Lean Manufacturing Tools Applied to Material Flow and Their Impact on Economic Sustainability
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. LM and Sustainability
2.2. Specific LM Tools and Sustainability
2.3. LM and Sustainability in the Maquiladora Industry
3. Hypotheses
3.1. 5S
3.2. Single-Minute Exchange of Die (SMED)
3.3. Continuous Flow (COF)
3.4. Economic Sustainability (ES)
4. Methodology
4.1. Questionnaire Design
4.2. Questionnaire Administration
4.3. Information Gathering and Debugging
- Standard deviation (SD) estimation. If SD values are less than 0.5, then that case is discarded as a non-committed respondent.
- Outlier identification. Each item is standardized and absolute values greater than or equal to 4 are considered extreme values and replaced by the median.
- Missing values identification. The median replaces missing values if the average is less than 10%; otherwise, that case is eliminated.
4.4. Latent Variable Validation
- R2 and adjusted R2 for parametric predictive validation, which must be greater than 0.02 [71].
- Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability index for internal consistency, which must be greater than 0.7 [72].
- The average variance extracted (AVE) for discriminant validity, which must be greater than 0.5 [72].
- Variance inflation factor (VIF) for measuring collinearity between variables and common method bias (CMB), which must be less than 3.3 [73].
- Q2 for nonparametric predictive validation, which should be similar to R2 [71].
4.5. Descriptive Analysis of the Items
- The median of the items is obtained as a measure of central tendency, given that the data are on an ordinal scale. High median values indicate that the item’s activity is always executed, or the benefit is always obtained. Low values indicate that the activity is not achieved, or the benefit is not obtained.
- The interquartile range of the items is obtained as a measure of dispersion, which is the difference between the third and first quartile. Low values indicate a high consensus among responders.
4.6. Structural Equation Model
- Average path coefficient (APC) to measure the global significance of the direct effect. The p-value associated must be less than 0.05.
- Average R2 (ARS) and average adjusted R2 (AARS) to measure the variance explained by independent variables on dependent variables, and the associated p-value must be less than 0.05.
- Average block VIF (AVIF) and average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF) to measure general collinearity, which should be less than 3.3.
- Tenenhaus GoF index (GoF) measures the data to the model and should be greater than 0.36.
4.7. Sensitivity Analysis
5. Results
5.1. Descriptive Analysis of the Sample and Items
5.2. Latent Variable Validation
5.3. Structural Equation Model
- Average path coefficient (APC) = 0.356, P < 0.001
- Average R-squared (ARS) = 0.431, P < 0.001
- Average adjusted R-squared (AARS) = 0.424, P < 0.001
- Average block VIF (AVIF) = 1.707, acceptable if ≤ 3.3
- Average full collinearity VIF (AFVIF) = 1.969, acceptable if ≤ 3.3
- Tenenhaus GoF (GoF) = 0.566, large ≥ 0.36
5.3.1. Direct effect
- SMED is explained by 5S by 32.7%, and is the only variable that directly affects it.
- COF is explained as 50.3%; however, 5S contributes 11.3%, and SMED contributes 39.0%. Given that the SEMD contribution to explaining COF is bigger, then those values allow concluding that maquiladoras that wish to have a COF in their production lines should focus on having high levels of SMED implementation because that means low idle time for machinery.
- ES is explained as 46.3%; however, 5S contributes 9.8%, SMED contributes 12.4%, and COF contributes 24.1%. Those values conclude that COF is the most critical variable in explaining ES, so maquiladoras should be concerned about maintaining their production lines with a continuous flow to be economically profitable, increasing financial income. However, SMED favors COF and 5S favors SMED, so a critical route for LM techniques supporting ES is as follows: 5S→SMED→COF→ES.
5.3.2. Sum of Indirect and Total Effects
5.3.3. Sensitivity Analysis
6. Conclusions and Industrial Implications
6.1. Regarding the Structural Equation Model
6.2. Regarding the Sensitivity Analysis
- Managers should strive to achieve 5S+, which guarantees SMED+, COF+, and ES+ with a conditional probability of 0.378, 0.378, and 0.405. These findings indicate that investing and obtaining 5S+ will facilitate the implementation of SMED, COF, and ES. Additionally, 5S+ is weakly associated with SMED−, COF− and ES−, since the occurrence probabilities are 0.0054, 0.012, and 0.108, respectively.
