Nike footwear production standardization and optimization

0 HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES SOLVAY BRUSSELS SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT MBQPM HA TUYET THUONG NIKE FOOTWEAR PRODUCTION STANDARDIZATION AND OPTIMIZATION Tai Lieu Chat Luong MASTER FINAL PROJECT MASTER IN BUSINESS QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Ho Chi Minh City Mar-2018 STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICATION I hereby declare that this dissertation is my original work, gathered and utilized specially to fulfil the purposes and objectives of this study I have written the present thesis independently, without assistance from external parties and without use of other resources than those indicated The material, either in full or in part, has not been previously submitted for grading at this or any other academic institution _ SIGNATURE DATE NAME IN BLOCK CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL This is to certify that the undersigned member of the Committee has read the thesis of HA TUYET THUONG entitle “NIKE FOOTWEAR PRODUCTION STANDARDIZATION AND OPTIMIZATION” The committee found the thesis acceptable in accordance with the requirement and standards in thesis writing She is recommended for Final Oral Examination on her thesis on March 31, 2018 SIGNATURE SIGNATURE BOARD OF EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER SIGNATURE SIGNATURE EXTERNAL EXAMINER EXTERNAL EXAMINER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS After an intensive period of fourteen studying months, today is the day writing this note of thanks is the finishing touch on my dissertation It has been a period of intense learning for me, not only in the business management knowledge, but also on a personal soft silk development Writing this dissertation has had a big impact on me I would like to reflect on the people who have supported and helped me so much throughout this period Firstly, I would like to express my very great appreciation to PROF JACQUES MARTIN for his valuable sharing not only for this thesis but also along whole this master program His willingness to give his time and advice so generously has been very much appreciated Secondly, I would like to thank all the professors of MBQPM program They have already open my mind in different aspects of business management Their valuable guidance builds up the strong baseline for my future career development These knowledges provided me with the tools that I needed to choose the right direction and successfully complete my dissertation Thirdly, my studying cannot complete without the strong support from my company Nike With the financial assistance as well as the open environment to support my data collection and improvement suggestion Finally, I would also like to thank family are always there to support for me Thank parents understand and arrange the best condition for my studying Most importantly, I thank my loving and supportive husband who provide unending inspiration for me TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHENTICATION CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 10 LIST OF PICTURES AND TABLES IN REPORT 12 INTRODUCTION 14 Background 14 Objective of thesis 15 Scope 15 Structure of the thesis 15 PART 1: ANALYSIS CURRENT STATE OF NIKE FOOTWEAR PRODUCTION PROBLEM 16 CHAPTER 1: NIKE PRODUCTION PROCESS MAPPING 16 1.1.1 Nike Organization Structure 16 1.1.2 Nike Vietnam Strategy 17 1.1.3 Nike Vietnam Production Process Mapping 21 1.1.4 Identify Key Process 25 CHAPTER 2: INVESTIGATION OF PRODUCTION PROCESS PROBLEM 28 1.2.1 Stitching Process Problem 28 1.2.2 Assembly Process Problem 29 1.2.3 No Sew Process Problem 29 PART 2: NIKE PRODUCTION STANDARDIZATION AND OPTIMIZATION 32 CHAPTER 1: Identify Standardization and Optimization Solutions 32 2.1.1 Simulation Solution for Stitching Process Standardization 32 2.1.2 DMAIC for Assembly and Stock Fit Combination 35 2.1.3 Time and motion study for no sew man – machine optimization 39 CHAPTER 2: NIKE PRODUCTION IMPROVEMENT RESULT 44 2.2.1 Stitching Optimization Result 44 2.2.2 Assembly and Stock Fit Combination Result 46 2.2.3 No sew Optimization Result 47 CONCLUSION 48 REFERENCES 50 APPENDIX 51 10 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Nike Vietnam (NVN) Balance Score Card (BSC) World Head Quarter (WHQ) Nike Liaison Office (NLO) Research and Development (R&D) Pair per Person per Hours (PPH) Free trend factory (VE) Chingluh factory (VH) Pair per Person per Hours (PPH) Assembly and Stock fit combination (ASC) Time and Motion Study (TMS) 12 LIST OF PICTURES AND TABLES IN REPORT Figure 1: Nike Global Structure 16 Figure 2: Nike Liaison Office (NLO) Organization Structure 17 Figure 3: Nike Global Supply Chain 18 Figure 5: Nike Shoe Structure 21 Figure 6: Nike Footwear Manufacturing Process Flow 22 Figure 8: Cutting die for sport shoe production 22 Figure 9: Preparation operation area 23 Figure 10: No sew operation area 23 Figure 11: Examples of no-sew products 23 Figure 12: Stitching operation area 24 Figure 13: Stock fit operation area 24 Figure 14: Assembly operation area 25 Table 1: Summary labor requirement by operation 25 Figure 15: Pareto Chart of Labor Requirement 26 Table 2: Summary cycle time by operation 26 Figure 16: Pareto Chart of Labor Requirement 26 Figure 17: Fishbone chart of PPH impact factors in stitching process 28 Figure 18: Assembly and Stock Fit Combination Definition 29 Figure 19: No sew process flow chart 30 Figure 20: No sew simulation research methodology flow 32 Table 3: Shoe styles configuration of simulation input data 33 Figure 21: Arena Simulation Module 34 Figure 22: Simulation model of Flex 2018 34 Figure 23: DMAIC cycle 35 Figure 24: Current assembly flow chart 35 Figure 25: Current stock fit flow chart 36 Figure 26: Assembly and stock fit project identity card 36 Figure 27: Current stock fit production data 38 Figure 28: Assembly current production data 38 Figure 29: Future assembly and stock fit combination production data 39 Figure 30: Simple man-machine chart 40 Figure 31: Current no sew pressing man machine chart 41 Figure 32: Proposal no sew pressing man machine chart 42 Figure 33: JMP effect summary report for stitching process 44 Figure 34: JMP comparison result of stitching process impact factors 45 Figure 35: Assembly and stock fit bonding result 46 Figure 36: Assembly and stock fit combination project result summary 46 Table 4: No sew Optimization Result 47 14 INTRODUCTION Background According to market research conducted by Index Box, the footwear market value is increasing from $320 to $348 billion from 2016 to 2017 It is expected to reach $425.2 billion by 2022 Among that, the global athletic market size forecast of $184.9 billion by 2022 This trend due to there is growing popularity of fitness as a lifestyle and fashion Therefore, customers are increasingly looking for athleisure style footwear This data demonstrates shoe making is one of the growing industries in the manufacturing world Though, footwear industry is neither an easy production system nor a simple business Shoe making companies mostly used manual and semi-mechanized processes Thus, it requires high level of skills and knowledge to attain the quality and designs trends that preferred by various target markets As footwear industry is a labor-intensive one, nowadays most of shoe manufacturers set their production base in Asia Pacific Among that, Vietnam is ranked as the second biggest footwear exporters after China with the advantage of the high population base, low cost labor, and large pool of skilled professionals However, according to trading economics projection to 2020 report, Vietnam labor wages are forecast to increase by 17.9% - the highest of any region globally and 4% quicker than China by 2020 Moreover, according to the International Labor Organization numbers released in July last year, an estimated 137 million Asian workers could lose their jobs to robots globally in the next 20 years This is asked most of footwear manufacturers in Asia, specially Vietnam factories, need to increase efficiency of the company operation to reduce labor cost dependence Founded in 1964 as Blue Ribbon Sports by Bill Bowerman and Phil Knight, Nike currently is the market leader footwear company According to Yahoo Finance in June 2017, Nike is leading 34.7% US athletic footwear market However, Nike need to watch out for another competitors’ growth such as Adidas, Puma, Rebook… For specific example, currently Adidas is building "Speed factories" in Germany and America which align with their fast fashion strategy Besides that, there is increasing competition from newer brands like Lululemon, Under