Advances in Science and Technology

Research Journal
Volume 11, Issue 3, September 2017, pages 187–195 Research Article
DOI: 10.12913/22998624/76067

THE USE OF LEAN MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES – SMED ANALYSIS

TO OPTIMIZATION OF THE PRODUCTION PROCESS

Dusan Sabadka1, Vieroslav Molnar2, Gabriel Fedorko2

1
Technical University of Kosice, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department of Automotive Production,
Masiarska 74, 040 01 Kosice, Slovakia, e-mail: [email protected]
2
Technical University of Kosice, Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology Logistics
Institute, Letna 9, 042 00 Kosice, Slovak Republic, e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Received: 2017.05.15 ABSTRACT

Accepted: 2017.08.01 Lean is a culture of real and continuous optimization. As a concept of continuous
Published: 2017.09.03 optimization in the midst of limited resources, it must be practiced continuously as a
long-term organizational norm. This paper revels why changeover time reduction is
important in manufacturing industries and from the various tools and techniques avail-
able within Lean manufacturing describes mainly SMED (Single Minute Exchange of
Dies) for changeover time reduction and its application in Shaft manufacturing indus-
try. This paper also describes principles, benefits, procedures and practical application
of SMED. Theoretical bases are verified in a practical part that describes the analysis
and design optimization of non-productive time at changeover honing machine in a
selected shaft manufacturing company. The output is the structural design of universal
palettes and an evaluation of productivity due to optimization of operations of time
honing gear shafts. The results achieved show considerable reduction in delay arising
out of machine setting time, batch-setting time and demonstration delay.

Keywords: Lean manufacturing, SMED, changeover times.

INTRODUCTION lar manufacturing, total productive maintenance

and single minutes Exchange of dies (SMED). A
Lean Manufacturing is considered to be a great amount of literature has addressed the first
waste reduction technique as suggested by many four tools [4], while information on SMED is a
authors, but in practice lean manufacturing maxi- bit scarce.
mizes the value of the product through the mini- SMED is a tool developed by Shingo [1] as a
mization of waste [1]. Van Goubergen et al. [2] proposal to reduce bottlenecks caused by stamp-
indicated three main reasons why set-up reduc- ing presses in Toyota. By the time SMED was de-
tion initiatives can be appropriate for any com- veloped, the machines were not working at full
pany: to increase flexibility by conducting more capacity and, thus, were not bringing the expect-
changeovers and reducing lot size; to increase ed benefites. Nowadays, as Utulas [5] points out,
bottleneck capacities in order to maximize the SMED is one of many LM tools for waste reduc-
line availability for production; and to minimize tion in production processes, since it offers a fast
the cost, since production costs are related to and efficient way to decrease changeover times.
equipment effectiveness. Single Minute Exchange of Dies (SMED)/
According to Chiarini [3], the most impor- One-Touch exchange of Die (OTED) is sys-
tant LM tools to eliminate the different kinds of tematic of the reduction of changeover time
waste in production are value stream map, cellu- by converting possible internal setting time