- However, 5S− is a significant risk for managers since the conditional probability of SMED−, COF− and ES− occurring is 0.524, 0.714, and 0.524, respectively. These findings indicate that 5S− is a barrier to proper SMED implementation or rapid changeovers in production lines, slowing down the process of adapting them to start the production process of another product. Additionally, they decrease the constant materials flow, affecting the production costs and competitiveness in the MI.
- Managers should seek SMED+, since that facilitates obtaining COF+ and ES+ with a probability of 0.650 and 0.750, respectively. The above indicates that proper SMED implementation favors COF in the production lines and undoubtedly generates an economic benefit to MI since it reduces machine idle times due to changes in the production system. In addition, SMED+ has no association with COF− and ES−, as the conditional probabilities are low, only 0.050 and 0.100, respectively.
- However, SMED− is a risk for the production lines since it can generate COF− and ES− with a probability of 0.800 and 0.600. These results indicate that low levels of SMED implementation can lead to a slow flow of materials in the production system and an increase in the production cost since there will be idle machines and some work in process. Similarly, SMED− is not associated with COF+ and ES+, as the conditional probabilities of occurrence are low, warranting the investment of resources by managers.
- Likewise, having a COF+ in the production lines should be ensured, as it favors ES+ with a probability of 0.636. However, managers should be careful not to have COF−, as that can generate ES− with a probability of 0.519.
7. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Puche, J.; Costas, J.; Ponte, B.; Pino, R.; de la Fuente, D. The effect of supply chain noise on the financial performance of kanban and drum-buffer-rope: An agent-based perspective. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019, 120, 87–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Birasnav, M.; Bienstock, J. Supply chain integration, advanced manufacturing technology, and strategic leadership: An empirical study. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 130, 142–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia-Alcaraz, J.L.; Maldonado-Macias, A.A.; Hernandez-Arellano, J.L.; Blanco-Fernandez, J.; Jimenez-Macias, E.; Saenz-Diez Muro, J.C. The impact of human resources on the agility, flexibility and performance of wine supply chains. Agric. Econ. 2017, 63, 175–184. [Google Scholar]
- Alcaraz, J.L.G.; Hernández, F.A.M.; Tiznado, J.E.O.; Vargas, A.R.; Macías, E.J.; Lardies, C.J. Effect of quality lean manufacturing tools on commercial benefits gained by Mexican maquiladoras. Mathematics 2021, 9, 971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IMMEX. Monhtly Statistics Report—General Information about Maquiladoras; IMMEX: Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, 2021; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
- Palange, A.; Dhatrak, P. Lean manufacturing a vital tool to enhance productivity in manufacturing. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 46, 729–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, G.; Luthra, S.; Huisingh, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Narkhede, B.E.; Liu, Y. Development of a lean manufacturing framework to enhance its adoption within manufacturing companies in developing economies. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tekin, M.; Arslandere, M.; Etlioğlu, M.; Koyuncuoğlu, Ö.; Tekin, E. An Application of Smed and Jidoka in Lean Production. In Proceedings of the International Symposium for Production Research 2018; Durakbasa, N.M., Gencyilmaz, M.G., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2019; pp. 530–545. [Google Scholar]
- Melton, T. The benefits of lean manufacturing: What lean thinking has to offer the process industries. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2005, 83, 662–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Islam, A.S.M.T. End of the day, who is benefited by lean manufacturing? A dilemma of communication and pricing in buyer-supplier relationship. Manuf. Lett. 2019, 21, 17–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saetta, S.; Caldarelli, V. Lean Production as a Tool for Green Production: The Green Foundry Case Study. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 42, 498–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, C.; Satir, A.; Sarkis, J. Investing in lean manufacturing practices: An environmental and operational perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 1037–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherrafi, A.; Elfezazi, S.; Chiarini, A.; Mokhlis, A.; Benhida, K. The integration of lean manufacturing, six sigma and sustainability: A literature review and future research directions for developing a specific model. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139, 828–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghobadian, A.; Talavera, I.; Bhattacharya, A.; Kumar, V.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; O’Regan, N. Examining legitimatisation of additive manufacturing in the interplay between innovation, lean manufacturing and sustainability. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 219, 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Varela, L.; Araújo, A.; Ávila, P.; Castro, H.; Putnik, G. Evaluation of the relation between lean manufacturing, industry 4.0, and sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Burawat, P. The mediate effect of lean manufacturing on the relationship between transaformational leadership and sustainability performance in thai smes. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2017, 12, 11647–11657. [Google Scholar]
- Kalyar, M.N.; Shafique, I.; Abid, A. Role of lean manufacturing and environmental management practices in eliciting environmental and financial performance: The contingent effect of institutional pressures. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 24967–24978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shah, R.; Ward, P.T. Lean manufacturing: Context, practice bundles, and performance. J. Oper. Manag. 2003, 21, 129–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, M.G.; Hong, P.; Modi, S.B. Impact of lean manufacturing and environmental management on business performance: An empirical study of manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 129, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fullerton, R.R.; Kennedy, F.A.; Widener, S.K. Lean manufacturing and firm performance: The incremental contribution of lean management accounting practices. J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 414–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aquilani, B.; Silvestri, C.; Ruggieri, A. Sustainability, TQM and value co-creation processes: The role of critical success factors. Sustainability 2016, 8, 995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Green, K.W.; Sower, V.E.; Zelbst, P.J.; Inman, R.A. Impact of JIT, TQM and green supply chain practices on environmental sustainability. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 26–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yazdi, P.G.; Azizi, A.; Hashemipour, M. An empirical investigation of the relationship between overall equipment efficiency (OEE) and manufacturing sustainability in industry 4.0 with time study approach. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Des Reis, M.D.O.; Godina, R.; Pimentel, C.; Silva, F.J.G.; Matias, J.C.O. A TPM strategy implementation in an automotive production line through loss reduction. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 38, 908–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setiawan, N.; Salleh, M.R.; Ariff, H.A.; Rahman, M.A.A.; Mohamad, E.; Sulaiman, M.A.; Zaini, F.F.; Ito, T. A proposal of performance measurement and management model for 5s sustainability in manufacturing SMES: A review. J. Adv. Mech. Des. Syst. Manuf. 2021, 15, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, Y.; Ramzan, S.; Munir, H.; Liu, C.; Gupta, B. The adoption of online e-waste collection platform to improve environmental sustainability: An empirical study of Chinese millennials. Manag. Environ. Qual. An. Int. J. 2020, 32, 193–209. [Google Scholar]
- Jun, M.; Cai, S.; Shin, H. TQM practice in maquiladora: Antecedents of employee satisfaction and loyalty. J. Oper. Manag. 2006, 24, 791–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García, J.L.; Rivera, L.; Blanco, J.; Jiménez, E.; Martínez, E. Structural equations modelling for relational analysis of JIT performance in maquiladora sector. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2014, 52, 4931–4949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz-Reza, J.R.; García-Alcaraz, J.L.; Martínez-Loya, V.; Blanco-Fernández, J.; Jiménez-Macías, E.; Avelar-Sosa, L. The effect of smed on benefits gained in maquiladora industry. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- García-Alcaraz, J.L.; Martínez-Loya, V.; Díaz-Reza, J.R.; Blanco-Fernández, J.; Jiménez-Macías, E.; López, A.J.G. Effect of ICT integration on SC flexibility, agility and company’ performance: The Mexican maquiladora experience. Wirel. Netw. 2020, 26, 4805–4818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morales-García, A.S.; Díaz-Reza, J.R.; García-Alcaraz, J.L. Effect of TPM and OEE on the social performance of companies. In Studies in Computational Intelligence; Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2021; Volume 966, pp. 119–141. [Google Scholar]
