Good Fair Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Fair ( 2,4,6)

D1
Fair Fair Good Good Fair Fair Good Good Fair Good Fair Good ( 2,4,6)

Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness
mean Quality

65

4. Productivity

In addition,, Table 5.19 shows the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of productivity.

Table (5.19) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Productivity (SLC)


D3
Good

D2
Good

D1
Fair

Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory

Measuring Factors
Productivity

Fair

Good

Fair

Transportation Waiting

Fair

Good

Fair

Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness

Fair Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair

Fair Good Fair Good Good Fair Fair Fair

Fair Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Fair

Good

Good

Fair

66

( 1.83,3.83,5.83)

( 2.17,4.17,6.17)

( 1.67,3.67,5.67)

mean

5. Service Level

As well,, Table 5.120 shows the characteristics factors for the measuring factor of service level.
Table (5.20) Characteristics Factors by Decision Makers on Service Level (SLC)
Measuring Factors D3
Good Poor Good Poor

D2

D1
Fair Fair

Characteristics Factors
Over Production Inventory Transportation Waiting

Poor Good Good Poor Good Good Good Good Fair Good Good Poor Poor Good Good Good Good Fair Poor ( 2.5,4.17,6.17) ( 1.83,2.83,4.83) Poor

Fair Good

Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronic Data Interchange Mean of Information Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product introduction Customer Responsiveness
mean Service Level

Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good Poor Good ( 1.83,3.17,5.17)

After entering the input, the data output of the program is shown in table 5.21, Normalization all the above means of characteristics factors by dividing by 10. [24]
Table (5.21) Normalization of the Measuring Means of the three Decision Makers

67

Service Level ( 0.18,0.32,0.52) ( 0.18,0.28,0.48) ( 0.25,0.42,0.62)

Productivity ( 0.17,0.37,0.57) ( 0.22,0.42,0.62) ( 0.18,0.38,0.58)

Quality ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.23,0.43,0.63)

Cost ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.22,0.42,0.62)

Lead Time ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 018,0.38,0.58)

N KH F

The normalized means of table 5.14 is multiplied by The means of feedback data input of the five measuring factors table 5.8 to obtain the following
( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.18,0.38,0.58) ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.22,0.42,0.62) ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.20,0.40,0.60) ( 0.23,0.43,063) ( 0.17,0.37,0.57) ( 0.22,0.42,062) ( 0.18,0.38,0.58) ( 0.18,0.32,0.52) ( 0.18,0.28,0.48) ( 0.25,0.42,0.62)

( 0.17,0.37, 0.57) ( 0.1,0.3,0. 5) ( 0.1,0.3,0. 5) ( 0.23,0.43, 0.63) ( 0.23,0.43, 0.63)

The result of the multiplication is


(0.15,0.68 ,1.63) (0.17,0.69 ,1.64) (0.17,0.74 ,1.71)

Average

= 0.82 = 0.83 = 0.88

Average

0.84

0 . 84 0 . 18 = 0.20 3 . 52 0 . 18

where 0.84 is the result of multiplication and 0.18 and 3.52 are constant.

The resulting 0.20 is multiplied by the certainty constant (0.70) to get 0.140. Figure (4.2) is consulted to conclude that SLC is below the 0.258 which represents the lean baseline. 0.140
Traditional 0 0.258 Lean 0.319 Agile 0.423 Leagile 1

68

Thus SLCs system is at present that of traditional manufacturing. In order to facilitate its evolution to lean manufacturing, SLC should implement the following tools (described earlier in Section 1.2.2):

Cellular Manufacturing Total Quality Management Value Stream Mapping 5-S, Pokayoke Kaizen Takt Time

-cut = ((0.83-0.82)0.140+0.83,(-0.88+0.83)0.140+0.88 = (083, 0.99)

0.82 0.83 -cut


0.821 0.99

69

Chapter 6 Discussion and Conclusion


The significant of the research is to evaluate the manufacturing system strategy of plants which become either traditional, lean, agile or leagile manufacturing. To evaluate manufacturing system strategy, several steps should be occurred. First, defining the measuring factors ( lead time, cost , quality, productivity and service level) and the characteristics factors (over production, inventory transportation waiting, knowledge misconnections, manufacturing flexibility, delivery flexibility, source flexibility, electronics data interchange, Mean of Information, Data and Knowledge Base, Delivery Speed, New Product introduction and Customer Responsiveness) which come from the literature. Then, a questionnaire was designed to distributed into experts and take their feedback. Furthermore, the feedback entered in Expert Choice software to obtain the experts opinion rating. As well, other questionnaire was developed to obtain the feedback of plants. This feedback was collected to find existing evaluating rating by developing Decision Support System using Visual Basic. These two ratings were comprised to evaluate wither the manufacturing system strategy is traditional, lean, agile or leagile manufacturing.

70

Three case studies were implemented on Saudi Mechanical Industries (SMI) Company, Advanced Electronics Company (AEC) and Saudi Light Company (SLC) . In the end of the study. the manufacturing system strategy of SMI company is traditional manufacturing, the manufacturing system strategy of AEC company is Agile manufacturing and the manufacturing system strategy of SLC company is traditional manufacturing. To resolve the manufacturing system in order to become lean, agile or leagile; a lot of tools will help in becoming lean like Cellular Manufacturing, Total Quality Management,Pokayoke, Kaizen , Value Stream Mapping, 5 S, address issues within its supply chain management, increase its focus on customer service and improve the quality of its IT applications. and so on. Also, some tools will help in becoming agile like Customer Value Focus, IT Systems and Supply Chain Management.

71

References:

1)

J. Ben Naylor, Mohammad M Naim, Danny Berry, (1999), Leagility: Integration the lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain, Production Economics, Vol 62.pp 107-118.

2)

Brown, S (1998), "New Evidence on Quality in Management Plants: A Challenge to lean Production", Inventory Management, Vol. 39 No.1, pp. 24-29.

3)

Richard Lee Stroch and Sanggyu Lim, (1999), Improving flow to achieve lean manufacturing in shipbuilding", Planning control, Vol. 10 No.2, pp. 127-137.

4)

Ruth Banomyong, Nucharee Supatan (2000), "Comparing lean and agile logistics strategies: a case study", Production Economics, Vol 62. pp 111-134

5)

Adhijith Mukunda, Apratim N Dixit, (2001), "An agile enterprise Prototype for the Indian Electronics Industry", Technology Management, Vol 8, pp 161-171.

