Improving The Availability Of Automatic Surface Grinding Machines Through A3 Problem Solving, SMED, And Spare Part Control In The Manufacturing Industry
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Machine availability is a critical indicator for assessing production asset readiness. This study aims to improve the availability of an automatic surface grinding machine in a tooling area of an electronic component manufacturing company using the A3 problem-solving approach. Machine Operation Data from April-June 2024 showed an initial availability of 34.3%, with an average actual running time of 18,287 minutes against an average planned production time of 53,238 minutes. Breakdown analysis identified two dominant losses: stop waiting operator at 15,135 minutes and stop waiting spare part at 7,680 minutes, contributing 22,815 minutes (93.6%-94.0%) of the total breakdown time. This research employed a descriptive quantitative case study through problem clarification, problem breakdown, target setting, root cause analysis, countermeasure development, implementation, and result monitoring. The main countermeasures included allocating supporting manpower during early-shift setup, reviewing process planning, preparing Single Minute Exchange of Dies (SMED) implementation, coordinating machine component improvement, and establishing a spare part list with minimum stock control. The monitoring result showed that the average availability during September-November 2024 reached 58.7%, an improvement of 24.4 percentage points from the baseline. Stop waiting operator decreased to an average of 4,490 minutes and stop waiting spare part decreased to 0 minutes in the after period. The findings indicate that A3 problem solving combined with changeover and spare part control can significantly improve machine readiness. This study contributes to data-driven continuous improvement practices for enhancing manufacturing equipment performance.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Bamber, C. J., Castka, P., Sharp, J. M., & Motara, Y. (2003). Cross-functional team working for overall equipment effectiveness (OEE). Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 9(3), 223-238.
Cua, K. O., McKone, K. E., & Schroeder, R. G. (2001). Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, 19(6), 675-694.
Gibbons, P. M., & Burgess, S. C. (2010). Introducing OEE as a measure of lean Six Sigma capability. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 1(2), 134-156.
Imai, M. (1986). Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success. McGraw-Hill.
Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer. McGraw-Hill.
McKone, K. E., Schroeder, R. G., & Cua, K. O. (2001). The impact of total productive maintenance practices on manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, 19(1), 39-58.
Muchiri, P., & Pintelon, L. (2008). Performance measurement using overall equipment effectiveness (OEE): Literature review and practical application discussion. International Journal of Production Research, 46(13), 3517-3535.
Nakajima, S. (1988). Introduction to TPM: Total Productive Maintenance. Productivity Press.
Ohno, T. (1988). Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. Productivity Press.
Shingo, S. (1985). A Revolution in Manufacturing: The SMED System. Productivity Press.
Suzaki, K. (1987). The New Manufacturing Challenge: Techniques for Continuous Improvement. Free Press.
Tajiri, M., & Gotoh, F. (1992). TPM Implementation: A Japanese Approach. McGraw-Hill.
Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (2003). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation. Free Press.