- Velázquez, L.; Munguía, N.; De Los Ángeles Navarrete, M.; Zavala, A. An overview of sustainability practices at the maquiladora industry in mexico. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2006, 17, 478–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vega, N.E.M.; Borboa, V.S.F.; Quintana, D.S.Z.; Contreras, L.E.V. Assessing the effectiveness of integrating ergonomics and sustainability: A case study of a Mexican maquiladora. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2018, 25, 587–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadjimarcou, J.; Brouthers, L.E.; McNicol, J.P.; Michie, D.E. Maquiladoras in the 21st century: Six strategies for success. Bus. Horiz. 2013, 56, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cruthirds, K.W.; Coyle, T.; Velasco, M.P.T.; Marquez, B.G. World class logistics—South of the border: An analysis of Mexican maquiladora environmentally responsible practices. Int. J. Product. Qual. Manag. 2015, 15, 285–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chetthamrongchai, P.; Jermsittiparsert, K. Impact of lean manufacturing practices on financial performance of pharmaceutical sector in Thailand. Syst. Rev. Pharm. 2019, 10, 208–217. [Google Scholar]
- Fullerton, R.R.; Wempe, W.F. Lean manufacturing, non-financial performance measures, and financial performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2009, 29, 214–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avelar-Sosa, L.; García-Alcaraz, J.L.; Vergara-Villegas, O.O.; Maldonado-Macías, A.A.; Alor-Hernández, G. Impact of traditional and international logistic policies in supply chain performance. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 76, 913–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brito, M.; Gonçalves, M.A. Ergosmed: A methodology to reduce setup times and improve ergonomic conditions. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2020; Volume 1026, pp. 549–554. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez-Méndez, R.; Sánchez-Partida, D.; Martínez-Flores, J.L.; Arvizu-Barrón, E. A case study: Smed & JIT methodologies to develop continuous flow of stamped parts into ac disconnect assembly line in schneider electric Tlaxcala plant. IFAC Pap. 2015, 48, 1399–1404. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, A.; Ahuja, I.S. Review of 5s methodology and its contributions towards manufacturing performance. Int. J. Process. Manag. Benchmarking 2015, 5, 408–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ribeiro, I.M.; Godina, R.; Pimentel, C.; Silva, F.J.G.; Matias, J.C.O. Implementing TPM supported by 5s to improve the availability of an automotive production line. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 38, 1574–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veres, C.; Marian, L.; Moica, S.; Al-Akel, K. Case study concerning 5s method impact in an automotive company. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 22, 900–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiménez, M.; Romero, L.; Fernández, J.; Espinosa, M.M.; Domínguez, M. Extension of the lean 5s methodology to 6s with an additional layer to ensure occupational safety and health levels. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Misiurek, K.; Misiurek, B. Improvement of the safety and quality of a workplace in the area of the construction industry with use of the 6s system. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2020, 26, 514–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gnanaguru, R.; Thirumurugan, R.; Rajendran, I. Investigation of green manufacturing in motor and pump industries through a system model ‘green-6s’. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Materials, Design and Manufacturing for Sustainable Environment, ICMDMSE 2020; Mohan, S., Shankar, S., Rajeshkumar, G., Eds.; Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 2021; pp. 775–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sukdeo, N.; Ramdass, K.; Petja, G. Application of 7s methodology: A systematic approach in a bucket manufacturing organisation. South. Afr. J. Ind. Eng. 2020, 31, 178–193. [Google Scholar]
- Mahlaha, K.; Sukdeo, N.; Mofokeng, V. A Lean 7s Methodology Framework to Improve Efficiency and Organizational Performance: A Review Study in an SME Organization. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual International IEOM Conference, IEOM 2020, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 10–12 March 2020; IEOM Society: Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 2020; pp. 962–970. Available online: http://www.ieomsociety.org/ieom2020/papers/34.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2021).