Armour, and smaller specialist players like Asics, Mizuno, Brooks, and others This makes footwear industry become tougher competition in the future Similar with other footwear company, Nike relies on contractors for actual production Most of its factories are in Southeast Asia including Vietnam, China, Indonesia, Taiwan, India… Nike began manufacturing in Vietnam in 1995 Nike Viet Nam (NVN) started with five contract footwear factories and gradually increase to sixteen footwear factory partners in this year For fiscal 2017, Nike contract factories in Vietnam, China and Indonesia manufactured approximately 46%, 27% and 21% of total NIKE Brand footwear, respectively This number determined Vietnam is the essential footwear production in Nike global market To manage complex contract factory partner’s system to keep the labor cost advantages for Nike Vietnam in the future, this thesis will focus on process standardization and optimization for Nike Vietnam production Standardization portrays significance to workers since it logically leads to simplification of process and variety 15 reduction It helps to increase the work efficiency for whole Nike supply chain Based on standardization, optimization effort can be conducted to improve factory productivity and production lead time The main aim is to makes Nike distinct from competitors in the tough footwear global competitive business and quickly meets its customer demand increasing in the future Objective of thesis Objectives of this research are: - Analyze Nike shoe manufacturing process to identify the key focus processes for standardization and improvement - Collect data to find out the non-conformities factors between factory partners - Use different improvement process such as time and motion study, simulation, man machine chart to eliminate and combining of work process; establish the standardized process to leverage labor improvement across Nike manufacturing systems Scope Nike has different labor cost structure for different factories For shoe bottom making process, all the factories aligned with Nike with fixed labor cost That is the reason this research mainly focuses on upper making processes which are model-based flexible labor cost Due to the time resource limitation, this research will select two factories Free trend (VE) and Chingluh (VH) for pilot The successfulness of the standardization and optimization project in these two factories will be the baseline for leverage in all Nike factory partners Structure of the thesis There are some concerned aspects on operation standardization, line configuration, capacity variable factors and layout changing in Nike production processes for a long time However, there are not detail analysis with data driven to further investigate and resolve these questions Therefore, this research will go through two main part to understand these problems and solve these problems In part 1, this is the most important step to understand the company problem statement Firstly, this will introduce the company overview and connect the thesis measuring indicator with company strategy and vision In the second chapter of part this helps analyze, quantify the current state of production line Based on that production mapping, this step helps to determine the key processes for improvement Besides that, it gives the proposal method for improvement in key processes In chapter 2, apply the detail data analysis based on proposal method for each focus area Finally, based on the studying data, it come up with the quantified result 44 CHAPTER 2: NIKE PRODUCTION IMPROVEMENT RESULT 2.2.1 Stitching Optimization Result The simulation model design set up to run for half shift working hours The first 30 minutes is the warming-up state, where the simulation will not obtain any data on this stage The length of warming-up state is calculated by summing up all the processing time in one shoes style That value is the minimum value of warming-up time The next 3.5 hours regarded as the steady state period Data of simulation result is gathered on this stage of simulation The simulation was done using high-performance personal computer Length of simulation time is depended on the scenario being run, varied from minutes to minutes per scenario Scenario with more resources and higher number of batch size requires the longer running time and vice versa