1
CONTENTS
1) CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION
2) CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW
3) CHAPTER 3 : PROBLEM FORMULATION
4) CHAPTER 4 : PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
5) CHAPTER 5 : CONCLUSION
6) REFERENCE
7) APPENDICES
2
CHAPTER – 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION OF VARIOUS ASSEMBLY METHOD
Globalization and increasing competition require manufacturers to improve product quality
while reducing costs. Manufacturers are adopting management philosophies like lean
manufacturing, kanban, and total quality management to handle customer pressure and
market competition. This chapter discusses three main assembly methods: Line Side
Assembly, Lean Kitting Assembly, and Kanban Assembly.
LINE SIDE ASSEMBLY
In line side assembly, components are kept along the conveyor line and replenished
periodically. This method does not have a structured refilling process. While it eliminates
errors from incorrect kits, it increases non-value-added time, as workers spend time searching
for components. Additionally, it results in high work-in-process (WIP) inventory.
LEAN KITTING ASSEMBLY
Lean kitting combines lean manufacturing with kitting, where components are supplied in
kits. This method reduces waste, transportation, and defects. It supports lean principles like
stability, standardization, and just-in-time (JIT) delivery. Kitting can be done in centralized or
decentralized picking stores. Centralized stores integrate with the main storage area, while
decentralized stores reduce kit transportation but may face space constraints.
KANBAN ASSEMBLY
It is an assembly process in which parts are supplied using kanban card to the work station
from stores. The operator takes the first part away from the palette, detaches the kanban card
from it and places it into the kanban container. After certain time the container is withdrawn
and a reference list of kanban is made. This reference list then sent (typically 4 or 5 times a
day) through fax to the main store. The store will send the components again to the assembly
line by attaching a kanban card.
3
1.2 CHALLENGES TO BE ADDRESSED
Implementing lean kitting assembly presents several challenges that must be addressed to
achieve optimal efficiency and effectiveness. One primary challenge is the integration of
kitting processes with existing manufacturing systems. This requires careful coordination and
alignment of various components, including inventory management, material handling, and
production scheduling. Misalignment can lead to delays, increased lead times, and excess
work-in-progress inventory, undermining the goals of lean manufacturing. Additionally,
ensuring accurate and timely delivery of kits to assembly stations is critical, as any disruption
can result in bottlenecks and decreased productivity.
Another significant challenge lies in the cultural shift required for successful implementation.
Transitioning to a lean kitting assembly approach often necessitates a change in mindset
among employees and management, emphasizing the importance of collaboration, continuous
improvement, and waste reduction. Resistance to change can hinder the adoption of new
processes and technologies, making it essential to invest in training and communication
strategies. Furthermore, fostering a culture of accountability and ownership is crucial, as
employees must understand their roles in maintaining the efficiency of the kitting system and
be engaged in identifying opportunities for further improvements. Addressing these
challenges effectively can lead to a more streamlined, responsive, and efficient
assembly operation.
1.3 MOTIVATION BEHIND THE PROJECT
The motivation behind implementing lean kitting assembly stems from the desire to enhance
operational efficiency, reduce waste, and improve overall productivity in manufacturing
environments. By streamlining the assembly process through organized kits of components,
companies can minimize handling times, decrease the risk of errors, and optimize inventory
levels, leading to faster response times and increased flexibility in production. Additionally,
lean kitting supports the broader goals of lean manufacturing by promoting a culture of
continuous improvement and collaboration among teams. This approach not only drives cost
savings and enhances product quality but also fosters a more agile manufacturing process
capable of adapting to changing market demands and customer expectations.
1.4 PROJECT ISSUES
The primary issue associated with lean kitting assembly is the challenge of maintaining
optimal inventory levels while ensuring that kitting processes are efficient and responsive to
production demands. Overstocking can lead to excess inventory, which ties up valuable
resources and increases holding costs, while understocking can result in delays and
disruptions in the assembly line. Additionally, the complexity of accurately forecasting
demand and coordinating the timely delivery of components for kitting can lead to
inefficiencies and errors, negatively impacting overall productivity. Furthermore, integrating
kitting processes into existing workflows requires careful consideration of workspace design,
4
equipment, and employee training to ensure that teams can effectively manage the transition
to a lean kitting system without compromising operational performance.