- Díaz-Reza, J.R.; García-Alcaraz, J.L.; Mendoza-Fong, J.R.; Martínez-Loya, V.; Macías, E.J.; Blanco-Fernández, J. Interrelations among SMED stages: A causal model. Complexity 2017, 2017, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brito, M.; Ramos, A.L.; Carneiro, P.; Gonçalves, M.A. Combining SMED methodology and ergonomics for reduction of setup in a turning production area. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 13, 1112–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bandyopadhyay, P.K.; Naik, S.; Ganguly, K. Reduction of setup time through SMED approach: A case study in the pharmaceutical industry. Int. J. Appl. Manag. Sci. Eng. 2015, 2, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moreira, A.C.; Garcez, P.M.T. Implementation of the single minute exchange of die (SMED) methodology in small to medium-sized enterprises: A Portuguese case study. Int. J. Manag. 2013, 30, 66–87. [Google Scholar]
- Piñeiro, D.P.; Nikolakopoulou, A.; Jäschke, J.; Braatz, R.D. Self-optimizing control of a continuous-flow pharmaceutical manufacturing plant. IFAC-Pap. 2020, 53, 11601–11606. [Google Scholar]
- Bezerra, M.A.; Lemos, V.A.; de Oliveira, D.M.; Novaes, C.G.; Barreto, J.A.; Alves, J.P.S.; Cerqueira, U.M.F.d.M.; Santos, Q.O.d.; Araújo, S.A. Automation of continuous flow analysis systems—A review. Microchem. J. 2020, 155, 104731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinha, S.K.; Majumdar, A. Economic sustainability benchmarking of environmental initiatives: A case of wastewater treatment plant. Benchmarking Int. J. 2021, 28, 2008–2022. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, Z.; Lyu, P.; Ye, L.; Zhou, Y.w. Green innovation transformation, economic sustainability and energy consumption during China’s new normal stage. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 273, 123044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hami, N.; Muhamad, M.R.; Ebrahim, Z. The impact of sustainable manufacturing practices and innovation performance on economic sustainability. Procedia CIRP 2015, 26, 190–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, X.; Ao, X.; Cai, W.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, H. A sustainability evaluation method integrating the energy, economic and environment in remanufacturing systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 239, 118100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taucean, I.M.; Miclea, S.; Ivascu, L.; Negrut, M.L. Analysis of interrelationship for lean and sustainability principles and implications. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2021; Volume 1221, pp. 217–227. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, K.M.; Lata, S. Effectuation of lean tool “5s” on materials and work space efficiency in a copper wire drawing micro-scale industry in India. Mater. Today Proc. 2018, 5, 4678–4683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, R.J.; Singh, A. 5s—A quality improvement tool for sustainable performance: Literature review and directions. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2017, 34, 334–361. [Google Scholar]
- Vitayasak, S.; Pongcharoen, P.; Hicks, C. Robust machine layout design under dynamic environment:Dynamic customer demand and machine maintenance. Expert Syst. Appl. X 2019, 3, 100015. [Google Scholar]
- Morales Garcia, A.S.; García-Alcaraz, J.L.; Martínez Hernández, F.A.; Díaz Reza, J.R. Validation of questionnaire to know the level of lean manufacturing implementation [In Spanish]. Mem. Congr. Int. Investig. Acad. J. 2020. Available online: https://shorturl.at/xBDVZ (accessed on 29 August 2021).
- Gagnon, J.; Raskin, M.; Remache, J.; Sack, B. The financial market effects of the federal reserve’s large-scale asset purchases. 24th Issue Int. J. Cent. Bank. 2018, 7, 45–52. [Google Scholar]
- Morales García, A.; García Alcaraz, J.; Díaz Reza, J. Survey: Effect of Lean Manufacturing Tools on the Company’s Environmental Performance, Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. 2021. Available online: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14462163.v1 (accessed on 30 August 2021).
