|
|
1 | (8) |
|
1.1 Meaning and History of KAIZEN Approach |
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
1.2 KAIZEN and Innovation |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
1.3 SMEs in Indian Context |
|
|
3 | (2) |
|
1.4 Definitions of Continuous Improvement Approach |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
1.5 Different CI Strategies |
|
|
6 | (3) |
|
|
9 | (16) |
|
|
9 | (1) |
|
2.2 Ongoing Continuous Improvement Process |
|
|
9 | (2) |
|
2.3 PDCA and SDCA Cycles of Continuous Improvement |
|
|
11 | (1) |
|
2.4 Principles of CI Approach |
|
|
11 | (2) |
|
|
13 | (10) |
|
2.5.1 Literature Related to Conceptual Framework |
|
|
14 | (1) |
|
2.5.2 Literature Related to Case Studies |
|
|
15 | (4) |
|
2.5.3 Literature Survey Related to Surveys/Empirical Research |
|
|
19 | (4) |
|
2.6 Benefits of Implementing CI Approach |
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
|
24 | (1) |
|
|
25 | (6) |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
|
26 | (2) |
|
3.3.1 Identification of Industrial Units |
|
|
26 | (1) |
|
3.3.2 Options Field Methodology |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
3.3.3 Options Profile Methodology |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
3.3.4 Analytic Hierarchy Process |
|
|
27 | (1) |
|
3.3.5 Structural Equation Modeling |
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
3.4 Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) |
|
|
28 | (1) |
|
3.5 Objectives and Issues of the Study |
|
|
29 | (1) |
|
3.5.1 Objectives of the Study |
|
|
29 | (1) |
|
3.5.2 Issues of the Study |
|
|
29 | (1) |
|
|
29 | (2) |
|
4 Analysis of Preliminary Data |
|
|
31 | (22) |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
|
31 | (3) |
|
4.2.1 Creation of Industry Database |
|
|
31 | (1) |
|
4.2.2 Pilot Testing of Questionnaire |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
4.2.3 Filling of Questionnaire |
|
|
32 | (1) |
|
4.2.4 Hypotheses for the Study: From the Literature the Following Hypotheses Have Been Framed |
|
|
33 | (1) |
|
4.3 Level of Usage of CI Strategies |
|
|
34 | (2) |
|
4.3.1 Discussion of Level of Usage of Eight (08) Main CI Strategies |
|
|
34 | (2) |
|
4.4 Level of Usage of Sub-strategies of CI Approach |
|
|
36 | (1) |
|
4.4.1 Discussion of Level of Usage of Sub-strategies of CI Approach |
|
|
36 | (1) |
|
4.5 Input and Output Variables (CI Strategies and Performance Parameters) |
|
|
36 | (1) |
|
4.5.1 Reliability Analysis of Input and Output Factor |
|
|
36 | (1) |
|
4.6 Level of Importance of Sub-strategies of CI Approach |
|
|
37 | (2) |
|
4.6.1 Result Discussion of Level of Importance of Strategic Implementation of CI Approach |
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
4.7 Correlation Between Input and Output Variables (Validation of Hypotheses: HI) |
|
|
39 | (3) |
|
4.7.1 Result Discussion of Correlation Between Input and Output Factors |
|
|
40 | (2) |
|
4.8 Role of Key Enablers in Improving the Performance of SMEs |
|
|
42 | (1) |
|
4.9 Level of Importance of Enablers and Sub-enablers of CI Approach |
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
4.9.1 Result Discussion of Level of Importance of Key Enablers and Sub-enablers of CI Approach |
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
4.10 Correlation Between CI Enablers and Manufacturing Performance Parameters (Validation of Hypotheses: H2) |
|
|
44 | (2) |
|
4.10.1 Result Discussion of Correlation Between CI Enablers and Manufacturing Performance Parameters |
|
|
46 | (1) |
|
4.11 Benefits of CI Approach |
|
|
46 | (2) |
|
4.11.1 Result Discussion of the Findings for Important Benefits of CI Approach |
|
|
46 | (2) |
|
4.12 Validation of Hypothesis H3: Improvement in Manufacturing Performance Is a Function of Experience Gained by Manufacturing Organizations over an Extended Time Period |
|
|
48 | (3) |
|
4.12.1 Result Discussion of Two-Tailed "T" Test |
|
|
50 | (1) |
|
4.13 Important Barriers in Implementing CI Strategies |
|
|
51 | (1) |
|
4.13.1 Result Discussion of Important Barriers in Implementing CI Strategies |
|
|
52 | (1) |
|
|
52 | (1) |
|
|
53 | (34) |
|
|
53 | (1) |
|