6)

Ian Christian, Hossam Ismail, Jim Mooney, Snowden Simon, (1997), 'Agile Manufacturing transitional Strategies, University of Liverpool.

72

7)

Abraham Kandel (1999), Fuzzy Expert Systems, Florida State University. Library of Congress Cataloging in - Publication Data.

8)

Ashish Agarwal, Ravi Shanker, (2005),"Modeling the Metrics of lean, agile and leagile Supply chain: An ANP-based approach", Operational Research, Vol.1, pp.1- 15.

9)

Saaty, T.L., (1980), "The Analytic Hierarchy Process:, New York, N.Y., McGraw Hill, reprinted by RWS Publication, Pittsburgh.

10)

Naim, Naylor and Barlow, (1999), Developing lean and agile supply chains in the UK housekeeping", IGLC-7, pp.159-170.

11) 12)

Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control , 8, 338-35. Groover, (2000), Lean production and agile Manufacturing", Vol. 1, pp. 832 845.

13)

L.C. van der Gaag and E.M. Helsper, (2000), Introduction to Knowledge-Based Systems, Utrecht University, Institute of Information and Computing Science.

14)

N. Chiadamrong, C.O Brien, (1999), Decision support tool for Justifying alternative manufacturing and production control system", Production Economics, Vol 60, pp 177-186.

15)

Quarterman

Lee,

(2003),"Implementing

lean

manufacturing".

Consulting Engineers Strategy. Vol. 12, pp. 120-130 . 16) David Ashall, (2002), "Leaning Towards agile". Engineering. Vol. 2, pp. 27-32 17) Yanchun Lue, Meng Chu Zhou, (2001), "An integrated E- Supply Chain Model for Agile and Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing", IEEE/ASME transaction on mechatronics, Vol. 6, NO. 4. pp.377-386 Manufacturing

73

18)

James Moore, (1997), Agility is easy, but effective agile manufacturing is not", IEEE Colloquium Digest, Vol. 27. No. 386.

19)

Maurizio Cellura, Giorgio Beccali, Marina Mistretta, (2002), "A decision support system software based on Multi-Criteria analysis for the selection of Urban sustainability sceneries", Word Climate& Energy Event, pp. 301-308.

20)

Mekong Capital, (2004), Introduction to lean manufacturing for Vietnam.

21)

Knuf,

Joachim,

(2000),

"Benchmarking

the

lean

enterprise:

Organizational learning at work, Management Engineering, Vol.16. No.4, pp.58-71. 22) Toshiro Terano, Kiyoji Asai and Michio Sugeno (1997), Fuzzy Systems Theory and its Application, 1250 sixth Avenue, San Diego 23) Arnold Kaufmann and Mardan Gupta, (2001) Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic Theory and Application, USA, Library of Congress Cataloging in - Publication Data.

74

Appendix A An Experts Opinions Questionnaire


Introduction The purpose of this questionnaire is to seek expert opinion and views concerning the benefits and merits of implementing lean, agile and leagile manufacturing strategies in manufacturing industries, and the tools and techniques said experts think should be used to implement said strategies. Your valuable opinions will provide the necessary data to build a proposed methodological model for assessment of the implementation of these strategies. Therefore please consider this questionnaire as top priority and state your opinion carefully and frankly. Feel free to make any remarks or add any information you feel is important to improve the quality of data collected. We are grateful for your time and cooperation. Part I: General Information o Company manufacturing industry sector type:-----------------------o Capital of the company:----------------------------------------------------o Workforce in the company:-----------------------------------------------o The basic strategy/ philosophy of manufacturing in your company: Mass production Batch production Lean Agile Other

Part II: Company Practice 1- The main company manufacturing policies to achieve the strategy are: Table 1: Company Policies Implementation Remarks None Randomly Slightly Moderately

Fully

Policy Best quality

No. 1

75

Lowest cost Shortest lead time Shortening total manufacturing cycle time Customer satisfaction 2- Techniques and tools used to implement these policies and strategies. Table 2: Company Technique/Tools * Implementation Remarks None Randomly Slightly Moderately

2 3

Fully

Technique/Tool Cellular Manufacturing Total Quality Teams Rapid Set Up (SMED) Kanban Value Stream Mapping (VSM) Process Mapping Line Balancing 5-S Pokayoke Elimination of Waste Total Productive Maintenance Value Management Takt Time Kaizen Continuous improvement OEE Others: 123-

No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18

76

definition of these terms are given in the Appendix.

Part III: Merit value of your opinion Please give your opinion on achieving manufacturing performance through various strategies. Three tables follow which represent: Table (1): Metrics (measures) Table (2): Characteristics affecting the metrics Table (3): General parameters affecting each characteristic

Please state your opinions according to a merit value you give based on the following scale: AHP comparison scale Definition Intensity relative importance

Intensity of relative importance 1 3 5 7 9 2,4,6 and 8

Factor i and j are equal importance Factor i is weakly more important than j Factor i is strongly more important than j Factor i is more strongly more important than j Factor i is absolutely more important than j intermediate

Eg.

in the first element, if you choose

a xy =

5 (variable x is strongly more

important than variable Y); then

a yx =

1 5
B 5 1
1 2

C 1 3 2 1

A 1
1 5

A B C

77

Preferences

B 1

A 1

1 1 1

A B C D E

Metric statements (A) What is the relative impact of the response of lead time on lean performance with respect to other metrics? (B) What is the relative impact of the response of cost on lean performance with respect to other metrics? (C) What is the relative impact of the response of quality on lean performance with respect to other metrics? (D) What is the relative impact of the response of productivity cost on lean performance with respect to other metrics? (E) What is the relative impact of the response of service level cost on lean performance with respect to other metrics? Metric statements (A) What is the relative impact of the response of lead time on agile performance with respect to other metrics? (B) What is the relative impact of the response of cost on agile performance with respect to other metrics? (C) What is the relative impact of the response of quality on agile performance with respect to other metrics? (D) What is the relative impact of the response of productivity on agile performance with respect to other metrics? (E) What is the relative impact of the response of service level on agile performance with respect to other metrics? Metric statements (A) What is the relative impact of the response of lead time on leagile performance with respect to other metrics? (B) What is the relative impact of the response of cost on leagile performance with respect to other metrics? (C) What is the relative impact of the response of quality