187
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 11 (3), 2017

(Carry out during machine stoppage) to ex- METHODOLOGY

ternal time (performed while the equipment is
running) and to simplify and streamline the re- Optimization means reducing the produc-
maining activity [1]. tion process time as much as possible to increase
„Changeover times“ is defined as the period production productivity [9, 19]. The main task is
between the last good product from previous pro- therefore to analyze the individual times of the op-
duction order leaving the machine and the first eration of the production process, to find the time
good product coming out from the following pro- that most affects the length of the rebuilding and to
duction order [6,7]. Changeover time is defined find ways to reduce it. As these times are divided
as the time needed to set up a given production into production and non-productive, respectively.
system to run a different product with all the re- Productive and unproductive times, we focus
quirements [8, 18], and they are a typical example mainly on non-productive production time.
of waste, since changeover is a non-added value As mentioned above, according to several au-
activity that incurs hidden costs [2]. Therefore, thors [1, 2, 3, 8] SMED is a method for shortening
because machines remain inactive during change- the time of rebuilding production facilities. We
over times, this process must be reduced as much minimize waiting times in a systematic process.
as possible [8]. For example workspace preparation, between
SMED is a practical LM tool that helps maxi- the processing of two successive different types
mize the product value by reducing setup time of production batches or products. For example,
and improves setup processes and provides a this method is about shortening the time for mold
setup time reduction of up to 90% with moderate replacement, machine tool or production line re-
investments. Setup operation is the preparation or building [9, 14].
post adjustment that is performed once before and The whole SMED method is based on a
once after each lot is processed [1]. very thorough analysis of the redevelopment
Shingo [1] bases his method on categorizing that we usually perform by direct observation at
all setup activities into internal and external ones. the workplace. Radically shortening conversion
With internal activities being ones that can only times from several hours to several minutes can
be performed when the machine is shut down, and be achieved, for example, in these ways:
external being those that can be conducted dur- •• Classification and categorization of all rede-
ing the normal operation of the machine while it velopment activities,
is still running. SMED methodology is formed by •• Changing the organization of the reconstruc-
four single stages [1]; a preliminary stage where tion,
the internal and external set-up conditions are not •• Standardizing the conversion process,
distinguished; the first stage were separating in- •• The training of each worker who performs the
ternal and external set-up takes place; the second redevelopment,
stage where internal activities are converted to ex- •• Special devices,
ternal ones; and finally the third stage focusing on •• Technical modifications of the machine [1].
streamlining all aspects of the set-up operation. This method is used in workplaces that are
Based on time/video study Shingo [1] sepa- narrow where we often carry out rebuilding and
rated the changeover (C/O) time into internal and the times required for rebuilding can result in sig-
external set-up time. The activities performed by nificant losses of line capacity or machine capac-
stopping the machine are called internal set-up ity [10, 11, 19].
time and on the other hand when the activities are The condition for the application of small
performed without stopping the machine, these production batches are short conversion times,
activity are called external set-up time. Yama- which ensure short product lead times. Large
zumi chart is used to analyze the internal (on- production batches result in long lead times and
line activity) and external (off-line) set-up time. high production progress. Reducing conversion
Based on these analysis possible internal set-up times is a major factor in reducing doses [12].
time are converted to external set-up and internal Fig. 1 presents the expected improvement on
set-up times are streamlined by introducing multi changeover time depending on the different focus
operator working parallel during On-line activity that can be adopted during the SMED implemen-
and one touch set-up adjustments to convert the tation. If focus is only on methodology, results
C/O time to single minutes. can be poor. In contrast, by combining design

188
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 11 (3), 2017

•• input raw material - untreated shaft,

•• machine technical options - machining param-
eters,
•• tool - honing wheel (depends on the hardness
of the disc).
Among the factors that indirectly influence
the process of honing in terms of productivity
features [2, 20]:
•• reconstruction - derivative change,
•• dose size - frequent reorgani zation of deriva-
tive changes,
Fig. 1. Limits and costs of changeover improvement •• operator - experience,
strategies [9] •• technical condition of the machine - malfunc-
tion.
After the set up of an SMED team, a video re-
modifications and methodology improvements, cording of the machine‘s manufacturing process
the outcomes can be acceptable with moderate (from the H3 shaft to the H2 shaft) was made,
investment [12, 18]. based on which the individual operations of the
A long time for rebuilding also creates prob- redevelopment were analyzed and included in the
lems such as increased waiting times for process- individual categories and the specified times of
ing or consuming critical capacities with regard the individual operations.
to dose waiting [9]. The basic categories of redevelopment opera-
The optimization project was implemented in tions are: Clapmping, Cleaning, Control panel,
a selected engineering company focusing on the Dressing, Loading/material, Measuring, Honing
production of gears. The SMED analysis tool was Head, Automation, Setting/Adjustment, Teach-
used to solve the optimization of the times that ning, Try out, Waiting, Walking, Searching.
entered the production process of honing. SMED SMED analysis results showed that the aver-
analyzes individual redevelopment times that age rebuilding consists of 94 operations and its
represent the unproductive time of honing select- total average time is 1 hour and 19 seconds, rep-
ed toothed shafts. Among the factors that directly resenting a non-productive time to be reduced.
affect the production process of honing in terms Selected parts of SMED rebuilding analysis is
of productivity features [13]: presented in Figure 2. After merging the opera-

