Enablers in the production system design process impacting operational performance

Figures & data

Figure 1. The production system design process (modified from Bellgran and Säfsten (2009)).

Table 1. An overview of studies within the production system design process

References	Theme of the study	Key findings
(Slim et al., 2021)	Lean thinking for production system design	Proposed inclusion of lean principles to design a high performing production system/machine
(Trolle et al., 2020)	Identification of challenges	Presented a set of challenges in production system design process
(Rösiö & Bruch, 2018)	Incorporating Reconfiguration in Design process	Challenges and tactics related to incorporating design process presented
(Andersen et al., 2017)	Incorporating Reconfiguration in Design process	A framework of designing reconfigurable production system is presented
(Stark et al., 2017)	Incorporating Industry 4.0 in design process	Proposed a design approach for designing cyber physical production system
(Rönnberg Sjödin et al., 2016)	Managing uncertainty in process development project	Hypothesis proved quantitatively and suggested actions of managing uncertainty when purchasing equipment
(De Kogel & Becker, 2016)	Incorporating lean in design process	Proposed design support tool to incorporate lean aspects in the design process
(Ahlskog, 2015)	Manufacturing technology development	Challenges and factors associated with manufacturing technology development projects identified
(Rösiö & Bruch, 2014)	Production system design model	A model of production system design process developed and presented
(Bruch & Bellgran, 2013)	Managing information in design process	Characteristics of design information and its impact on design process presented
(Rönnberg-Sjödin, 2013)	Managing collaboration with equipment supplier in process development project	Challenges and suggested actions presented when collaborating with equipment supplier during equipment acquisition process
(Bruch & Bellgran, 2012)	Managing information in design process	Type of design information, acquisition and sharing process of design information on equipment acquisition process presented
(Attri & Grover, 2012)	Literature review on production system life-cycle	Different production system life cycle model presented
(Aurich & Barbian, 2004)	Incorporating flexibility of production line in production system design projects	A model presented to optimize the flexibility in production line development projects
(Cochran et al., 2002)	Production equipment design process	Axiomatic design process used to incorporate lean principles when designing production equipment

Table 2. Enablers of the production system design process impacting operational performance

Enablers	References
Relationship with equipment supplier	(Abd Rahman et al., 2009; Lager & Frishammar, 2010; Rönnberg-Sjödin, 2013)
Communication with equipment supplier	(Bruch, 2012; Bruch & Bellgran, 2012)
Involvement level of production team	(Rönnberg-Sjödin, 2013; Rösiö & Bruch, 2018)
Specification of production equipment	(Rönnberg-Sjödin, 2013; Rösiö & Bruch, 2018)
Training quality for new production system	(Ahlskog, 2015; Rönnberg-Sjödin, 2013)
Formulation of project team	(Ahlskog, 2015; Cooper, 2011)
Maturity level of manufacturing technology	(Ahlskog, 2015)
Utilizing lesson learned from similar production line	(Hubka & Eder, 2012)

Table 3. Overview of data collection through interview

Project	Duration (min.)	Title of interviewed experts	Number of interviewees
A	50–75	Project managers First line managers Process engineer	3 2 1
B	40–80	Project manager First line managers Technical project manager	2 2 1
C	45–65	First line manager Ramp-up coordinator Project manager	2 1 1
Total	900		15

Table 4. Overview of the three case projects

Category	Project-A	Project-B	Project-C
Product type	New	Existing	Existing
Process type	New	Existing	Existing
Tenure of commercial production	2 years	2.5 years	1.5 years
Current OEE	Undefined (data is not available)	50%	33%
Performance level in operation phase	N/A (OEE data is not available)	Satisfactory	Not satisfactory
Existing similar production line	No	Yes	Yes
Reason for new production line	Supply new product to market	Increase capacity and supply to new market	Increase capacity
Complexity level in terms of managing project activities during early phases	Medium	Low	High

Table 5. Additional enablers in the design phase impacting operational performance