Paradigm Lead Time Cost Quality Productivity Service Level Paradigm Lead Time Cost Quality Productivity Service Level Paradigm Lead Time Cost Quality Leagile Manufacturing Agile Manufacturing Lean Manufacturing

Preferences

B 1

A 1

1 1 1

A B C D E

Preferences

B 1

A 1

A B C

78

1 1

D E

on leagile performance with respect to other metrics? (D) What is the relative impact of the response of productivity on leagile performance with respect to other metrics? (E) What is the relative impact of the response of service level on leagile performance with respect to other metrics? Statements What is the relative impact of elimination of waste overproduction on lead time with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of flexibility on lead time with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of information technology on lead time with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of market sensitivity on lead time with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of elimination of waste overproduction on cost with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of flexibility on cost with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of information technology on cost with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of on market sensitivity on cost with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of elimination of waste overproduction on quality with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of flexibility on

Productivity Service Level Characteristics Elimination Waste Flexibility Information Technology Market Sensitivity Elimination Waste Flexibility Information Technology Market Sensitivity Elimination Waste Flexibility of Quality Cost of Lead Time of Metrics

Preference (A)

B 1

A 1

(B) A B C D

1 1

(C)

(D)

(A) D C B 1 1 1 A 1

(B) A B C D (C)

(D)

B 1

A 1

(A) A B C

(B)

79

D (C)

(D)

quality with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of information technology on quality with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of market sensitivity on quality with respect to other characteristics?

Information Technology Market Sensitivity

Preference (A)

B 1

A 1

(B) A B C D

1 1

(C)

(D)

(A)

B 1

A 1

(B) A B C D

1 1

(C)

(D)

Statements What is the relative impact of elimination of waste overproduction on productivity with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of flexibility on with respect to other productivity characteristics? What is the relative impact of information technology on productivity with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of market sensitivity on productivity with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of elimination of waste overproduction service level with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of flexibility on with respect to other service level characteristics? What is the relative impact of information technology on service level with respect to other characteristics? What is the relative impact of market sensitivity on service level with respect to other characteristics?

Characteristics Elimination Of waste Flexibility

Metrics

Productivity Information Technology Market Sensitivity Elimination Of waste Flexibility Information Technology Market Sensitivity Service Level

80

Preference

B 1

A 1

A B C

B 1

A 1

A B C

B 1

A 1

A B C

B 1

A 1

A B C

Statements (A) What is the relative impact of overproduction on elimination of waste with respect to other parameters? (B) What is the relative impact of Inventory transportation waiting on elimination of waste with respect to other parameters? (C) What is the relative impact of Knowledge Misconnection on elimination of waste with respect to other parameters? (A) What is the relative impact of manufacturing flexibility on flexibility with respect to other parameters? (B) What is the relative impact of delivery flexibility on flexibility with respect to other parameters? (C) What is the relative impact of source flexibility on flexibility with respect to other parameters? (A) What is the relative impact of electronics interchange on information technology with respect to other parameters? (B) What is the relative impact of means of information on information technology with respect to other parameters? (C) What is the relative impact of data accuracy on information technology with respect to other parameters? (A) What is the relative impact of delivery speed on Market Sensitivity with respect to other parameters? (B) What is the relative impact of new product customer on Market Sensitivity with respect to other parameters? (C) What is the relative impact of customer responsiveness on Market Sensitivity with respect to other parameters?

Parameters Overproduction Inventory transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing flexibility Delivery flexibility. Source flexibility Electronics interchange Means of information Data accuracy

Characteristics

Elimination Of waste

Flexibility

Information Technology

Delivery speed New product customer Market Sensitivity

Customer responsiveness

81

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM Model Name: choosing Lean,agile leagile try Treeview

Page 1 of 25

Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagile or Traditional Lead time (L: .181) Over production (L: .126) Inventory transportation Waiting) (L: .057) Knowledge Misconnection (L: .046) Manufacturing Flexibilty (L: .139) Delivery Flexibilty (L: .044) Source Flexibilty (L: .212) Electronics interchange (L: .129) Means of information (L: .093) Data accuracy (L: .057) Delivery speed (L: .039) New product customer (L: .034) Customer responsiveness (L: .023) Cost (L: .077) Electronics interchange (L: .037) Over production (L: .124) Inventory transportaion waiting (L: .194) Knowledge misconnection (L: .112) Manufacturing Flexibilty (L: .181) Delivery Flexibilty (L: .058) Source Flexibilty (L: .076) Means of Information (L: .053) Data accuracy (L: .043) Delivery speed (L: .038) New product customer (L: .030) Customer responsiveness (L: .054) Quality (L: .365) Over Production (L: .157) Inventory transportaion waiting (L: .167) Knowledge misconnection (L: .134) Manufacturing Flexibilty (L: .053) Delivery Flexibilty (L: .131)

masoudh

82

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 2 of 25

Source Flexibilty (L: .046) Electronics interchange (L: .093) Means of Information (L: .038) Data accuracy (L: .086) Delivery speed (L: .024) New product customer (L: .039) customer responsiveness (L: .031) Productivity (L: .130) Over production (L: .190) Inventory transportaion waiting (L: .120) Knowledge misconnection (L: .119) Manufacturing Flexibilty (L: .085) Delivery Flexibilty (L: .101) Source Flexibity (L: .076) Electronics interchange (L: .062) Means of Information (L: .067) Data accuracy (L: .062) Delivery speed (L: .037) New product customer (L: .034) Customer responsiveness (L: .047) Service Level (L: .247) Over production (L: .064) Inventory transportaion waitiong (L: .063) Knowledge misconnection (L: .182) Manufacturing flexibilty (L: .169) Delivery flexibilty (L: .107) Source felxibilty (L: .054) Electronics interchange (L: .105) Means of Information (L: .091) Data accuracy (L: .051) Delivery speed (L: .032) New product customer (L: .052) Customer responsiveness (L: .029)

* Ideal mode

masoudh

83

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM Priority Graphs

Page 3 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Lea...

Lead time Cost Quality Productivity Service Level Inconsistency = 0.09 with 0 missing judgments.

.181 .077 .365 .130 .247

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagile o >Lead time

Over production Inventory transportation Waiti Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibilty Delivery Flexibilty Source Flexibilty Electronics interchange Means of information Data accuracy Delivery speed New product customer Customer responsiveness Inconsistency = 0.07 with 0 missing judgments.

.126 .057 .046 .139 .044 .212 .129 .093 .057 .039 .034 .023

masoudh

84

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 4 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Lead time >Over production

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.136 .238 .625

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Lead time >Inventory transportatio...