Fig. 2. Selected part of table with SMED rebuilding analysis

189
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 11 (3), 2017

Table 1. Operations from the automation category

Elapsed
Rebuilding observation Subsequent analysis
time
0:00:05 number description of operations I/E duration Cathegory
0:18:15 65 Rollchecker Exchange I 0:00:29 Automation
Replacement of the grippers on the revolver and
0:18:44 66 I 0:01:52 Automation
closing of the door
0:20:51 68 Remove the dresing tool from the machine I 0:00:09 Automation
0:21:00 69 Securing the dresing tool in a box E 0:00:20 Automation
0:21:20 70 Securing the dresing tool head in a box E 0:00:30 Automation
0:21:50 71 Exchange of the grippers I 0:02:04 Automation
0:23:54 72 Establish and clampe the dresing tool I 0:01:06 Automation
0:25:27 74 Exchange the grippers on the feeder I 0:00:56 Automation
0:26:35 76 Remove pallets, exchange pallets I 0:06:52 Automation
0:33:48 79 Mask exchange I 0:00:53 Automation
Total time 0:15:11

Fig. 3. Pareto graph

tions of each category into a separate table, the number 76 - „remove pallets, pallet exchange“
total times of these categories were then identi- takes the longest, even from all the operations of
fied and the pareto graph created. Table 1 shows the whole reconstruction. This operation time is 6
an operation from the automation category. minutes 52 seconds.
After adding the total time of the individual
categories, a Pareto graph was drawn up (Fig. 3), Optimizing operations - analysis of the
which identified that the automation category had current situation
the greatest impact on the length of machine re-
building and hence the productivity of the toothed In order to optimize the aforementioned pro-
shaft production. cess of machine rebuilding of the selected op-
In order to reduce the total time of this catego- eration or shortening of time, it was necessary
ry, and thus reduce the total unproductive time in to modify the preparations so that they do not
the gearing process, it was necessary to determine have to be replaced and replaced at each conver-
which operation is the longest and can be adjusted sion to individual types of gears. A toothed shaft
so that the total time drops to the lowest possible is mounted on the assembly jig, which is then
value. An analysis of all operations in the automa- moved over the belt into the honing machine. At
tion category has shown that operation with order present, a different type of assembly jig is used

190
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 11 (3), 2017

Fig. 4. Toothed shaft mounted on the pallet

Fig. 7. 3D model of universal pallet for shaft shaft

H1, H2, H3, H4, H5

Fig. 5. Selected old pallet type

Fig. 8. Universal palette for shafts H1, H2

for each type of toothed shaft (5 types), result-
ing in increased conversion time. The goal of the
optimization was to design a universal assembly
jig for all 5 types of toothed shaft, replacing the
current types (examples on Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).

The starting conditions for the solution,

design of the universal palette
The task of the new assembly jig is to ensure
that it is not necessary to exchange the prepara-

Fig. 9. Universal palette for shafts H3, H4, H5

tion in any machine rebuilding, and this has led to

a reduction in unproductive time while eliminat-
ing the disadvantages of current pallets. Since the
production process of honing takes place on four
machines, two universal devices have been de-
signed because of the very complex construction
of only one. First - for input shafts marked H1
and H2, second - output shafts H3, H4 and H5 re-
verse gear. The CAD system with support for 3D
modeling was used to create the design, namely
the Catia V5 program with Part design modules,
Assembly design, and Drafting.
Fig. 6. 3D model of universal pallet for

191
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 11 (3), 2017

Table 2a. Preview of JPH Analysis for the 9th Week

Reason/day Monday Tuesday Wenesday Thursday
Work shift A B C A B C A B C A B C
CHO large-number 2 0 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 1
CHO large-time 2 0 0 2.5 4 2.5 0 0 0 0 1.15 1.25
CHO small-munber 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 1
CHO small-time 0.7 0.75 0.75 0 0 0 1.6 3.5 0 0.5 0 0.75
CHO total-number 3 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 0 1 1 2
CHO total-time 2.7 0.75 0.75 2.5 4 2.5 1.6 3.5 0 0.5 1.15 2
Maintenance 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 1 7.5 3
Adjustment 4 1.5 1.25 3.5 1.25 4 2.5 1.5 3.75 1 3 2.5
Profilling 0 0 0.5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
Clamps/Runout 0.25 1 0.75 0.5 1 1.25 1 0.5 0.25 1 0.5 0
Rework 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sercos 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0.5 0 0 0
Maintenance
0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0
assistance. tests
Cleaning the
0.5 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 1.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
centrifuge
Unfulfilled cycle
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
time
Waitting for parts 0 4 0 3.5 2 1 5 0 0 1 0.75 2
Without operator 0 0 7.5 0 0 4 0 0 4.5 6.5 0 4
Planned shutdown 1 0 0 0.5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Losses (hours) 9.45 9 11 10.5 9.5 14 14.1 11.25 13.25 11.25 14.15 13.75
Losses of
8.45 5 3.5 6.5 7.5 9 7.1 11.25 8.75 3.75 13.4 7.75
machines (hours)
Extra hours 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
Effectiveness 58.0% 60.0% 51.1% 53.3% 57.8% 37.8% 37.3% 50.0% 41.1% 50.0% 37.1% 38.9%
Machine
62.4% 77.8% 84.4% 71.1% 66.7% 60.0% 68.4% 50.0% 61.1% 83.3% 40.4% 65.6%
effectiveness
Number of A B C Number of days Working time Number of shifts
machines 3 2 3 5 5 5 112.5 105 112.5 352.5 15