Enablers/elements of enablers in the design phase	Relevant facts/causes in the design phase	Consequence/ Result in the ramp-up and operation phases	Related to Project
Product expertise	The information about the product quality deviation parameter was not reliable. (‘I got that information, wrong or right that I cannot say right…so we re-qualified the equipment…’)	Additional resources to change different parameters of the production process to ensure quality and avoid deviations.	Project-A
Process expertise	Lack of proper information about process requirements to supply in new market.	Unnecessary activities were performed for one year. (‘…they set high element than the other markets and I think we maybe could..challenge that more in the beginning…one and half year we changed our way of cleaning because it was not necessary.’)	Project-B
Equipment supplier´s competency	Supplier’s competency was not satisfactory to solve technical issue. Supplier designed the equipment for the first time. (‘…we have made big lessons learnt….we underestimate the complexity both we and machine supplier…[they] thought they have solved [technical disturbances] but it turned out during installation….this cost almost one year working with solve this’) Machine was not built for correct variation, supplier built the machine for the first time.	Technical disturbances in machine, time to solve technical disturbance increased, increased equipment down time.	Project-A Project-B Project-C
Internal technical competence	Assigned skilled machine technician with working experience on similar type of machine. (‘…this special guy [technician within company] has been working with the same machine and machine type for 20 years..we haven’t managed this without him.’)	Identified root causes of technical disturbances and found solutions to reduced technical disturbances.	Project-A, Project-B, Project-C
Quality of Testing of equipment	Higher test run time to find root causes of technical disturbances and to validate the identified solutions.	Less technical disturbances in operation phase. (‘They [production team] got a lot of training with all these test runs. So when the machine was handed over they could run it at high speed from the beginning.’)	Project-B
Design of SOP (Standard Operating Procedure)	SOP developed aiming to reduce training time of new operators. SOP was not adequate, equipment specification was not appropriate. (‘ I think it was very big mistake. They thought that the line could be handled with the man only by 6 of operators,…. we need…perhaps even 8 at an average shift.’) (…if you trained from standards then you learned to do the things in the right way, but if you don’t have standards for changeovers then it’s hard to do changeover in in the time….)	Training of the operator time reduced. Operators were not in proper place, changeover time increased, had to change equipment specification later.	Project-A Project-C

Table 6. Impact on Ramp-up and operation phases by factors in the design phase

Enablers/ elements of enablers in the design phase	Relevant facts/causes in the design phase	Consequence/ Result in the ramp-up and operation phases	Related to Project
Relationship with equipment supplier	Design team had to work with the least preferred supplier due to business deal. Strong relationship with particular supplier facilitated the change of equipment specification.	Delayed the start-up process. Safety aspects of the equipment improved.	Project-A
Communication with equipment suppliers	Supplier´s misunderstanding some of the requirements of the equipment.	Several continuous improvement activities were performed in the equipment to improve safety, quality and technical issues that hampered planned production schedule.	Project-C
Involvement level of production team	Full time future production manager appointed early.	Training of the operator time reduced, Ergonomic issue improved.	Project-A
Specification of production equipment	Specification of the equipment was not accurate.	Created bottleneck in the production line causing less OEE	Project-C
Training quality for new production system	Training time was not enough, training time was compromised, few operators were trained at the beginning.	Line was not comfortable for the operators, difficulties to fix minor technical disturbances due to lack of training performance of the operators was at satisfactory level.	Project-C
Formulation of project team	Multifunctional experts were involved in the project team.	Improved green, safety, ergonomics, maintenance aspects of production equipment.	Project-A, Project-B, Project-C
Maturity level of manufacturing technology	New technology implemented for a specific process.	Increased learning time for operators and technicians, and increased downtime during equipment breakdown.	Project-C
Utilizing lesson learned from similar production line	Bottleneck identified in the previous production lines reduced.	Improved OEE.	Project-B

Table 7. Enablers in the design phase impacting operational performance in ramp-up and operation phases

Enablers	Elements of Enablers	Impact in the ramp-up and operation phase
Product & process expertise	Familiarity with the product	New product and new process require more time to learn. Lack of proper information about new product´s quality related deviation parameter may lead to unnecessary operations. Utilization of lesson learned from existing product and process offers continuous improvement opportunity.
	Familiarity with the process
	Maturity level of manufacturing technology
	Utilizing lesson learning from similar production line
Quality for testing and training	Quality of training	Proper training and testing of equipment increase confidence of operators and technicians to solve technical issues during operation phase.
	Quality of testing of Equipment
Internal technical competence		Internal strong technical competency assists to solve different technical issues related to production equipment, for instance, finding root cause of disturbance, providing solutions, assist suppliers on implementing solutions, etc.
Involvement level of production team		Early involvement of production team (production manager, operators, lean experts, maintenance, etc.) and their competency provide opportunity to develop standard operating procedure, machine specification properly.
Formulation of project team	Involvement of multifunctional experts	Involvement of multifunctional experts in the project team provides input on different level.
Competency of production team	Design of standard operating procedure	Competency of the production team allows to design the equipment specification, training plan and standard operating procedure properly.
	Specification of production equipment
Communication with equipment supplier	Suppliers´ understanding on requirements	Proper communication with the equipment suppliers ensures their understanding about the requirements and specifications of equipment which reduces uncertainty and misunderstanding.
Relationship with supplier		Strong relationship with suppliers assist on developing equipment specifications, re-engineering of equipment (if necessary) and solving technical issues as a part of after sales service.
Supplier expertise on equipment		If supplier is constructing the equipment first time that may impact on solving technical disturbances during testing and ramp-up phase.