5.2 Case Study I: Highways Industries Limited, Gill Chowk, Ludhiana |
|
|
53 | (1) |
|
5.2.1 Introduction to Industry |
|
|
53 | (1) |
|
5.3 KIP1: To Reduce Quality Rejection of Crankshaft P19 Using Six Sigma DMAIC Approach |
|
|
54 | (5) |
|
5.3.1 Define Phase or Identification of Critical Areas |
|
|
54 | (1) |
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
|
56 | (3) |
|
5.4 KIP2: To Reduce Setup Time Using Single-Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) |
|
|
59 | (3) |
|
5.4.1 Methodology Adopted and Case Study Setting |
|
|
59 | (3) |
|
5.4.2 OEE Improvement Using SMED |
|
|
62 | (1) |
|
5.4.3 OEE Improvement and Validation of Increase in OEE |
|
|
62 | (1) |
|
5.5 KIP3: To Reduce Forging Rejection of Crankshaft P19 |
|
|
62 | (6) |
|
|
62 | (2) |
|
|
64 | (1) |
|
|
65 | (2) |
|
|
67 | (1) |
|
|
67 | (1) |
|
5.6 Data Collection After Implementing DMAIC Approach |
|
|
68 | (1) |
|
5.7 Cost-Benefit Analysis |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
5.8 Flexible System Methodology |
|
|
70 | (1) |
|
5.9 SAP-LAP Analysis for Case Study I |
|
|
70 | (2) |
|
|
70 | (1) |
|
|
70 | (1) |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
5.9.6 Performance Expected |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
5.10 Case Study II: Farm Parts Industries Ltd., Ludhiana |
|
|
72 | (1) |
|
5.10.1 Introduction to the Industry and Company Strategy |
|
|
72 | (1) |
|
5.11 X-Matrix for Policy Deployment |
|
|
72 | (10) |
|
5.11.1 KIP 1: To Achieve 63% OEE |
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
5.11.2 KIP2: To Reduce Rejections to 2000ppm |
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
5.11.3 KIP3: To Improve the Breakdown Hours (Table 5.21) |
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
5.11.4 KIP4: To Increase MTBF of Various Machines |
|
|
78 | (3) |
|
5.11.5 Increase in MTBF and Validation of Increase in MTBF |
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
5.11.6 KIP5: To Increase Operator Efficiency by Technical Training |
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
5.12 Maintenance Job Card |
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
5.13 Breakup of OEE and Rejection |
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
5.13.1 Cause-Wise Breakup for OEE: The Percentage Breakup of CNC Machine Is Given Below |
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
5.13.2 Cause-Wise Breakage of Rejection |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
5.14 SAP-LAP on Case Study III |
|
|
83 | (2) |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
5.14.6 Performance Expected |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
5.15 Comparison of Case Studies |
|
|
85 | (2) |
|
|
87 | (24) |
|
|
87 | (1) |
|
|
87 | (4) |
|
6.2.1 Step 6.2.1: Degree of Preference |
|
|
87 | (1) |
|
6.2.2 Step 6.2.2: Normalized Matrix of Different Sub-objectives |
|
|
88 | (1) |
|
6.2.3 Step 6.2.3: Do Consistency Check |
|
|
88 | (3) |
|
6.2.4 Step 6.2.4: Priority Weights for Alternatives with Respect to Attribute |
|
|
91 | (1) |
|
6.3 Compromise Ranking Method |
|
|
91 | (2) |
|
6.3.1 Step 6.3.1: Determine the Values of Ei and Fi |
|
|
92 | (1) |
|
6.3.2 Step 6.3.2: Calculation of Pi Values |
|
|
92 | (1) |
|
6.4 Methodology for Modeling |
|
|
93 | (2) |
|
6.4.1 Synthesis of Learning Issues |
|
|
93 | (2) |
|
6.5 Different Methods for Modeling |
|
|
95 | (8) |
|
6.5.1 Options Field Methodology (OFM) |
|
|
95 | (1) |
|
6.5.2 Formation of Categories |
|
|
96 | (2) |
|
6.5.3 Options Profile Methodology (OPM) |
|
|
98 | (1) |
|
|
99 | (4) |
|
6.6 Structural Equation Modeling |
|
|
103 | (8) |
|
6.6.1 Measurement Model for Improving the Performance of SMEs |
|
|
106 | (1) |
|
6.6.2 Validation of Hypotheses Framed |
|
|
107 | (4) |
|
7 Conclusions, Limitations, and Scope for Future Work |
|
|
111 | (4) |
|
|
111 | (3) |
|
7.1.1 Conclusions from the Survey |
|
|
111 | (1) |
|
7.1.2 Conclusions from the Case Studies |
|
|
112 | (1) |
|
7.1.3 Conclusions from Implementation Plan |
|
|
113 | (1) |
|
7.2 Limitations of the Study |
|
|
114 | (1) |
|
7.3 Scope for Future Work |
|
|
114 | (1) |
Appendix: KAIZEN Questionnaire |
|
115 | (8) |
Bibliography |
|
123 | |