Table 2b. Preview of JPH Analysis for the 9th Week

Friday Total
Saturday Sunday
A B C A B C Total
0 2 1 1 0 4 6 4 15
0 5 1.75 1.5 0 4.5 10.15 5.5 21.65
1 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 10
1 0 0 0 0 3.8 4.25 1.5 9.55
1 2 1 1 0 9 9 6 25
1 5 1.75 1.5 0 8.3 14.4 7 31.2
0 0 2 0.5 0 4 3.56% 9.5 9.05% 9 8.00% 23 6.52%
2 1.5 1 1 0 13 11.56% 8.75 8.33% 12.5 11.11% 35.25 10.00%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 1 0.95% 1.5 1.33% 2.5 0.71%
1 0.5 0 0.5 0 3.75 3.33% 3.5 3.33% 2.25 2.00% 10 2.84%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 4 3.81% 0.5 0.44% 4.5 1.28%
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 2 1.90% 0 0.00% 2 0.57%
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 1 0.89% 1.25 1.19% 1.25 1.11% 3.75 1.06%
0 0 0 1 0 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.28%
0 0 1.5 0 0 9.5 8.44% 6.75 6.43% 4.5 4.00% 20.75 5.89%
8.5 0 7.5 2 0 15 13.33% 0 0.00% 27.5 24.44% 44.5 12.62%
0 0 0 0 0 3.5 3.11% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3.5 0.99%
12.75 7.25 14 6.75 0 58.05 51.6% 51.6 48.7% 66 58.7% 181.95 51.6%
4.25 7.25 5 3.25 0 30.05 26.7% 26.7 42.3% 34 30.2% 113.2 32.1%
22.5 0 30 0 52.5
43.3% 51.7% 37.8% 70.0% 100.0% 48.4% 51.3% 41.3% 52.4%
81.1% 51.7% 77.8% 85.6% 100.0% 73.3% 57.3% 69.8% 70.4%
Number of
Average time of a large CHO (min) 86.6 60
machines 90%
3 Average time of small CHO (min) 57.3 42

192
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 11 (3), 2017

The creation of 3D models of universal pallets 18 = 18.18 hours.