Table 8. Criteria for linguistics criteria for cross-case analysis

Enablers	Elements of Enablers	Linguistic criteria	Symbol
Product & process expertise	Familiarity with the product	Company have been already manufacturing the type of product	++
		Company had not manufactured the type of product before	+
	Familiarity with the process	Production teams are familiar with the manufacturing process	++
		Production teams are not familiar with the manufacturing process	+
	Maturity level of manufacturing technology	Company is familiar (worked before) with the manufacturing technology	++
		Company is not familiar (never worked before) with the manufacturing technology	+
	Utilizing lesson learning from similar production line	Company had similar production line	++
		Company never had similar production line	+
Involvement level of production team		Production team were involved early in the design process	++
		Production team were not involved early in the design process	+
Formulation of project team	Involvement of multi-functional experts	Involvement of team members from different functionalities during the design process	++
		Lack of involvement of team members from different functionalities during the design process	+
Competency of production team	Design of standard operating procedure	Standard operating procedure was designed properly	++
		Standard operating procedure was not appropriate	+
	Specification of production equipment	Specifications of production equipment were developed properly	++
		Specifications of production equipment were not appropriate	+
Internal technical competence		Internal technical competency proved fruitful in the design process	++
		Internal technical competency had no impact in the design process	+
Quality for testing and training	Quality of training	Responded did not complain about training quality	++
		Responded felt that training quality was not sufficient	+
	Quality of testing of equipment	Responded felt that testing of equipment was sufficient	++
		Responded complained about the quality of testing of equipment	+
Communication with equipment supplier		Responded did not complain about the communication issue with equipment suppliers	++
		Responded addressed that there was an issue with the communication with equipment suppliers	+
Relationship with supplier		Responded addressed that they have strong relationship with suppliers	++
		Respondents addressed that poor relationship with customers hampered the project	+
Supplier expertise on equipment		Respondent addressed that supplier understanding about requirement of equipment was to their expected level	++
		Respondent addressed that supplier understanding about requirement of equipment was not to their expected level	+
Note: + and ++ respectively represent subjective assessment of implemented actions as described through the specified binary linguistic criteria for each action

Figure 2. OEE data for case project-B & project-C.

Table 9. Cross case analysis

Enablers	Elements of Enablers	Project-A	Project-B	Project-C
Product & process expertise	Familiarity with the product	+	++	++
	Familiarity with the process	+	++	++
	Maturity level of manufacturing technology	+	+	+
	Utilizing lesson learning from similar production line	+	++	++
Quality of training and testing of equipment	Quality of training	++	++	+
	Quality of testing of equipment	++	++	+
Internal technical competence		++	++	++
Involvement level of production team		++	++	++
Formulation of project team	Involvement of multi-functional experts	++	++	++
Competency of production team	Design of standard operating procedure	++	++	+
	Specification of production equipment	++	++	+
Communication with equipment supplier	Suppliers´ understanding on requirements	++	++	+
Relationship with equipment supplier		+	++	++
Supplier expertise on equipment		+	+	+
Note: (++) indicates that the strength of the actions in the project related to the enabler was high. (+) indicates that the strength of actions in the project related to the enabler was low

Figure 3. Operational performance-driven production system design process.

Bellgran, M., & Säfsten, K. (2009). Production development: Design and operation of production systems. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

 Google Scholar

Battesini, M., ten Caten, C. S., & Pacheco, D. A. D. J. (2021). Key factors for operational performance in manufacturing systems: Conceptual model, systematic literature review and implications. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 60(June), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.06.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Trolle, J., Fagerström, B., & Carin, R. (2020). Challenges in the fuzzy front end of the production development process SPS2020 (IOS Press), 311–322. . https://doi.org/10.3233/ATDE200169

 Google Scholar

Rösiö, C., & Bruch, J. (2018). Exploring the design process of reconfigurable industrial production systems activities, challenges, and tactics. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(1), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-06-2016-0090

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chirumalla, K. (2017). Challenges in managing new product introduction projects: An explorative case study. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, 2(DS87–2), 259–268. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/39580/Challenges+in+managing+new+product+introduction+projects%3A+An+explorative+case+study

 Google Scholar

De Kogel, W., & Becker, J. M. J. (2016). Development of design support tool for new lean production systems. Procedia CIRP, 41, 596–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.009

 Google Scholar

Gupta, P., & Vardhan, S. (2016). Optimizing OEE, productivity and production cost for improving sales volume in an automobile industry through TPM : A case study. International Journal of Production Research, I, 54(10), 2976–2988. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1145817

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ahlskog, M. (2015). Supporting pre-development of new manufacturing technologies (Issue 194). Mälardalen University.

 Google Scholar

Rönnberg-Sjödin, D. (2013). A lifecycle perspective on buyer-supplier collaboration in process development projects. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 24(2), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381311292322

 Google Scholar

Van Wyk, B. (2012). Research design and methods Part I. University of Western Cape.

 Google Scholar

Bellgran, M., & Säfsten, K. (2004). Production system design and evaluation for increased system robustness. Second World Conference on POM and 15th Annual POM Conference, 1–30.

 Google Scholar

Lager, T., & Frishammar, J. (2010). Equipment supplier/user collaboration in the process industries: In search of enhanced operating performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 21(6), 698–720. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381011064003

 Google Scholar

Cooper, R. G. (2011). Winning at new products: Creating value through innovation. Basic Book.

 Google Scholar