- Amelec, V. Improvements in the supply chain of an automotive company through the implementation of continuous flow. Adv. Sci. Lett. 2015, 21, 1416–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girón, A.; Kazemikhasragh, A.; Cicchiello, A.F.; Panetti, E. Sustainability reporting and firms’ economic performance: Evidence from Asia and Africa. J. Knowl. Econ. 2020, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Alcaraz, J.L.; Montalvo, F.J.F.; Avelar-Sosa, L.; Pérez de la Parte, M.M.; Blanco-Fernández, J.; Jiménez-Macías, E. The importance of access to information and knowledge coordination on quality and economic benefits obtained from six sigma. Wirel. Netw. 2020, 26, 5713–5726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IMMEX. Monthly Statistics Report—General Information about Maquiladoras—May 14, 2021; IMMEX: Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico, 2021; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
- IMMEX. Weekly Statistics Rreport—General Information about Workforce in Maquiladoras—May 7, 2021; IMMEX: Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, Mexico, 2021; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
- Kock, N. Warppls User Manual: Version 6.0; ScriptWarp Systems: Laredo, TX, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.; Hult, G.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial least Square Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Kock, N. Common method bias in pls-sem: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. e-Collab. 2015, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iacobucci, D.; Posavac, S.S.; Kardes, F.R.; Schneider, M.J.; Popovich, D.L. Toward a more nuanced understanding of the statistical properties of a median split. J. Consum. Psychol. 2015, 25, 652–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teo, T.; Tsai, L.T.; Yang, C.-C. Applying structural equation modeling (SEM) in educational research. In Application of Structural Equation Modeling in Educational Research and Practice; Khine, M.S., Ed.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 3–21. [Google Scholar]
- Westland, J.C. Partial least squares path analysis. In Structural Equation Models: From Paths to Networks; Westland, J.C., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Germany, 2019; pp. 17–38. [Google Scholar]
- Hernández, F.A.M.; Alcaraz, J.L.A. Survey to Determine the Level of Implementation of Lean Manufacturing Practices. figshare 2021. Available online: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/_/14301275 (accessed on 30 August 2021).
Industrial Sector | Manager | Engineer | Supervisor | Total | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Automotive | 8 | 28 | 39 | 75 | 44.37 |
Medical | 3 | 16 | 21 | 40 | 23.66 |
Electric | 6 | 17 | 12 | 35 | 20.71 |
Electronic | 0 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 5.32 |
Logistic | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 4.14 |
Machining | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1.77 |
Total | 17 | 68 | 81 | 169 | 100 |
5S | Median | IR |
---|---|---|
There is a standard of how the work area should be maintained. | 5.11 | 1.60 |
Methods are documented and standardized through procedures. | 5.03 | 1.70 |
The achievements obtained after implementing the 5Ss are exposed. | 4.78 | 1.86 |
SMED | ||
When using SMED, techniques such as DMAIC are followed to implement the methodology successfully. | 4.69 | 1.73 |
There is awareness of the cost of having idle equipment. | 4.59 | 1.62 |
Improvement groups are in place to reduce idle time on machinery. | 4.54 | 1.71 |
Continuous flow | ||
The production process is organized on product families | 4.82 | 1.73 |
Bottlenecks are identified. | 4.79 | 1.89 |
Continuous improvement groups are in place to help eliminate unnecessary operations. | 4.64 | 1.95 |
Material suppliers respond quickly | 4.46 | 1.77 |
The takt time of the production line is known and followed. | 4.46 | 1.63 |