was based on the requirements and dimensions of •• weekly rebuilding time after optimizing its
the individual shafts [15, 16, 17]. Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 time: 18.18 hours – (18x6.87 min) = 16.12
illustrate the 3D models of the proposed universal hours.
pallets. Changes to the current type of pallets: •• weekly saving time after optimizing of re-
•• the prisms have been replaced by fixed locat- building time: 18.18 hours – 16.12 hours =
ing bodies on which the shaft is stored, 2.06 hours.
•• a T-shaped groove has been formed in the base
plate for displacing the compression spring on Productivity evaluation
the body to provide a fixed position by means
of a spring piston, Weekly production of toothed shafts produced
•• creating new shapes of fixed stands. on 3 machines at 18 changeover operations:
After modeling all the components and cre- •• 76,4 ks/hour x 3machines x (18x8 hours) =
ating in the Catia program, the individual pallet 33 004 pcs.
components were then manufactured with appro- Annual output at 100% machine efficiency:
priate technologies and completed into prototypes •• 33004 pcs x 46 weeks = 1 518 184 pcs/year.
(Fig. 8 and Fig. 9). Increase the productivity of toothed shaft pro-
duction after optimizing the weekly rebuilding
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION time:
•• 76.4 pcs/hour x 2.06 hours ≐ 157 pcs.
From the results of the SMED analysis, the Annual production after increased production
longest time to rebuild the honing machine is that productivity:
of changing the assembly jig. By modifying or •• (33004 pcs + 157 pcs) x 46 weeks = 1 525 406
creating new universal pallet, a total of 6.87 min- pcs/year.
utes was saved on one rebuild. The time of one
rebuild has therefore decreased from an average By optimizing of time rebuilding honing
of 1.01 hours to 0.89 hours, which is a time opti- machine was increased annual productivity
mization of 11.9%. gear shafts about 7222 units produced, an in-
Observed JPH (Job per Hour) analysis over crease of 0.48%.
the 9-week period revealed the following:
•• the average number of conversions per week: 18. Taking account of the machine efficiency
•• average weekly rebuilding time: 1.01 hours x
The efficiency of the machine influences the
overall productivity of production and should
Table 3. Productivity of toothed shaft manufacturing therefore be taken into account when determining
Type of toothed shaft pcs/hour it. The following factors influence the efficiency
Input shaft H1 73 of the machine: maintenance, adjustment outside
Input shaft H2 72 of rebuilding, profiling, splinters / throwing, re-
Output shaft H3 75 work, sercos, maintenance assistance, tests, cen-
Output shaft H4 73 trifuge cleaning, unfulfilled cycle time, part wait,
Reverse shaft H5 89 no operator, scheduled outage.
Average number 76.4 From the JPH analysis, the average machine
efficiency was 70%.

Table 4. Comparison of productivity before and after optimization of time rebuilding

Before optimization After optimization Difference
Average rebuilding time per week 18.18 hours 16.12 hours 2.06 hours
Weekly production
33 004 pcs 33 161 pcs 157 pcs
(100% effectiveness)
Annual production
1 518 184 pcs 1 525 406 pcs 7222 pcs
(100% effectiveness)
Annual production
1 062 729 pcs 1 067 784 pcs 5055 pcs
(70% effectiveness)

193
Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 11 (3), 2017

The annual output of the production toothed the average weekly rebuilding were 18 and thus
shafts after optimization with respect to the ef- 18.18 weekly unproductive.
ficiency of the machine: Thanks to new universal pallets, this time is
•• 7222 pcs/year x 70% ≐ 5055 pcs/year. reduced by 2.06 hours. For this time it is possible
to produce 157 pieces more. Annual production
CONCLUSIONS increases by 0.48%, which is 7222 units by 100%
machine efficiency. But since the efficiency of
Single Minute Exchange of Dies is system- machines is 70%, the overall increase in shafts‘
atic reduction of changeover time by converting productivity is 5055 units more than before.
possible internal setting time to external time
and to simplify and streamline the remaining Acknowledgements
activity [18,21].
The paper was dedicated to optimizing the This contribution is the result of the projects
timing of the shaft manufacturing operations in VEGA 1/0403/18, VEGA 1/0063/16, VEGA
the selected company. The goal was to optimize 1/0708/16, KEGA 018TUKE-4/2016.
the unproductive time of honing these shafts,
thereby increasing production productivity. REFERENCES
Based on an analysis of the production pro-
1. Shingo S. A revolution in manufacturing: The
cess, it was found that productivity is most af-
SMED system. Productivity Press, Stanford, CT.
fected by non-productive activities that gener- 1985
ate non-productive times. These are activities
2. Goubergen D.V. and Landeghem H.V. Rules for
that are linked to the rebuilding of the honing integrating fast changeover capabilities into new
machine. The unproductive time arises during equipment design. Robotics and Computer Inte-
the rebuilding of these machines to manufactur- grated Manufacturing 18, 2002, 205-214.
ing of another type of shaft, so the analysis was 3. Chiarini A. Sustainable manufacturing-greening
aimed at optimizing the times of rebuilding. processes using specific lean production tools: An
For the analysis of the rebuilding the SMED empirical observation from European motorcycle
tool was used, where every single operation was component manufacturers. J. Clean. Prod. 2014,
recorded by video. The rebuilding consists of a 226–233.
total of 94 operations and takes 1 hour and 19 4. García-Alcaraz J.L., Maldonado-Macías A.A. and
seconds. Individual operations were categorized Cortes-Robles G. Lean Manufacturing in the De-
into 14 categories, showing that the automation veloping World: Methodology, Case Studies and
category had the greatest impact on conversion. Trends from Latin America; Springer: Cham, Swit-
There was selected operation no. 76 - pallet zerland, 2014, pp. 1–584.
pallets, pallet exchange, which has the longest 5. Ulutas B. 2011. An application of SMED method-
time not only in its category, but in all the op- ology. Int. Sch. Sci. Res. Innov. 2011, 1194–1197.
erations of the entire rebuilding, lasting 6 min- 6. Gest G., Culley S.J., McIntosh R.I., Mileham A.R.
utes 52 seconds. This operation is best suited and Owen G.W. Review of fast tool change sys-
for optimization, due to the fact that all other tems. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Sys-
tems 8, 1995, 205-210.
operations are necessary and unchangeable. The
optimization of this operation consisted in the 7. Coimbra E.A. Total Flow Management: Achieving
construction design of new universal pallets, Excellence with Kaizen and Lean Supply Chains.
Kaizen Institute. 2009
which need not be exchanged, whereas so far
for each type of shaft used a different type of 8. Sousa R.M., Lima R.M., Carvalho J.D. and Alves
A.C. An industrial application of resource con-
preparation. This saves the entire time of this
strained scheduling for quick changeover. In Pro-
operation, bringing the optimization of the time ceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Confer-
of this operation to 11.9%. ence on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
After implementing changes in production, Management, Hong Kong, China, 8–11 December
overall production of the shafts increased. Pro- 2009, 189–193.
ductivity evaluation and analysis was performed 9. Cakmakci M. Process improvement: performance
by monitoring the production process during a 9 analysis of the setup time reduction SMED in the au-
week period, where the data were recorded and tomobile industry. International Journal of Advanced
recorded in the JPH analysis, which showed that Manufacturing Technology 41, 2009. 168-179.