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.04 with 0 missing judgments.

.105 .258 .637

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Lead time >Knowledge Misconnection

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.00 with 0 missing judgments.

.250 .250 .500

masoudh

85

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 5 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Lead time >Manufacturing Flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.00 with 0 missing judgments.

.109 .309 .582

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Lead time >Delivery Flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.00 with 0 missing judgments.

.111 .222 .667

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Lead time >Source Flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.109 .345 .547

masoudh

86

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 6 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Lead time >Electronics interchange

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.196 .311 .493

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Lead time >Means of information

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.109 .345 .547

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Lead time >Data accuracy

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.169 .387 .443

masoudh

87

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 7 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Lead time >Delivery speed

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.105 .396 .499

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Lead time >New product customer

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.01 with 0 missing judgments.

.163 .297 .540

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Lead time >Customer responsiveness

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.210 .240 .550

masoudh

88

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 8 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagile o >Cost

Electronics interchange Over production Inventory transportaion waitin Knowledge misconnection Manufacturing Flexibilty Delivery Flexibilty Source Flexibilty Means of Information Data accuracy Delivery speed New product customer Customer responsiveness Inconsistency = 0.08 with 0 missing judgments.

.037 .124 .194 .112 .181 .058 .076 .053 .043 .038 .030 .054

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Cost >Electronics interchange

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.01 with 0 missing judgments.

.100 .433 .466

masoudh

89

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 9 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Cost >Over production

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.01 with 0 missing judgments.

.458 .126 .416

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Cost >Inventory transportaion ...

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.169 .443 .387

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Cost >Knowledge misconnection

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.528 .140 .333

masoudh

90

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 10 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Cost >Manufacturing Flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.00 with 0 missing judgments.

.200 .400 .400

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Cost >Delivery Flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.196 .493 .311

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Cost >Source Flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.01 with 0 missing judgments.

.126 .458 .416

masoudh

91

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 11 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Cost >Means of Information

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.387 .169 .443

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Cost >Data accuracy

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.238 .136 .625

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Cost >Delivery speed

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.01 with 0 missing judgments.

.126 .458 .416

masoudh

92

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 12 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Cost >New product customer

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.387 .169 .443

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Cost >Customer responsiveness

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.196 .311 .493

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagile o >Quality

Over Production Inventory transportaion waitin Knowledge misconnection Manufacturing Flexibilty Delivery Flexibilty Source Flexibilty Electronics interchange Means of Information Data accuracy Delivery speed New product customer customer responsiveness Inconsistency = 0.08 with 0 missing judgments.

.157 .167 .134 .053 .131 .046 .093 .038 .086 .024 .039 .031

masoudh

93

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 13 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Quality >Over Production

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.474 .149 .376

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Quality >Inventory transportaion ...

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.387 .169 .443

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Quality >Knowledge misconnection

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.01 with 0 missing judgments.

.458 .126 .416

masoudh

94

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 14 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Quality >Manufacturing Flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.21 with 0 missing judgments.

.260 .327 .413

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Quality >Delivery Flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.196 .311 .493

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Quality >Source Flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.149 .474 .376

masoudh

95

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 15 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Quality >Electronics interchange

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.149 .474 .376

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Quality >Means of Information

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.311 .196 .493

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Quality >Data accuracy

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.327 .260 .413

masoudh

96

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 16 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Quality >Delivery speed

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.260 .413 .327

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Quality >New product customer

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.443 .169 .387

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Quality >customer responsiveness

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.01 with 0 missing judgments.

.163 .297 .540

masoudh

97

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 17 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagile o >Productivity

Over production Inventory transportaion waitin Knowledge misconnection Manufacturing Flexibilty Delivery Flexibilty Source Flexibity Electronics interchange Means of Information Data accuracy Delivery speed New product customer Customer responsiveness Inconsistency = 0.07 with 0 missing judgments.

.190 .120 .119 .085 .101 .076 .062 .067 .062 .037 .034 .047

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Productivity >Over production

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.558 .122 .320

masoudh

98

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 18 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Productivity >Inventory transportaion ...

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.528 .140 .333

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Productivity >Knowledge misconnection

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.08 with 0 missing judgments.

.627 .094 .280

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Productivity >Manufacturing Flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.320 .122 .558

masoudh

99

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 19 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Productivity >Delivery Flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.333 .140 .528

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Productivity >Source Flexibity

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.327 .413 .260

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Productivity >Electronics interchange

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.01 with 0 missing judgments.

.174 .192 .634

masoudh

100

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 20 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Productivity >Means of Information

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.00 with 0 missing judgments.

.333 .333 .333

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Productivity >Data accuracy

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.169 .443 .387

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Productivity >Delivery speed

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.169 .387 .443

masoudh

101

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 21 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Productivity >New product customer

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.474 .149 .376

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Productivity >Customer responsiveness

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.240 .210 .550

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagile o >Service Level

Over production Inventory transportaion waitio Knowledge misconnection Manufacturing flexibilty Delivery flexibilty Source felxibilty Electronics interchange Means of Information Data accuracy Delivery speed New product customer Customer responsiveness Inconsistency = 0.08 with 0 missing judgments.

.064 .063 .182 .169 .107 .054 .105 .091 .051 .032 .052 .029

masoudh

102

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 22 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Service Level >Over production

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.149 .474 .376

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Service Level >Inventory transportaion ...

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.122 .558 .320

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Service Level >Knowledge misconnection

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.169 .443 .387

masoudh

103

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 23 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Service Level >Manufacturing flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.00 with 0 missing judgments.

.143 .571 .286

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Service Level >Delivery flexibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.03 with 0 missing judgments.

.114 .481 .405

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Service Level >Source felxibilty

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.01 with 0 missing judgments.

.126 .458 .416

masoudh

104

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 24 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Service Level >Electronics interchange

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.105 .499 .396

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Service Level >Means of Information

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.117 .614 .268

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Service Level >Data accuracy

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.05 with 0 missing judgments.

.260 .413 .327

masoudh

105

12/21/2006 10:15:01 AM

Page 25 of 25

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Service Level >Delivery speed

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.00 with 0 missing judgments.

.200 .400 .400

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Service Level >New product customer

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.169 .387 .443

Priorities with respect to: Goal: choosing Lean, Agile, Leagil >Service Level >Customer responsiveness

lean agile leagile Inconsistency = 0.02 with 0 missing judgments.