1.5 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
1)Process Mapping: Analyzing existing kitting and assembly processes to identify
inefficiencies, bottlenecks, and areas for improvement.
2)Inventory Management: Developing strategies for optimizing inventory levels, including
Just-in-Time (JIT) practices to ensure timely availability of components while minimizing
excess stock.
3)Workstation Design: Designing kitting workstations that enhance workflow, reduce
movement waste, and improve ergonomics for operators, thereby increasing productivity and
accuracy.
4)Technology Integration: Evaluating and integrating appropriate technologies, such as
automated picking systems or software solutions, to support the kitting process and improve
data accuracy.
5)Training and Change Management: Implementing training programs for staff to facilitate
the transition to lean kitting practices and promote a culture of continuous improvement.
6)Performance Measurement: Establishing metrics to assess the effectiveness of the new
kitting process, including cycle time, error rates, and overall assembly efficiency, to ensure
alignment with lean principles.
5
CHAPTER – 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.1 Assembly and Kitting Systems:
Tamaki and Nof (1991) pioneered the concept of robotic kitting systems, focusing on
reducing assembly costs by automating part entry through robotic bin-picking systems. This
system enhanced productivity and part flow control, making it a viable alternative to manual
operations. Bozer and McGinnis (1992) defined a kit as a set of components to support
assembly, and developed a model to compare kitting with line stocking in stationary product
assembly, focusing on balancing material handling, space, and work-in-process.
2.1.2 Lean Manufacturing:
Jacobs and Meerkov (1993) studied the due-time performance in both lean and mass
production, emphasizing that high performance in lean environments requires precise
scheduling. Barker (1994) introduced a time-based framework to improve production
efficiency, highlighting waste in UK manufacturing and illustrating how kanban pull systems
streamline material flow. Acaccia et al. (1995) underlined the importance of flexible
production systems, while Fynes and Ennis (1994) explored the transition to lean production
at Microsoft Ireland and its impact on logistics.
2.1.3 Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Models:
Gunther et al. (1996) developed a heuristic solution for optimizing component kitting in
semi-automated printed circuit board assembly, while Rao et al. (1997) applied the Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the benefits and costs of concurrent engineering in
Hong Kong’s electronics industry. Angelo et al. (1996) and Brynzer and Johansson (1995)
contributed to kitting system design, analyzing work organization, picking methods, and
information systems.
2.1.4 Key Studies in Lean and Manufacturing Improvement:
• Lean Engineering & Process Optimization: Studies by Braiden and Morrison (1996),
Angelo et al. (1996), and De Toni and Tonchia (1996) demonstrated the benefits of lean
6
manufacturing in improving production flexibility and efficiency, focusing on overcoming
bottlenecks and optimizing process performance.
• Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS): Angelo et al. (1996) and Gunther et al.
(1996) presented multi-criteria methods for evaluating and improving FMS configurations,
emphasizing their relevance in industries such as printed circuit board assembly.
• Lean Principles in Practice: Ahlstrom (1998) grouped lean production principles and
emphasized the importance of sequencing these efforts for maximizing manufacturing
improvements. Erridge and Murray (1998) demonstrated the feasibility of lean supply in local
government procurement, adapting manufacturing models to non-industrial sectors.
2.1.5 Applications in Supply Chain and Decision Making:
Panizzolo (1998) and Azim (1999) analyzed lean production's external relationships and
simulation-based lean material delivery. Agile and flexible production models by Katayama
and Bennett (1999) explored system flexibility, while Woo Lee and Hie Kim (2000)
introduced decision support models for project selection in information systems.
Advanced Lean Concepts:
Amasaka (2002) proposed New JIT, integrating Toyota's Total Quality Management with
advanced management systems for leaner production processes. Studies by Medbo (2003)
demonstrated how materials kits improved assembly productivity in Volvo plants.