Economic sustainability | ||
There is a reduction in the cost of material acquisition. | 4.73 | 1.74 |
Economic benefits have increased in the last two years. | 4.68 | 1.77 |
Sales have increased in the last two years. | 4.65 | 1.77 |
There is a reduction in the cost of energy utilization. | 4.62 | 1.91 |
Index | 5S | SMED | COF | ES | Cutoff |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
R2 | 0.327 | 0.503 | 0.463 | >0.02 | |
Adjusted R2 | 0.323 | 0.497 | 0.453 | >0.02 | |
Composite reliability | 0.929 | 0.923 | 0.886 | 0.923 | >0.7 |
Cronbach’s alpha | 0.885 | 0.875 | 0.838 | 0.889 | >0.7 |
AVE | 0.813 | 0.800 | 0.609 | 0.751 | >0.5 |
Full collinearity VIF | 1.629 | 2.178 | 2.239 | 1.831 | <3.3 |
Q2 | 0.325 | 0.502 | 0.471 | Similar to R2 |
Hypothesis | Relationship | β | p-Value | Conclusion |
---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | 5S→SMED | 0.571 | <0.001 | Supported |
H2 | 5S→COF | 0.210 | =0.002 | Supported |
H3 | SMED→COF | 0.567 | <0.001 | Supported |
H4 | 5S→ES | 0.190 | =0.005 | Supported |
H5 | SMED→ES | 0.214 | =0.002 | Supported |
H6 | COF→ES | 0.384 | <0.001 | Supported |
5S | SMED | COF | R2 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
SMED | 0.327 | 0.327 | ||
COF | 0.113 | 0.390 | 0.503 | |
ES | 0.098 | 0.124 | 0.241 | 0.463 |
Sum of Indirect Effects | |||
---|---|---|---|
5S | SMED | COF | |
COF | β = 0.324 p ˂ 0.001 ES = 0.174 | ||
ES | β = 0.327 p ˂ 0.001 ES = 0.168 | β = 0.218 p ˂ 0.001 ES = 0.126 | |
Total Effects | |||
SMED | β = 0.571 p < 0.001 ES = 0.327 | ||
COF | β = 0.535 p < 0.001 ES = 0.286 | β = 0.567 p < 0.001 ES = 0.390 | |
ES | β = 0.518 p < 0.001 ES = 0.266 | β = 0.432 p < 0.001 ES = 0.250 | β = 0.384 p < 0.001 ES = 0.241 |
Level | 5S+ | 5S− | SMED+ | SMED− | COF+ | COF− | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Prob | 0.219 | 0.124 | 0.118 | 0.118 | 0.130 | ||
SMED+ | 0.118 | & = 0.083 If = 0.378 | & = 0.000 If = 0.000 | ||||
SMED− | 0.118 | & = 0.012 If = 0.054 | & = 0.065 If = 0.524 | ||||
COF+ | 0.130 | & = 0.083 If = 0.378 | & = 0.000 If = 0.000 | & = 0.077 If = 0.650 | & = 0.000 If = 0.000 | ||
COF− | 0.160 | & = 0.012 If = 0.054 | & = 0.089 If = 0.714 | & = 0.006 If = 0.050 | & = 0.095 If = 0.800 | ||
ES+ | 0.154 | & = 0.089 If = 0.405 | & = 0.006 If = 0.048 | & = 0.089 If = 0.750 | & = 0.006 If = 0.050 | & = 0.083 If = 0.636 | & = 0.006 If = 0.037 |
ES− | 0.166 | & = 0.024 If = 0.108 | & = 0.065 If = 0.524 | & = 0.012 If = 0.100 | & = 0.071 If = 0.600 | & = 0.006 If = 0.045 | & = 0.083 If = 0.519 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
García-Alcaraz, J.L.; Díaz Reza, J.R.; Sánchez Ramírez, C.; Limón Romero, J.; Jiménez Macías, E.; Lardies, C.J.; Rodríguez Medina, M.A. Lean Manufacturing Tools Applied to Material Flow and Their Impact on Economic Sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910599
García-Alcaraz JL, Díaz Reza JR, Sánchez Ramírez C, Limón Romero J, Jiménez Macías E, Lardies CJ, Rodríguez Medina MA. Lean Manufacturing Tools Applied to Material Flow and Their Impact on Economic Sustainability. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19):10599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910599
Chicago/Turabian StyleGarcía-Alcaraz, Jorge Luis, José Roberto Díaz Reza, Cuauhtémoc Sánchez Ramírez, Jorge Limón Romero, Emilio Jiménez Macías, Carlos Javierre Lardies, and Manuel Arnoldo Rodríguez Medina. 2021. "Lean Manufacturing Tools Applied to Material Flow and Their Impact on Economic Sustainability" Sustainability 13, no. 19: 10599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910599
APA StyleGarcía-Alcaraz, J. L., Díaz Reza, J. R., Sánchez Ramírez, C., Limón Romero, J., Jiménez Macías, E., Lardies, C. J., & Rodríguez Medina, M. A. (2021). Lean Manufacturing Tools Applied to Material Flow and Their Impact on Economic Sustainability. Sustainability, 13(19), 10599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910599