.169 .387 .443

masoudh

106

Appendix B Plants Questionnaire


Introduction The purpose of this questionnaire is to seek expert opinion and views concerning the benefits and merits of implementing lean, agile and leagile manufacturing strategies in manufacturing industries, and the tools and techniques said experts think should be used to implement said strategies. Your valuable opinions will provide the necessary data to build a proposed methodological model for assessment of the implementation of these strategies. Therefore please consider this questionnaire as top priority and state your opinion carefully and frankly. Feel free to make any remarks or add any information you feel is important to improve the quality of data collected. We are grateful for your time and cooperation.

Part I: General Information o Company manufacturing industry sector type:-----------------------o Capital of the company:----------------------------------------------------o Work force in the company:-----------------------------------------------o The basic strategy/ philosophy of manufacturing in your company: Mass production Batch production Lean Agile Other

Part II: Company Practice 3- The main company manufacturing policies to achieve the strategy are: Table 1: Company Policies Remarks None Implementation Randomly Slightly Moderately Fully Policy Best quality Lowest cost Shortest lead time Shortening total manufacturing cycle time satisfy customer 107 No. 1 2 3

4- Techniques and tools used to implement these policies and strategy. Table 2: Company Technique/ Tools * Remarks Implementation Randomly Slightly Moderately Technique/Tool Cellular Manufacturing Total quality Teams Rabid Set Up (SMED) Kanban Value Stream Mapping (VSM) Process Mapping Line Balancing 5-S Pokayoke Elimination of Waste Total productive Maintenance Value Management Takt Time Kaizen Continuous improvement OEE Others: 123No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

None

Fully

18

Part III: Merit value of your opinion Please give your opinion on achieving manufacturing performance through various strategies. Use Table A to judge Table 1 of your industry:

108

Table A: Variables of the Importance Weight Poor Fair Good V. Good Excellent (0.1, 0.1, 0.3) (0.1, 0.3, 0.5) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.7, 0.9, 0.9)

Table 1 Decision Maker3 Decision Maker2 . Decision Maker1 . Measures/ Decision Maker Lead Time Cost Quality Productivity Service Level

Average

Use the rating variables in Table B to evaluate the parameters (refer to the acronyms at the end of this questionnaire) of all measures in Tables 2,3,4,5 and 6: Table B: Rating Variables Poor Fair Good V. Good Excellent (1, 1, 3) (1, 3, 5) (3, 5, 7) (5, 7, 9) (7, 9, 9)
109

Table 2: Evaluation Parameters by Decision Makers D3 D2 D1 Parameters OP ITW KM MF DF SF EDI MIADA DKB DS NPC CR mean Lead time Measure

Table 3: Evaluation Parameters by Decision Makers D3 D2 D1 Parameters OP ITW KM MF DF SF EDI MIADA DKB DS NPC CR mean Cost Measure

110

Table 4: Evaluation Parameters by Decision Makers D3 D2 D1 Parameters OP ITW KM MF DF SF EDI MIADA DKB DS NPC CR mean Quality Measure

Table 5: Evaluation Parameters by Decision Makers D3 D2 D1 Parameters OP ITW KM MF DF SF EDI MIADA DKB DS NPC CR mean Productivity Metrics

111

Table 6: Evaluation Parameters by Decision Makers D3 D2 D1 Parameters OP ITW KM MF DF SF EDI MIADA DKB DS NPC CR mean Service Level Metrics

Definitions: OP: ITW: KM: MF: DF: SF: EDI: MIADA: DKB: DS: NPC: CR: Overproduction Inventory Transportation Waiting Knowledge Misconnection Manufacturing Flexibility Delivery Flexibility Source Flexibility Electronics Data Interchange Mean of Information and Data Accuracy Data and Knowledge Base Delivery Speed New Product Customer Customer Responsiveness

112

Appendix C Visual Basic (VB)


Flowchart for choosing one of the Manufacturing Strategies using Visual Basic

.
Start

Input1 = Input Lead Time, Cost, Quality, Productivity, Service Level by three persons in each company to get

Input2 = Input OP, ITW, KM, MF, DF, SF, EDI, MIADA, DKB, DS, NPI, CR for each of Lead Time, Cost, Quality,

Normalize to get Equations 4, 5, 6 (Matrix 2) Multiply Matrix 2 by Matrix 1to get Matrix 3 Add each row in Matrix 3, then take the overall average of column which = x

Last Value =

x 0 . 18 3 52 0 18
0.258=<Last Value <
No Ye

Last Value <


Ye

Tradition

Lean

0.319=<Last Value <

Agile End Attribute VB_Name = "Module1"

Leagile

113

Public Function AverageImportance(CN1EvalLeadTim As CN2EvalLeadTime As String, CN3EvalLeadTime As String) As String Dim X1 As Double Dim Y1 As Double Dim Z1 As Double Dim X2 As Double Dim Y2 As Double Dim Z2 As Double Dim X3 As Double Dim Y3 As Double Dim Z3 As Double Dim x As Double Dim Y As Double Dim z As Double Select Case CN1EvalLeadTim Case Is = "Poor" X1 = 0.1 Y1 = 0.1 Z1 = 0.3 Case Is = "Fair" X1 = 0.1 Y1 = 0.3 Z1 = 0.5 Case Is = "Good" X1 = 0.3 Y1 = 0.5 Z1 = 0.7 Case Is = "VG" X1 = 0.5 Y1 = 0.7 Z1 = 0.9 Case Is = "Excellent" X1 = 0.7 Y1 = 0.9 Z1 = 0.9 End Select Select Case CN2EvalLeadTime Case Is = "Poor" X2 = 0.1 Y2 = 0.1 Z2 = 0.3 Case Is = "Fair" X2 = 0.1 Y2 = 0.3 Z2 = 0.5 Case Is = "Good"