Kitting Discrepancies: Joshi et al. (2002) reduced errors in PCB assembly kitting by focusing
on continuous flow systems and operational performance. Sullivan et al. (2002) utilized Value
Mapping (VSM) for waste identification in production.
Lean Implementation Challenges and Solutions: Shah and Ward (2003) identified key
practice bundles in lean implementation like Just-In-Time, Total Quality Management, and
Total Preventive Maintenance. Aase et al. (2004) confirmed that U-shaped assembly lines
enhance productivity under specific conditions, while Grewal and Sarren (2004) quantified
lean improvement initiatives through VSM.
2.1.6 Recent Contributions (2005-2008):
Laosirihongthong and Dangayach (2005) surveyed strategies in India and Thailand, showing
a focus on Total Quality Management (TQM) and Just-In-Time (JIT). Morein (2005)
discussed agile development in information systems. Agarwal et al. (2006) introduced a
7
framework assessing supply chain performance, and Houshmand and Jamshidnezhad (2006)
applied axiomatic modeling to lean systems. Karthick (2006) developed multi-criteria
supplier selection using Performance Value Analysis. Narasimhan et al. (2006) highlighted
the coexistence of lean and agile forms in manufacturing plants. Tseng et al. (2006) found
that continuous improvement positively affects operational performance. Abdulmalek and
Rajgopal (2007) used Value Stream Mapping to adapt lean principles in a steel mill. Matsui
(2007) confirmed JIT's impact on competitive performance in Japanese manufacturing.
Salomon et al. (2007) applied MCDM to select equipment suppliers in Brazil using AHP.
Amer et al. (2008) introduced Design for Six Sigma for optimizing supply chain variables.
Chandra and Grabis (2008) developed models for variable lead-time inventory systems, while
Cruz Machado and Tavares (2008) used “management by value stream” for performance
assessment. Gurumurthy and Kodali (2008) demonstrated lean's superiority in performance
improvement. Herron and Hicks (2008) emphasized management commitment in
disseminating lean practices. Kattan and Bin Adi (2008) achieved inventory cost savings with
new strategies, and Kaur and Mahanti (2008) used AHP for vendor selection.
Khorramshahgol and Djavanshir (2008) introduced a method for calculating Taguchi’s
quality loss function, while Kull and Talluri (2008) combined AHP and goal programming for
supplier selection.
2.1.7 Recent Advances (2010):
Demeter and Matyusz (2010) explored how lean practices influence inventory turnover
performance. They concluded that firms applying lean practices generally have higher
inventory turnover, though variations depend on production systems, order types, and product
types. Eroglu and Hofer (2010) revisited the relationship between inventory leanness and
firm performance, proposing a theory-based measure to account for industry-specific
inventory management characteristics. Their analysis of U.S. manufacturing data revealed
significant industry-specific variations in the inventory-performance relationship.
Gharakhani et al. (2010) presented a new mathematical model that optimizes both production
capacity and reliability. Kisperska-Moron and De Haan (2010) compared mass, lean, and
agile production philosophies, highlighting the paradigmatic differences between lean’s
“what, when needed but perfect” and agile’s “first, fast and best” approaches.
Mackelprang and Nair (2010) examined the relationship between JIT practices and
performance outcomes, using a meta-analysis of correlations to identify the JIT practices with
the greatest impact on performance. Makui et al. (2010) proposed a fuzzy multi-attribute
group decision-making approach for risk analysis in projects.
Neumann and Medbo (2010) evaluated Swedish manufacturing’s ‘big box’ material supply
strategy versus a proposed ‘narrow bin’ approach, concluding that the latter could improve
8
productivity and reduce risk characteristics by decreasing layout space requirements and
walking distances.
Petersen and Wohlin (2010) introduced Software Process Improvement through the Lean
Measurement (SPI-LEAM) method, integrating lean principles into software development.
