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

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

[1]  Donald R. Smith,et al.  Understanding the fundamentals of Kanban and CONWIP pull systems using simulation , 2001, Proceeding of the 2001 Winter Simulation Conference (Cat. No.01CH37304).

[2]  John R. Shook,et al.  Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Create Value and , 1998 .

[3]  Asbjoern M. Bonvik,et al.  A comparison of production-line control mechanisms , 1997 .

[4]  Jeffrey K. Liker,et al.  The Toyota way : 14 management principles from the world's greatest manufacturer , 2004 .

[5]  Kai Furmans,et al.  Buffer sizing of a Heijunka Kanban system , 2012, J. Intell. Manuf..

[6]  David L. Woodruff,et al.  CONWIP: a pull alternative to kanban , 1990 .

[7]  Bo Meng,et al.  The Application of Value Stream Mapping Based Lean Production System , 2010 .

[8]  David Sept. Glover,et al.  Push and pull , 2008 .

[9]  Felix T.S. Chan Effect of kanban size on just-in-time manufacturing systems , 2001 .

[10]  Mehmet Savsar Simulation analysis of a pull-push system for an electronic assembly line , 1997 .

[11]  Seyed Jafar Sadjadi,et al.  A new mathematical modeling and a genetic algorithm search for milk run problem (an auto industry supply chain case study) , 2009 .

[12]  Maurice Bonney,et al.  Are push and pull systems really so different , 1999 .

[13]  Mingyuan Chen,et al.  A mixed integer programming model for a two line CONWIP-based production and assembly system , 2005 .

[14]  Jiong Jiang,et al.  Yield comparison of push and pull control methods on production systems with unreliable machines , 1997 .

[15]  Ilias P. Tatsiopoulos,et al.  A reference data model for production control in the electronics industry , 1997 .

[16]  Daisuke Hirotani,et al.  Comparing CONWIP, synchronized CONWIP, and Kanban in complex supply chains , 2005 .

[17]  Robert Kagan,et al.  Implementing Lean Manufacturing in High-mix Production Environment , 2006, APMS.

[18]  Lawrence E. Holloway,et al.  Stability of pull production control methods for systems with significant setups , 2002, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..