String,

114

X2 = 0.3 Y2 = 0.5 Z2 = 0.7 Case Is = "VG" X2 = 0.5 Y2 = 0.7 Z2 = 0.9 Case Is = "Excellent" X2 = 0.7 Y2 = 0.9 Z2 = 0.9 End Select Select Case CN3EvalLeadTime Case Is = "Poor" X3 = 0.1 Y3 = 0.1 Z3 = 0.3 Case Is = "Fair" X3 = 0.1 Y3 = 0.3 Z3 = 0.5 Case Is = "Good" X3 = 0.3 Y3 = 0.5 Z3 = 0.7 Case Is = "VG" X3 = 0.5 Y3 = 0.7 Z3 = 0.9 Case Is = "Excellent" X3 = 0.7 Y3 = 0.9 Z3 = 0.9 End Select x = (X1 + X2 + X3) / 3 x = Round(x, 2) Y = (Y1 + Y2 + Y3) / 3 Y = Round(Y, 2) z = (Z1 + Z2 + Z3) / 3 z = Round(z, 2) AverageImportance = "( " & x & "," & Y & "," & z & ")" End Function

115

Public Function Average(CN1EvalLeadTim As String, CN2EvalLeadTime As String, CN3EvalLeadTime As String) As String Dim X1 As Double Dim Y1 As Double Dim Z1 As Double Dim X2 As Double Dim Y2 As Double Dim Z2 As Double Dim X3 As Double Dim Y3 As Double Dim Z3 As Double Dim x As Double Dim Y As Double Dim z As Double Select Case CN1EvalLeadTim Case Is = "Poor" X1 = 0.1 Y1 = 0.1 Z1 = 0.3 Case Is = "Fair" X1 = 0.1 Y1 = 0.3 Z1 = 0.5 Case Is = "Good" X1 = 0.3 Y1 = 0.5 Z1 = 0.7 Case Is = "VG" X1 = 0.5 Y1 = 0.7 Z1 = 0.9 Case Is = "Excellent" X1 = 0.7 Y1 = 0.9 Z1 = 0.9 End Select Select Case CN2EvalLeadTime Case Is = "Poor" X2 = 0.1 Y2 = 0.1 Z2 = 0.3 Case Is = "Fair" X2 = 0.1 Y2 = 0.3 Z2 = 0.5 116

Case Is = "Good" X2 = 0.3 Y2 = 0.5 Z2 = 0.7 Case Is = "VG" X2 = 0.5 Y2 = 0.7 Z2 = 0.9 Case Is = "Excellent" X2 = 0.7 Y2 = 0.9 Z2 = 0.9 End Select Select Case CN3EvalLeadTime Case Is = "Poor" X3 = 0.1 Y3 = 0.1 Z3 = 0.3 Case Is = "Fair" X3 = 0.1 Y3 = 0.3 Z3 = 0.5 Case Is = "Good" X3 = 0.3 Y3 = 0.5 Z3 = 0.7 Case Is = "VG" X3 = 0.5 Y3 = 0.7 Z3 = 0.9 Case Is = "Excellent" X3 = 0.7 Y3 = 0.9 Z3 = 0.9 End Select x = (X1 + X2 + X3) / 3 x = Round(x, 2) Y = (Y1 + Y2 + Y3) / 3 Y = Round(Y, 2) z = (Z1 + Z2 + Z3) / 3 z = Round(z, 2) Average = x + Y + z End Function

117

Public Function TT(Dimention As Integer, Optional s As String = "(2.65,5.54,8.65)") As Double '(2.54,4.65,4.65) Dim x As String Dim Y As String Dim z As String Dim First As Integer Dim Last As Integer Dim Middle As Integer Dim c1 As Integer Dim c2 As Integer Dim c3 As Integer For c1 = 2 To 25 If Mid(s, c1, 1) = "," Then First = c1 Exit For End If Next c1 x = Mid(s, 2, First - 2) For c2 = c1 + 1 To 25 If Mid(s, c2, 1) = "," Then Middle = c2 Exit For End If Next c2 Y = Mid(s, First + 1, Middle - First - 1) For c3 = c2 + 1 To 25 If Mid(s, c3, 1) = ")" Then Last = c3 Exit For End If Next c3 z = Mid(s, Middle + 1, Last - Middle - 1) Select Case Dimention Case Is = 1 TT = CDbl(x) Case Is = 2 TT = CDbl(Y) Case Is = 3 TT = CDbl(z) 118

End Select End Function Public Function AverageSubCriteria(Lean As String, Agile As String, Leagile As String) As String Dim X1 As Double Dim Y1 As Double Dim Z1 As Double Dim X2 As Double Dim Y2 As Double Dim Z2 As Double Dim X3 As Double Dim Y3 As Double Dim Z3 As Double Dim x As Double Dim Y As Double Dim z As Double Select Case Lean Case Is = "Poor" X1 = 1 Y1 = 1 Z1 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X1 = 1 Y1 = 3 Z1 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X1 = 3 Y1 = 5 Z1 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X1 = 5 Y1 = 7 Z1 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X1 = 7 Y1 = 9 Z1 = 9 End Select Select Case Agile Case Is = "Poor" X2 = 1 Y2 = 1 Z2 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X2 = 1 119

Y2 = 3 Z2 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X2 = 3 Y2 = 5 Z2 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X2 = 5 Y2 = 7 Z2 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X2 = 7 Y2 = 9 Z2 = 9 End Select Select Case Leagile Case Is = "Poor" X3 = 1 Y3 = 1 Z3 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X3 = 1 Y3 = 3 Z3 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X3 = 3 Y3 = 5 Z3 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X3 = 5 Y3 = 7 Z3 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X3 = 7 Y3 = 9 Z3 = 9 End Select x = (X1 + X2 + X3) / 3 x = Round(x, 2) Y = (Y1 + Y2 + Y3) / 3 Y = Round(Y, 2) z = (Z1 + Z2 + Z3) / 3 z = Round(z, 2) AverageSubCriteria = "( " & x & "," & Y & "," & z & ")" End Function 120

Public Function MeanSubCriteria(Lean As String, Agile As String, Leagile As String) As Double Dim X1 As Double Dim Y1 As Double Dim Z1 As Double Dim X2 As Double Dim Y2 As Double Dim Z2 As Double Dim X3 As Double Dim Y3 As Double Dim Z3 As Double Dim x As Double Dim Y As Double Dim z As Double Select Case Lean Case Is = "Poor" X1 = 1 Y1 = 1 Z1 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X1 = 1 Y1 = 3 Z1 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X1 = 3 Y1 = 5 Z1 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X1 = 5 Y1 = 7 Z1 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X1 = 7 Y1 = 9 Z1 = 9 End Select Select Case Agile Case Is = "Poor" X2 = 1 Y2 = 1 Z2 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X2 = 1 Y2 = 3 121