Pool et al. (2010) explored the application of flow and pull production principles in the semi-
process industry, using a case study to assess demand-driven production flow via cyclic
scheduling.
Pun et al. (2010) developed a self-assessment model for small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) to evaluate performance in new product development (NPD) practices, using AHP to
prioritize decision/performance criteria. Raut et al. (2010) combined AHP, Fuzzy AHP, and
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) to select suppliers for an automobile spare-parts
manufacturer.
Ravanshadnia et al. (2010) applied a fuzzy AHP model to engineering partner selection in
construction projects, incorporating stakeholder relationships, commission fees, and
managerial capabilities. Roy and Debdip (2010) developed a mixed nonlinear programming
approach to balance production and customer demand in the supply chain.
Sarkar et al. (2010) developed a production-inventory model incorporating stochastic
machine breakdowns, safety stock, and variable reliability parameters. Song et al. (2010)
proposed an integrated production-inventory model that considers buyer-vendor interactions
in lead time optimization.
Tuzkaya et al. (2010) utilized a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodology for
material handling equipment selection in manufacturing, applying ANP and the Preference
Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE).
Venkatachalapathi and Ramakrishna Rao (2010) established relationships between input
variables and Automated Guided Vehicle (AGV) utilization in a dynamic Flexible
Manufacturing System (FMS).
Vijaya Kumar et al. (2010) applied AHP to evaluate factors affecting ERP implementation in
manufacturing environments, focusing on quality issues in the implementation process.
Vliegen et al. (2010) conducted a study on optimizing tool kits for service engineers in
corrective maintenance scenarios, identifying key factors such as packing and convenience.
9
2.2 SUMMARIZED OVERVIEW BASED ON THE LITERATURE
SURVEY
In this chapter, the various literature related to lean manufacturing, kitting assembly, MCDM
models like PVA, AHP and fuzzy logic are discussed. The following summary have been
drawn based on the studies available in the open literature on kitting assembly system.
1. Some literature deals with kitting for a parallel flow long cycle time assembly system
(Brynzor and Johansson 1995, Medbo 2003)
2. Some literature focuses kitting in light guided semi automated assembly system (Gunther
et al 1996)
3. Literature dealing with automation of kitting using robot to perform the parts kitting
operation (Tamaki et al 1991) and
4. Literature dealing on kitting for a fitness cycle assembly line (Bozer and McGinnis 1992)
10
CHAPTER – 3
PROBLEM FORMULATION
3.1 Problems Associated with Line Side Assembly Method
In this work, the case industry produces two different types of engines on a single conveyor
assembly line. This line is a Multi Product Single Conveyor (MPSC) assembly line which is a
special type of assembly line in which different products are assembled in a single assembly
line. The following are the problems associated with the line side assembly method of a
MPSC assembly line.
i) More floor space is consumed.
ii) More operator walking time for retrieving components from the storage area is required.
iii) Changeover from one product to other product is very difficult since changeover requires
some of the components to be replaced completely with components of new specifications.
iv) This poses difficulty to perform repeatedly.
v) Skilled and experienced labour is required for assembly work Work in process inventory
is very high and
vi)Shop floor control is difficult.
3.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT OF LEAN KITTING ASSEMBLY
Lean kitting assembly aims to optimize the assembly process by minimizing waste and
enhancing efficiency through streamlined material handling and organization. However,
many organizations face challenges such as excessive lead times, high levels of work-in-
progress inventory, and inefficient space utilization, which hinder the effectiveness of kitting
operations. Additionally, issues such as poor communication, inadequate training, and
variability in part availability can lead to increased errors and disruptions in the assembly
line. These challenges result in compromised productivity, increased operational costs, and
diminished product quality, ultimately impacting the organization’s competitiveness in the
market. Therefore, a comprehensive approach is required to identify and address these
underlying issues to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of lean kitting
assembly processes.
11
3.3 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the present study are as follows:
1.To select a suitable assembly method among Line Side (LS),Lean Kitting (LK) and Kanban
Assembly (KA) employing Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) models like Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) for an automotive industry.