194
 Advances in Science and Technology Research Journal Vol. 11 (3), 2017

10. Wang J. Perspectives and Techniques for Improv- tion Management and Engineering Sciences. pp.
ing Information Technology Project Managment. 475–480. CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group A
USA: Montclair State University, 2013. Balkema Book, 2016.
11. McIntosh R.I., Culley S.J., Mileham A.R. and 17. Debski H., Koszalka G., Ferdynus M. Application
Owen G.W. Changeover improvement: A mainte- of FEM in the analysis of the structure of a trailer
nance perspective. International Journal of Produc- supporting frame with variable operation param-
tion Economics 73, 2001, 153-163. eters. Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc – Maintenance
12. Ferradás P.G. and Salonitis K. Improving changeover and Reliability, 14, 2012, 107–113.
time: a tailored SMED approach for welding Cells. 18. Díaz-Reza J.R., García-Alcaraz J.L., Martínez-
Forty Sixth CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Loya V., Blanco-Fernández J., Jiménez-Macías E.
Systems 2013. Procedia CIRP 7. 2013. 598 – 603. and Avelar-Sosa L. The Effect of SMED on Bene-
13. Mrkvica I. Speciální technologie: Výroba fits Gained in Maquiladora Industry. Sustainability
ozubených kol II. Ostrava: VŠB-TU Ostrava, — Open Access Journal 2016
1.vyd., 2009. 19. Gregor M. and Mičieta B. Productivity and Inno-
14. Jachowicz T.: Construction of clamping units of in- vations. Žilina: Slovenské centrum produktivity,
jection molding machines. Polimery 2005, 2 (50), 2010.
110-117.. 20. Vasilko K., Havrila M., Novák-Marcinčin J., Mádl
15. Madáč K., Durkáč V., Kráľ J. Design of applica- J., Zajac J. Top trendy v obrábaní, III. Časť – Tech-
tions for CAD system Creo Parametric 1.0. Int. Sci. nológia obrábania. Žilina. Media/ST, 2006.
Her., 4, 2012, 278–284. 21. Sundar R., Balaji A.N., SatheeshKumar R.M. A
16. Mantič M., Kuľka J., Krajňák J., Kopas M., Sch- Review on Lean Manufacturing Implementation
neider M. Influence of selected digitization meth- Techniques. 12th Global congress on manufactur-
ods on final accuracy of 3D model. In: Majerník, ing and management, gcmm 2014. Procedia Engi-
M., Daneshjo, N., and Bosák, M. (eds.) Produc- neering 97, 2014, 1875 – 1885.

195