Z2 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X2 = 3 Y2 = 5 Z2 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X2 = 5 Y2 = 7 Z2 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X2 = 7 Y2 = 9 Z2 = 9 End Select Select Case Leagile Case Is = "Poor" X3 = 1 Y3 = 1 Z3 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X3 = 1 Y3 = 3 Z3 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X3 = 3 Y3 = 5 Z3 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X3 = 5 Y3 = 7 Z3 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X3 = 7 Y3 = 9 Z3 = 9 End Select x = (X1 + X2 + X3) / 3 Y = (Y1 + Y2 + Y3) / 3 z = (Z1 + Z2 + Z3) / 3 Dim total As Double total = x + Y + z total = Round(total, 2) MeanSubCriteria = Round(total / 3, 2) End Function

122

Public Function MeanlManifacture(OP As String, ITW As String, KM As String, MF As String, DF As String, SF As String, EDI As String, MIADA As String, DKB As String, DS As String, NPI As String, CR As String) As String Dim X1 As Double Dim Y1 As Double Dim Z1 As Double '-Dim X2 As Double Dim Y2 As Double Dim Z2 As Double '-Dim X3 As Double Dim Y3 As Double Dim Z3 As Double '-Dim X4 As Double Dim Y4 As Double Dim Z4 As Double '-Dim X5 As Double Dim Y5 As Double Dim Z5 As Double '--Dim X6 As Double Dim Y6 As Double Dim Z6 As Double '---Dim X7 As Double Dim Y7 As Double Dim Z7 As Double '---Dim X8 As Double Dim Y8 As Double Dim Z8 As Double '---Dim X9 As Double Dim Y9 As Double Dim Z9 As Double '---Dim X10 As Double Dim Y10 As Double Dim Z10 As Double '---Dim X11 As Double Dim Y11 As Double Dim Z11 As Double '---Dim X12 As Double Dim Y12 As Double Dim Z12 As Double '---123

Dim x As Double Dim Y As Double Dim z As Double Select Case OP Case Is = "Poor" X1 = 1 Y1 = 1 Z1 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X1 = 1 Y1 = 3 Z1 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X1 = 3 Y1 = 5 Z1 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X1 = 5 Y1 = 7 Z1 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X1 = 7 Y1 = 9 Z1 = 9 End Select Select Case ITW Case Is = "Poor" X2 = 1 Y2 = 1 Z2 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X2 = 1 Y2 = 3 Z2 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X2 = 3 Y2 = 5 Z2 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X2 = 5 Y2 = 7 Z2 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" 124

X2 = 7 Y2 = 9 Z2 = 9 End Select Select Case KM Case Is = "Poor" X3 = 1 Y3 = 1 Z3 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X3 = 1 Y3 = 3 Z3 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X3 = 3 Y3 = 5 Z3 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X3 = 5 Y3 = 7 Z3 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X3 = 7 Y3 = 9 Z3 = 9 End Select

Select Case MF Case Is = "Poor" X4 = 1 Y4 = 1 Z4 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X4 = 1 Y4 = 3 Z4 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X4 = 3 Y4 = 5 Z4 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X4 = 5 Y4 = 7 Z4 = 9 125

Case Is = "Excellent" X4 = 7 Y4 = 9 Z4 = 9 End Select '---SF Select Case SF Case Is = "Poor" X5 = 1 Y5 = 1 Z5 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X5 = 1 Y5 = 3 Z5 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X5 = 3 Y5 = 5 Z5 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X5 = 5 Y5 = 7 Z5 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X5 = 7 Y5 = 9 Z5 = 9 End Select '---EDI Select Case EDI Case Is = "Poor" X6 = 1 Y6 = 1 Z6 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X6 = 1 Y6 = 3 Z6 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X6 = 3 Y6 = 5 Z6 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X6 = 5 Y6 = 7 126

Z6 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X6 = 7 Y6 = 9 Z6 = 9 End Select

'-'---MIADA Select Case MIADA Case Is = "Poor" X7 = 1 Y7 = 1 Z7 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X7 = 1 Y7 = 3 Z7 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X7 = 3 Y7 = 5 Z7 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X7 = 5 Y7 = 7 Z7 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X7 = 7 Y7 = 9 Z7 = 9 End Select '--- DKB '--Select Case DKB Case Is = "Poor" X8 = 1 Y8 = 1 Z8 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X8 = 1 Y8 = 3 Z8 = 5 Case Is = "Good" 127

X8 = 3 Y8 = 5 Z8 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X8 = 5 Y8 = 7 Z8 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X8 = 7 Y8 = 9 Z8 = 9 End Select '---DS '--'--Select Case DS Case Is = "Poor" X9 = 1 Y9 = 1 Z9 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X9 = 1 Y9 = 3 Z9 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X9 = 3 Y9 = 5 Z9 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X9 = 5 Y9 = 7 Z9 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X9 = 7 Y9 = 9 Z9 = 9 End Select '--DF '--Select Case DF Case Is = "Poor" X10 = 1 Y10 = 1 Z10 = 3 128

Case Is = "Fair" X10 = 1 Y10 = 3 Z10 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X10 = 3 Y10 = 5 Z10 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X10 = 5 Y10 = 7 Z10 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X10 = 7 Y10 = 9 Z10 = 9 End Select '-- NPI '--Select Case NPI Case Is = "Poor" X11 = 1 Y11 = 1 Z11 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X11 = 1 Y11 = 3 Z11 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X11 = 3 Y11 = 5 Z11 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X11 = 5 Y11 = 7 Z11 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X11 = 7 Y11 = 9 Z11 = 9 End Select '-- CR '--Select Case CR Case Is = "Poor" X12 = 1 129

Y12 = 1 Z12 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X12 = 1 Y12 = 3 Z12 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X12 = 3 Y12 = 5 Z12 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X12 = 5 Y12 = 7 Z12 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X12 = 7 Y12 = 9 Z12 = 9 End Select x = (X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5 + X6 + X7 + X8 + X9 + X10 + X11 + X12) / 12 x = Round(x, 2) Y = (Y1 + Y2 + Y3 + Y4 + Y5 + Y6 + Y7 + Y8 + Y9 + Y10 + Y11 + Y12) / 12 Y = Round(Y, 2) z = (Z1 + Z2 + Z3 + Z4 + Z5 + Z6 + Z7 + Z8 + Z9 + Z10 + Z11 + Z12) / 12 z = Round(z, 2) MeanlManifacture = "( " & x & "," & Y & "," & z & ")" End Function '---Public Function Normalize(OP As String, ITW As String, KM As String, MF As String, DF As String, SF As String, EDI As String, MIADA As String, DKB As String, DS As String, NPI As String, CR As String) As String Dim X1 As Double Dim Y1 As Double Dim Z1 As Double '-Dim X2 As Double Dim Y2 As Double Dim Z2 As Double '-Dim X3 As Double Dim Y3 As Double Dim Z3 As Double '-Dim X4 As Double Dim Y4 As Double Dim Z4 As Double 130