2. To develop a Fuzzy based model for analyzing the suitability of LK.
3. To develop a mathematical model for demonstrating the application of LK in an
automotive industry.
4. To quantify the advantages of LK over LS assembly.
5. To develop a model and demonstrate its application for finding an optimal batch size with a
fixed changeover time.
12
CHAPTER – 4
PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
3.1 STUDIES ON ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a methodology for multi- criteria analysis and decision
making which can enable decision makers to represent the interaction of multiple factors in
complex situations. AHP is one of the important multi criteria decision making model that was
originally developed by Prof. L. Saaty. AHP is a problem solving framework based on the
innate human ability to make sound judgment for small problems. In short, it is a method to
derive ratio scales from paired comparisons. Also, AHP is a structured technique for helping
people to deal with complex decisions. Based on mathematics and human psychology, it was
developed and has been extensively used. The AHP provides a comprehensive and rational
framework for structuring problem, for representing and quantifying its elements, for relating
those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions. It provides a prioritized
ranking order indicating the overall preference for each of the decision alternatives. It is used
throughout the world in a wide variety of decision situations, in fields such as government,
business, industry, healthcare, and education.
3.1.1 Selection of Suitable Assembly Method using AHP
According to theoretical works, a lot of benefits are associated with lean kitting manufacturing.
Some of them are intangible in nature and hence are not usually measured in the same units. In
this work, it is therefore chosen to use AHP as a decision making tool to select suitable
assembly method for the multi product single conveyor assembly line among line side, lean
kitting and kanban assembly. The hierarchical tree of the AHP is shown in Figure 3.1. In this
level 1 is the goal to be attained. Level 2 is the criteria considered for achieving the goal which
further have sub-criteria in level 3. Level 4 shows the alternatives available for achieving the
goal.
13
Figure 3.1 Hierarchical Tree of the AHP
3.2 APPLICATIONS OF AHP
As a method of measuring intangible factors, the AHP has many areas of application like,
1. Conflict Resolution
2. Environmental applications
3. General resource allocation and optimization
4. Group decision making
5. Human resources
6. Marketing decisions
7. Medical decision making
8. Military applications
9. Vendor selection process
10. Maintenance management
11. Investment portfolio selection in the banking sectors
12. Water resources policy and management
14
Some examples for the application of AHP are;
i) Deciding how best to reduce the impact of global climate change
ii) Quantifying the overall quality of software system (Microsoft corporation)
iii) Selecting university faculty ( University of Pennsylvania)
iv) Deciding where to locate offshore manufacturing plants (University of Cambridge)
v) Assessing risk in operating cross-country petroleum pipe lines
vi) Deciding how best to manage watersheds (U.S. Department of Agriculture)
3.3 AHP PROCEDURE
The step by step procedure to carryout AHP is given below:
When making policy decisions in planning, it is extremely important to evaluate the possible
alternatives carefully. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) allows the policy analyst to
do this by structuring the problem hierarchically and guiding him through a sequence of
pairwise comparison judgments.
Step 1: Setting up hierarchy
The hierarchical tree of the AHP for the alternative assembly methods is shown in the Figure
3.2. where level 1 is the goal of MCDM model, level 2 is the factors considered for the
analysis and level 3 is the alternative assembly methods. Here, AHP is applied to select
suitable assembly method for all the sub assemblies of the case industry considering the
factors like 1) operator distance travelled, 2) floor space required,3) WIP inventory and 4)
operator walking time.
Figure 3.2 Hierar6chical tree of the AHP for the alternative assembly methods
15
Step 2: Comparison of characteristics
In this procedure AHP applied for cylinder head sub assembly by considering the factor,
operator distance travelled, is explained in detail. Saaty’s 1-9 scale comparison is taken. The
scale is shown below:
Intensity of Importance Definition
1 Equal Importance
3 Moderate Importance
5 Strong Importance
7 Very Strongly demonstrated Importance
9 Absolute Importance
2,4,6,8 Intermediate Values (When Compromise is needed)