Summary of the simulation output is shown on Appendix Result of simulation experiment was statistically analyzed As this research using more than experiment factors, it can be considered as factorial experiments Effect of each factor, along with interaction between them, can be examined by using factorial experiments To help in analyzing the results, factorial design feature of JMP 13.2.1 was used The Effect Summary report of JMP output can be seen on picture It lists the effects estimated by the model and gives a plot of the LogWorth values for these effects Figure 33: JMP effect summary report for stitching process The Effect Summary table shows that all of p-value for studied factors are lower than 0.05 It means that all factors are significant to the PPH Each factor has different effect magnitude on PPH In sequence, factors from strongest to weakest magnitude are as following: production target output, product cycle time, line configuration and batch size 45 Compare Means function also conducts the detail analysis of each factors The result come up in below pictures Figure 34: JMP comparison result of stitching process impact factors Based on each variable effect plot, level of each factor yields higher PPH is also known - When the system aims for higher production target, PPH also increased But, the increasing magnitude from 1800 to 3200 is not as high as from 1200 to 1800 Product with lower production steps will enable to reach higher PPH Quicker task time is slightly better PPH than the higher one Usage of 2-lines is more favorable as it is resulting in higher PPH Higher batch size will not increase UPMH Here, batch size of is more recommended to use 46 2.2.2 Assembly and Stock Fit Combination Result To control this improvement project is not impact the product quality All data of bonding test was collected during the trial The data detail result in appendix D Here is the summary data compare bonding test result before and after improvement All data show pass result and consistent after improvement Figure 35: Assembly and stock fit bonding result Besides the product quality, below table summarize the comparison before and after of this improvement project This shows not only saving on labor avoidance but also help to reduct oven machines and pressing machine Moreover, it helps the production lead time improve more than one minute (77s) per pair Even this is just the small-time capture but multiple with high volume, this improvement will help Nike quicker response to customer order steps by steps Figure 36: Assembly and stock fit combination project result summary Comparison (Target: 1800 prs/day) Item Current Future Different Stockfit 23 Labor 41 -6 Assembly 24 Cycle time Stockfit 272 503.4 -77.6 (Secs/prs) Assembly 309 Chamber -2 DWP -2 47 2.2.3 No sew Optimization Result Table summarizes the result of man machine ratio improvement for no sew hot pressing operation From that table, the proposal method already determines the benefit for labor improvement With one operator cover two machines at the same time, the PPH of no sew operation can increase double from 514 to 1029 This due to the improvement of worker utilization can improve just by eliminate the idle time for machine waiting Table 4: No sew Optimization Result Comparison Indicator PPH (pair/person/hour) Idle Time (secs) Man Utilization Ratio % Idle Time Machine Utilization Ratio Current Process Proposal Process (1 Man : Machine) (1 Man : Machines) 514 30 46% 86% 1029 93% 86% 48 CONCLUSION In summary, this thesis already points out the key Nike manufacturing process for standardization and optimization These three-focus operations are stitching, assembly and no sew With the target to improve the process lead time and labor productivity, different improvement methods are applied for key processes For stitching, simulation tools are used to identify the impacted factors for PPH DMIAC cycle is applied in assembly and stock fit combination process And man-machine chart supports the labor improvement in no sew hot press operation The most important achievement of this thesis is not only demonstrating the continuously improvement culture for Nike factories but also emphasizing the data driven improvement With that effort, the research already connected the improvement result to support Nike strategy maps for quickly adapt with customer requirement and the labor cost rapidly chance in the future As the result of research, the data demonstrated the 2-line configuration of stitching process will be more efficiency than 4-lines stitching configuration This also give the production managers the impacted ranking list of production variabilities factors for better decision making For assembly process, this already help to leverage the best practice from VE to VH factory for assembly and stock fit combination project This give the result of 13% efficiency both labor and cycle time improvement In no sew process, the man machine chart helps to capture the interaction between operator and machine process which help to arrange the better work flow sequence to eliminate the waiting time The suggestion future research is collect more varied styles of shoe in the data analysis to reflect more production impacted factors for production improvement Moreover, with more time allowance, the study can collect more time study of worker operational practice to understand the worker difference performance This will be the baseline to understand the worker cycle time distribution to feed the simulation more comprehended The optimization method in each area is not limited in that operation 49 This research study become the best practice to apply into different operation area and leverage for another factories improvement 50 REFERENCES Professor Michel Brotto (2017), Process Management course Training material, Solvay Brussels School Of Economics & Management Eryilmaz, Kusakci, Gavranovic And Findik (2012), Analysis Of Shoe Manufacturing Factory By Simulation Of Production Processes, Southeast Europe Journal of Soft Computing Fredrik Boivie And Marcus Höglund (2008), Production system design and optimization, Chalmers University Of Technology, Sweden Parthiban.P and Raju.R, Productivity improvement in shoe making industry By using method study, Indra Ganesan College of Engineering B Naveen and Dr T Ramesh Babu, Productivity Improvement in Manufacturing Industry Using Industrial Engineering Tools, Indra Ganesan College of Engineering Ranjith Raja (2015), Assembly line design and balancing, CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, Sweden Jennyvie S Germanes, Markhaya F Puga, Rhoda B Sabio, Erron M Sanchez, and Jenny C Hugo (2017), Improving Efficiency of Shoe Manufacturer through the Use of Time and Motion Study and Line Balancing, Journal of Industrial and Intelligent Information Prof Shinde Vishal Vasant (2017), Method study training material, College of Engg Nashik Emil Hansson and Johannes Samuelsson (2014), Increased capacity through load chart scheduling based on standardization of long-cycle manual work, CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, Sweden Nike Vietnam Company, (2017), Nike Vietnam FY18 Footwear Key Priorities Ambika B & Joseph Regy (2014), Optimization Of Man-Machine Ratio In Garment Industry, International Journal of Human Resources Management Weave Services Limited (2017), VN Footwear Summit 2017, Retrieved from: http://www.ecvinternational.com/2017VietnamFootwear/ 51 APPENDIX APPENDIX A Data collection of Nike production process Data collection table of Labor Requirement by product Labor Requirement by Process for capacity 1800 pairs/8h by Product Summary Process Flex 2018 Lunar Exceed Zoom Strike NIKE IN-SEASON TR8 Downshifter Average Labor Requirement % Labor requirement by process Cutting 16 19 27 Preparation 18 21 33 No-sew 54 38 48 Stitching 140 128 140 Assembly 75 83 71 Stockfit 30 40 34 333 329 353 22 17 52 140 73 36 340 22.875 28 43 140 90 43 367 21 23 47 138 78 37 344 6% 7% 14% 40% 23% 11% 100% No Total Data collection table of cycle time by product Total Cycle Time by Process (sec/pair) Summary Process FLEX 2018 NIKE LUNAR EXCEED TR Zoom Strike NIKE IN-SEASON TR8 Downshifter Average Labor Requirement % Labor requirement by process Cutting 216 248 359 Preparation 202 260 472 287 203 607 1411 925 451 3883 366 326.4 551 6348 1147.3 534 9273 295 292 586 3291 1007 446 5917 5% 5% 10% 56% 17% 8% 100% No No-sew 663 488 622 Stitching 1444 1330 5920 Assembly 947 1070 944 Stockfit 342 513 390 3814 3908 8707 Total 52 APPENDIX B Data collection of Nike stitching process Stitching cycle time and labor requirement of Flex 2018 model Scenario input DATA COLLECTION SIMULATION DATA SCENARIO DATA INPUT Process Triming the edge after Nosew Tongue Label and Tongue LaceLoop on Tongue/Tongue U'lay Stitching seam Tongue/Tongue U'lay and Tongue Lining Rolling cement on Tongue Foam then attach it (over 3mm) on Tongue Turning over the tongue Hammering Tongue Stitch the edge margin of Tongue CT Allowance % (Second/ Pair) (Second/ Pair) Scenario input Scenario input Scenario input Scenario input Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Target Output 1200 Target Output 1800 Target Output 3200 Target Output 1200 Target Output 1800 Target Output 3200 Talk time 96.0 Talk time 64.0 Talk time 36.0 Talk time 48.0 Talk time 32.0 Talk time 18.0 CT with Allowance (Second/ Pair) Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower PRODUCT: FLEX 2018 No Scenario input Lines Configuration 114 18% 134.5 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.0 3.7 4.0 2.8 3.0 4.2 5.0 7.5 8.0 55.2 18% 65.1 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.6 4.0 70 18% 82.6 0.9 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.3 3.0 1.7 2.0 2.6 3.0 4.6 5.0 56.4 18% 66.6 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.1 2.0 3.7 4.0 Surge stitching Vamp/quarter and foxing (laterial side) 69 18% 81.4 0.8 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.3 3.0 1.7 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.5 5.0 Surge stitching vamp/quarter med and foxing med (stitching vamp lining med) 69 18% 81.4 0.8 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.3 3.0 1.7 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.5 5.0 Trimming excessive of upper with scissors Spray cement on upper to attach Vamp Lining Insert Foxing med/lat on jig + Soldering iron HF molding Foxing O'lay Med on Vamp/Quarter( nosew 3D) Foxing O'lay 48 18% 56.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.6 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.8 2.0 3.1 3.0 27.6 18% 32.6 0.3 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 Fixed stitching qaurter reinf in/out on vamp/quarter 90 18% 106.2 1.1 1.0 1.7 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.2 3.0 3.3 4.0 5.9 6.0 10 Use jig to pull up Quarter Magwire In/Out 1,2,3,4 96 18% 113.3 1.2 1.0 1.8 2.0 3.1 3.0 2.4 3.0 3.5 4.0 6.3 7.0 11 Stitch fix Vamp/Quarter and Vamp/Qtr Lining Med/Lat with Upper 96 18% 113.3 1.2 1.0 1.8 2.0 3.1 3.0 2.4 3.0 3.5 4.0 6.3 7.0 12 Stitch the edge of Collar Lining 73 18% 86.1 0.9 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.4 3.0 1.8 2.0 2.7 3.0 4.8 5.0 69.6 18% 82.1 0.9 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.3 3.0 1.7 2.0 2.6 3.0 4.6 5.0 51.6 18% 60.9 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.9 2.0 3.4 4.0 15 Turning of the Collar Lining + Hammering 70 18% 82.6 0.9 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.3 3.0 1.7 2.0 2.6 3.0 4.6 5.0 16 Stitch fix the edge margin of Collar Lining with Upper 76 18% 89.7 0.9 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.9 2.0 2.8 3.0 5.0 5.0 17 Stitch joint Tongue 69.4 18% 81.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.3 3.0 1.7 2.0 2.6 3.0 4.5 5.0 18 Punching holes 13 Stitch seam Collar Lining and Upper 14 Rolling cement Collar Foam Spraying hotmelt on the collar lining back, then attaching collar foam 21.6 18% 25.5 0.3 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.4 2.0 19 Stitch gathering at Toe (with tape 3mm) 60 18% 70.8 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.2 3.0 3.9 4.0 Upper cleaning 20 Lacing 144 18% 169.9 1.8 2.0 2.7 3.0 4.7 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.3 6.0 9.4 10.0 Checking metal Packing 18 18% 21.2 0.2 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.2 21 TOTAL 1444 92 140 220 88 122 1.0 204 53 Stitching cycle time and labor requirement of Lunar Exceed model Scenario input DATA COLLECTION SIMULATION DATA SCENARIO DATA INPUT PRODUCT: LUNAR EXCEED No Process Seam stitching tongue and tongue lining CT Allowance % (Second/ Pair) (Second/ Pair) Scenario input Scenario input Scenario input Scenario input Scenario input Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Target Output 1200 Target Output 1800 Target Output 3200 Target Output 1200 Target Output 1800 Target Output 3200 Talk time 96.0 Talk time 64.0 Talk time 36.0 Talk time 48.0 Talk time 32.0 Talk time 18.0 CT with Allowance (Second/ Pair) Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower 42 18% 49.6 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.8 3.0 33.6 18% 39.6 0.4 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 2.0 2.2 3.0 Stitching edge margin of tongue 54 18% 63.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 4.0 Zig zag stitching vamp lining and tongue 54 18% 63.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 4.0 85 18% 100.3 1.0 1.0 1.6 2.0 2.8 3.0 2.1 2.0 3.1 3.0 5.6 6.0 Stitch collar lining edge line 48 18% 56.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.6 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.8 2.0 3.1 3.0 Inserting fly wires 1,2 on upper with clip 144 18% 169.9 1.8 2.0 2.7 3.0 4.7 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.3 6.0 9.4 10.0 Trimming fly wires 1,2 med/lat 26.4 18% 31.2 0.3 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 2.0 36 18% 42.5 0.4 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.4 3.0 12 20% 14.4 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.0 43.2 18% 51.0 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.6 2.0 2.8 3.0 Turnning over tongue (Use No.1 thimble) Hammering tongue Surge stitching collar lining, vamp lining and tongue Seam stitching collar med/lat Trimming ears of collar med/lat after seam 10 stitching with scissors Rolling hotmelt both sides on the seam 11 stithing area Separate the heel seam 12 Stitching close seam collar lining on upper 65 18% 76.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.6 2.0 2.4 3.0 4.3 5.0 43.2 18% 51.0 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.1 1.0 1.6 2.0 2.8 3.0 55.2 18% 65.1 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.6 4.0 55.2 18% 65.1 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.6 4.0 16 Stitching edge margin of upper 65 18% 76.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.6 2.0 2.4 3.0 4.3 5.0 Spraying hotmelt on the backside of tip + 17 Attaching Attaching vamp lining on backside of tip 68 18% 80.2 0.8 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.2 3.0 1.7 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.5 5.0 18 Stitching tongue on upper 36 20% 43.2 0.5 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.2 2.0 0.9 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.4 3.0 19 Stitching tip area 144 18% 169.9 1.8 2.0 2.7 3.0 4.7 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.3 6.0 9.4 10.0 1st Punching holes 3.5mm 20 2nd Punching holes 3.5mm Cleaning upper 62.4 18% 73.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 2.3 3.0 4.1 4.0 21 Lacing + Take off the clip 140 18% 165.2 1.7 2.0 2.6 3.0 4.6 5.0 3.4 4.0 5.2 5.0 9.2 9.0 18 18% 21.2 0.2 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.2 13 Stitching counter on upper Rolling hotmelt on collar foam 14 Spraying hotmelt on the collar lining back, then attaching collar foam Turning of the collar lining (Use No.4 thimble) 15 + Massage collar Hammering collar 22 Checking metal+ Packing TOTAL 1330 100 128 200 80 114 1.0 190 54 Stitching cycle time and labor requirement of Downshifter model Scenario input DATA COLLECTION SIMULATION DATA SCENARIO DATA INPUT PRODUCT: DOWNSHIFTER No Process CT (Second/ Pair) Allowance % (Second/ Pair) CT with Allowance (Second/ Pair) Scenario input Scenario input Scenario input Scenario input Scenario input Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Lines Configuration Target Output 1200 Target Output 1800 Target Output 3200 Target Output 1200 Target Output 1800 Target Output 3200 Talk time 96.0 Talk time 64.0 Talk time 36.0 Talk time 48.0 Talk time 32.0 Talk time 18.0 Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Required Manpower Assigned Manpower Stitching Tongue Webbing Loop on Tongue 32.4 20% 38.9 0.4 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.2 2.0 2.2 2.0 Stitching tongue top label on tongue 33.6 20% 40.3 0.4 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.2 3.0 Seam stitch Tongue and Tongue lining 48 18% 56.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.6 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.8 2.0 3.1 3.0 Turn over Tongue and Hammering 24 18% 28.3 0.3 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.6 2.0 Stitch edge margin of tongue 48 18% 56.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.6 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.8 2.0 3.1 3.0 Serge stitch Quarter Lining med/lat on vamp lining 48 18% 56.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.6 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.8 2.0 3.1 3.0 Stitch the edge margin of Upper 202 18% 238.4 2.5 3.0 3.7 4.0 6.6 7.0 5.0 5.0 7.4 8.0 13.2 14.0 Zigzag stitching vamp/vamp lining 42 18% 49.6 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.8 3.0 Stitch Vamp area 58.8 18% 69.4 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.9 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.2 2.0 3.9 4.0 10 Seam stitching quarter med/lat + Hammering 52.8 18% 62.3 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 2.0 1.3 2.0 1.9 2.0 3.5 4.0 11 Stitch the edge of Collar Lining 48 18% 56.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.6 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.8 2.0 3.1 3.0 12 Stitch Close Seam Collar Lining on Upper 101 18% 119.2 1.2 2.0 1.9 2.0 3.3 4.0 2.5 3.0 3.7 4.0 6.6 7.0 13 Stitch Counter on Upper Back Side 54 18% 63.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 4.0 14 Rolling cement on Collar Foam+ Spray hotmelt on collar lining back + attach collar foam 54 18% 63.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 4.0 15 Turning of the Collar Lining +Massage collar 54 18% 63.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 4.0 16 Hammering collar 24 18% 28.3 0.3 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.6 2.0 17 Stitch edge margin of collar lining On Upper 144 18% 169.9 1.8 2.0 2.7 3.0 4.7 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.3 6.0 9.4 10.0 18 Stitch deco line on collar 258 18% 304.4 3.2 3.0 4.8 5.0 8.5 9.0 6.3 7.0 9.5 10.0 16.9 17.0 19 Punching holes (3.0mm) 38.4 18% 45.3 0.5 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.3 2.0 0.9 1.0 1.4 2.0 2.5 3.0 20 Stitching tongue on upper 54 20% 64.8 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.8 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.6 4.0 21 Lacing 126 18% 148.7 1.5 2.0 2.3 3.0 4.1 4.0 3.1 3.0 4.6 5.0 8.3 9.0 22 Trimming upper(trim the thread ends and clean) 24 18% 28.3 0.3 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.6 2.0 23 Checking metal+ Packing 18 18% 21.2 0.2 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.2 TOTAL 1587 120 140 236 92 130 1.0 222 55 APPENDIX C Arena Simulation of Stitching Process Input data in Arena model 56 57 Summary output data of Arena simulation model Actual Output No Product Number of Line 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Flex 2018 Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Lunar Exceed Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter Downshifter 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 Target Out put 1200 1200 1200 1800 1800 1800 3200 3200 3200 1200 1200 1200 1800 1800 1800 3200 3200 3200 1200 1200 1200 1800 1800 1800 3200 3200 3200 1200 1200 1200 1800 1800 1800 3200 3200 3200 1200 1200 1200 1800 1800 1800 3200 3200 3200 1200 1200 1200 1800 1800 1800 3200 3200 3200 Takt time Operator Requirement Batch Size From Arena (4h/1 line) 96 96 96 64 64 64 36 36 36 48 48 48 32 32 32 18 18 18 96 96 96 64 64 64 36 36 36 48 48 48 32 32 32 18 18 18 96 96 96 64 64 64 36 36 36 48 48 48 32 32 32 18 18 18 92 92 92 140 140 140 220 220 220 88 88 88 122 122 122 204 204 204 100 100 100 128 128 128 200 200 200 80 80 80 114 114 114 190 190 190 120 120 120 140 140 140 240 240 240 92 92 92 130 130 130 224 224 224 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 131 122 96 173 166 136 331 332 304 223 222 196 362 362 332 671 670 668 132 128 104 197 194 164 350 350 332 263 262 244 394 394 376 700 698 696 131 126 104 197 188 160 350 348 328 184 184 164 354 352 336 700 698 688 PPH Total Stitching (Pairs/Person/Hour) Process (8h/Whole Line) 1048 11.39 976 10.61 768 8.35 1384 9.89 1328 9.49 1088 7.77 2648 12.04 2656 12.07 2432 11.05 892 10.14 888 10.09 784 8.91 1448 11.87 1448 11.87 1328 10.89 2684 13.16 2680 13.14 2672 13.10 1056 10.56 1024 10.24 832 8.32 1576 12.31 1552 12.13 1312 10.25 2800 14.00 2800 14.00 2656 13.28 1052 13.15 1048 13.10 976 12.20 1576 13.82 1576 13.82 1504 13.19 2800 14.74 2792 14.69 2784 14.65 1048 8.73 1008 8.40 832 6.93 1576 11.26 1504 10.74 1280 9.14 2800 11.67 2784 11.60 2624 10.93 736 8.00 736 8.00 656 7.13 1416 10.89 1408 10.83 1344 10.34 2800 12.50 2792 12.46 2752 12.29 58 APPENDIX D Bonding result of assembly and stock fit combination