'-Dim X5 As Double Dim Y5 As Double Dim Z5 As Double '--Dim X6 As Double Dim Y6 As Double Dim Z6 As Double '---Dim X7 As Double Dim Y7 As Double Dim Z7 As Double '---Dim X8 As Double Dim Y8 As Double Dim Z8 As Double '---Dim X9 As Double Dim Y9 As Double Dim Z9 As Double '---Dim X10 As Double Dim Y10 As Double Dim Z10 As Double '---Dim X11 As Double Dim Y11 As Double Dim Z11 As Double '---Dim X12 As Double Dim Y12 As Double Dim Z12 As Double '---Dim x As Double Dim Y As Double Dim z As Double Select Case OP Case Is = "Poor" X1 = 1 Y1 = 1 Z1 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X1 = 1 Y1 = 3 Z1 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X1 = 3 Y1 = 5 Z1 = 7 131

Case Is = "VG" X1 = 5 Y1 = 7 Z1 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X1 = 7 Y1 = 9 Z1 = 9 End Select Select Case ITW Case Is = "Poor" X2 = 1 Y2 = 1 Z2 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X2 = 1 Y2 = 3 Z2 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X2 = 3 Y2 = 5 Z2 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X2 = 5 Y2 = 7 Z2 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X2 = 7 Y2 = 9 Z2 = 9 End Select Select Case KM Case Is = "Poor" X3 = 1 Y3 = 1 Z3 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X3 = 1 Y3 = 3 Z3 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X3 = 3 Y3 = 5 Z3 = 7 132

Case Is = "VG" X3 = 5 Y3 = 7 Z3 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X3 = 7 Y3 = 9 Z3 = 9 End Select

Select Case MF Case Is = "Poor" X4 = 1 Y4 = 1 Z4 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X4 = 1 Y4 = 3 Z4 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X4 = 3 Y4 = 5 Z4 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X4 = 5 Y4 = 7 Z4 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X4 = 7 Y4 = 9 Z4 = 9 End Select '---SF Select Case SF Case Is = "Poor" X5 = 1 Y5 = 1 Z5 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X5 = 1 Y5 = 3 Z5 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X5 = 3 133

Y5 = 5 Z5 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X5 = 5 Y5 = 7 Z5 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X5 = 7 Y5 = 9 Z5 = 9 End Select '---EDI Select Case EDI Case Is = "Poor" X6 = 1 Y6 = 1 Z6 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X6 = 1 Y6 = 3 Z6 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X6 = 3 Y6 = 5 Z6 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X6 = 5 Y6 = 7 Z6 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X6 = 7 Y6 = 9 Z6 = 9 End Select

'-'---MIADA Select Case MIADA Case Is = "Poor" X7 = 1 Y7 = 1 Z7 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" 134

X7 = 1 Y7 = 3 Z7 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X7 = 3 Y7 = 5 Z7 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X7 = 5 Y7 = 7 Z7 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X7 = 7 Y7 = 9 Z7 = 9 End Select '--- DKB '--Select Case DKB Case Is = "Poor" X8 = 1 Y8 = 1 Z8 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X8 = 1 Y8 = 3 Z8 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X8 = 3 Y8 = 5 Z8 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X8 = 5 Y8 = 7 Z8 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X8 = 7 Y8 = 9 Z8 = 9 End Select '---DS '--'--135

Select Case DS Case Is = "Poor" X9 = 1 Y9 = 1 Z9 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X9 = 1 Y9 = 3 Z9 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X9 = 3 Y9 = 5 Z9 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X9 = 5 Y9 = 7 Z9 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X9 = 7 Y9 = 9 Z9 = 9 End Select '--DF '--Select Case DF Case Is = "Poor" X10 = 1 Y10 = 1 Z10 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X10 = 1 Y10 = 3 Z10 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X10 = 3 Y10 = 5 Z10 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X10 = 5 Y10 = 7 Z10 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X10 = 7 Y10 = 9 Z10 = 9 136

End Select '-- NPI '--Select Case NPI Case Is = "Poor" X11 = 1 Y11 = 1 Z11 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X11 = 1 Y11 = 3 Z11 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X11 = 3 Y11 = 5 Z11 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X11 = 5 Y11 = 7 Z11 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X11 = 7 Y11 = 9 Z11 = 9 End Select '-- CR '--Select Case CR Case Is = "Poor" X12 = 1 Y12 = 1 Z12 = 3 Case Is = "Fair" X12 = 1 Y12 = 3 Z12 = 5 Case Is = "Good" X12 = 3 Y12 = 5 Z12 = 7 Case Is = "VG" X12 = 5 Y12 = 7 Z12 = 9 Case Is = "Excellent" X12 = 7 Y12 = 9 137

Z12 = 9 End Select x = (X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 + X5 + X6 + X7 + X8 + X9 + X10 + X11 + X12) / 12 x = Round(x, 2) Y = (Y1 + Y2 + Y3 + Y4 + Y5 + Y6 + Y7 + Y8 + Y9 + Y10 + Y11 + Y12) / 12 Y = Round(Y, 2) z = (Z1 + Z2 + Z3 + Z4 + Z5 + Z6 + Z7 + Z8 + Z9 + Z10 + Z11 + Z12) / 12 z = Round(z, 2) Normalize = "( " & Round(x / 10, 2) & "," & Round(Y / 10, 2) & "," & Round(z / 10, 2) & ")" End Function

Public Function Ck(LV As Double) As String Select Case LV Case 0 To 0.258 Ck = "Traditional" Case 0.259 To 0.319 Ck = "Lean" Case 0.32 To 0.423 Ck = "Agile" Case 0.424 To 1 Ck = "Lagile" End Select End Function

138

139

140

141

142

Advanced Electronics Company (AEC)

143

144

Saudi Mechanics Industries (SMI)

145

146

147

148

Saudi Light Company (SLC)

149

150

151

152

153

154

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi