Thesis Group 1 - Productivity

1

2

Chapter-1 Introduction 1.1

Introduction In recent years, readymade garments (RMG) has emerged as one of the largest

industrial sector in Bangladesh. RMG sector has been playing a significant role in the economic growth of Bangladesh for the last two decades and it has become the biggest earner of foreign currency. Bangladesh is the second largest exporter of RMG products trailing China. Now a days the RMG industries require to increase the productivity to meet the customer demand which is growing in a large scale locally and internationally [Mckinsey Report (2011)]. Therefore, various effective productivity improvement tools and technique are used by RMG industries to improve their productivity to a desired level by the maximum utilization of the available resources without hampering the product quality. RMG sector has a great contribution to the economy of Bangladesh not only in terms of foreign exchange earnings but also provide solution to employment generation, poverty alleviation and empowering the women. Being labour incentive industries, the productivity of RMG factories are highly influenced by labour efficiency [Islama 2013]. According to some experts, RMG industries in Srilanka operate at more than two times efficiency as compare to Bangladeshi industries with a very few exceptions by maintaining higher labour efficiency, bottleneck and wastage reduction [Shumon et al. 2010]. The fast changing economic conditions such as global competition, declining profit margin, demand for quality product, product variety and reduced lead time etc. have major impacts on the productivity of RMG industries. For any industry, cost and time related to 3

production and quality management or wastages reductions have important impact on overall factory economy. As productivity measures how well the resources are utilized to produce maximum amount of output, researches have been done by many researchers to improve the productivity through various tools and techniques or performance parameters. Therefore, the RMG industries in Bangladesh need to increase the productivity through implementing several effective tools like time studies, line balancing and root-cause diagram analysis. These are designed to improve the performance or productivity to a desired level. Although various researches have been carried out in large and small extent in RMG sector, this project work will provide suggestive remarks to the RMG industries about productivity improvement and cost reduction along with the implemented tools.

4

Chapter-2 Literature Review 2.1

Literature Review Productivity is a basic measure of performance for economics, industries, firms

and processes. It is the relationship between the output generated by a production or service system and the input provided to create this output. Productivity is the value of outputs (services and products) produced divided by the values of input resources used [Krajewski and Ritzman 2008]. In RMG sector, productivity improvement is defined as the improvement of the production time and reduction of the wastage. Sometimes specific problems such as setup time, machine changing time, operator skill and efficiency also effect the plant productivity. Among various techniques of improving productivity, time study, motion study and line balancing can be used to raise the productivity to a certain level by monitoring the performance of the system. In Bangladeshi apparel industries, 22% labor productivity was increased by applying line balancing technique [Rezaul Hasan et al. 2010]. A garment production system is defined as a manufacturing system in which fabric is being converted into garment. Production systems can be categorized into different types according to their specific characteristics. Among the various production systems progressive bundle system and one piece flow system are most frequently used in the readymade garments industries. Achieving one piece flow is extremely difficult and requires a highly refined process and very specific conditions. In most manufacturing operations utilizing one-piece flow, a single piece is placed between the workstations, allowing for minor variance in each worker‟s cycle time without causing waiting time. The cycle time balance between the operations needs to be exceptionally high otherwise uneven work times will create waiting time and overproduction. In case of Bangladeshi RMG industries, single product line balancing proposed to use the new production system

5

that combines traditional and modern modular manufacturing systems both together in order to improve the productivity [Shumon et al. 2010]. Facility layout is defined as the effective utilization and arrangement of space, equipment and people in order to maintain the efficient flow of information, material and people to ensure the employees morale and customer satisfaction [Heizer and Render 2007].A balanced layout is significantly important for the overall plant improvement. Layouts can be classified into four classes such as product layout, process layout, group technology layout and fixed position layout. Among those product layout is most commonly found in RMG industries. A product layout which is also called a flow-shop layout in which equipment or work processes are arranged according to the progressive steps by which the product is made. The path for each part is, in effect, a straight line. Product oriented layout are organized around products or families of similar high volume, low-variety products [Heizer and Render 2007]. Although minimal material handling is required, the machines are inflexible and one or very few product can be produced on them. This type of layout change carried out by Henry Ford drastically reduced the car production lead time. In product oriented layout large batches can be produced inexpensively. For this reason, it is suitable for RMG industries where similar products of high volume are produced. Now the advantages of product layout are as follows.  Lower total flow time or production time  Higher rate of output due to Continuous flow without intermediate stoppages and storages and minimum set-up times of machines  Production planning and control is simple and less paper work  Less material handling cost  Production floor or space requirement is less Besides, the disadvantages of product layout are as follows,  Less flexibility to changes  None or very little variety possible  Duplication of the processing equipment and machine tool  More investment cost

6

Flow pattern can be categorized into straight line (chain), U-shaped, convoluted, circular and zigzag type. Types of the flow pattern depend on the product to be made. Sometimes U-shaped product layout is used to improve the material flow across the entire production line of RMG industries. U-shaped product layout minimizes the idle time and balance the workload among the work stations [Wain wright 1998]. Design of the workstation layout widely vary from one operation to another depending on size of work, number of components to be worked on and type of machine to handle during operation[Shumon et al .2013]. In Chinese manufacturing workshops, facility lean layout system of a production line was researched and designed to improve the production efficiency [Zhenyuan and Xiaohong 2011]. An efficient layout in Indian plant could help to reduce the production cycles, work-in-progress, idle times, number of bottlenecks, material handling times and increase the productivity [Vaidya et al. 2013].In case of RMG industries of Bangladesh, balanced layout model has increased the efficiency by 21%, and labor productivity by 22%.[Rezaul Hasan et al. 2010].

2.1.1

Productivity Improvement Techniques Improving productivity means improving efficiency and higher productivity

ensures higher profit margin of a business [Heizer and Render 2008]. The improvement can be achieved in two ways: keeping the input of the production system constant while increasing the output or reducing the input of the production system while keeping output constant [Heizer and Render 2008].Productivity improvement depend on three variables such as labour, capital and management and this variables are critical to improved productivity. Machine productivity as well as labour productivity increases when a factory efficiently utilizes the available resources to produce more output. In case of RMG industries, production time is improved by reducing the idle time or by utilizing the available resource efficiently in order to improve the productivity. Some potential factor which can affect the improvement of productivity are machine break down, machine set up time, imbalanced line, continuous feeding to the line, quality problems, performance level and absenteeism of workers etc. Productivity of a RMG industry can be improved by following steps [Babu 2011] :

7

 Conduction of motion study and correction of faulty motions  Checking hourly worker‟s capacity and cycle time reduction  Conduction of research and development for the garment  Use of best possible line layout  Use of scientific work station layout  Reduction of line setting time  Improvement of line balancing  Use of work aids, attachments, guides, correct pressure foots and folders  Continuous feeding to the sewing line  Feeding fault free and precise cutting to the line  Training for line supervisors  Training to sewing operators  Setting individual target for workers  Eliminating loss time and off-standard time of workers  Using real time shop floor data tracking system  Using auto trimmer sewing machine  Installing better and workable equipment  Inline quality inspection at regular interval  Motivation to the workers and ensure other required facilities  Planning for incentive scheme to the workers

8

 Using CAD and CAM integrated manufacturing system [Shumon et al.2013] Production line efficiency is critical to the productivity of RMG industries. Production line efficiency can be improved by the following ways:  Training of the workers to improve their skill  Work utilization or balancing of the lines  Offering performance incentives to the workers [Shumon et al.2013] In short, production line efficiency or improvement of productivity can provide some certain benefits to the organizations by performing the following activities such as:  Reduce the manufacturing and operational cost  Product cost is more accurate based on the order quantity  Motivate the employees through the sharing of profit which was earned due to the improvement of productivity  Maximize the utilization of available resources  Increase the capacity of the organization to expand their operation [Shumon et al.2014]

2.1.2

Time and Motion Study Time study is considered to be one of the most widely used means of work

measurement .Time study procedure involves timing a sample of a worker „s performance and using it to set a standard [Heizer and Render 2008]. The worker sample can be selected from a single facility or it may be a composite sample selected from several facility [Philip Vaccaro 2011].

Time study is a work measurement technique for

recording the times of performing a certain specific job or its elements carried out under specified conditions, and for analyzing the data to obtain the time necessary for an operator to carry it out at a defined rate of performance [Shumon et al.2013].It is the application of a scientific method of determining process times using data collection and statistical

9

analysis. This study is concerned with the establishment of time standards for a worker to perform a specified job at a defined level of performance. It was originally proposed by [Fredrick Taylor 1881] and was modified to include a performance rating adjustment. Taylor used the most qualified worker to establish the standard working time and educating the rest of workers to carry out the tasks in the same manner. There are some common methods of work measurement such as direct time study, predetermined time study and work sampling etc. Among various methods of work measurement time study by stopwatch is considered to be one of the most widely used means of work measurement which is often referred as direct time study. Time study leads to the establishment of work standard. Development of time standard involves calculation of three times such as observed time (OT) or cycle time (CT), normal time (NT) or basic time (BT) and standard time (ST). The basics steps in a time study are Define the task to be studied  Divide the task into precise elements  Decide how many times to measure the task  Record element times and rating of performance  Compute average observed time by using the appropriate formula  Determine performance rating and normal time  Add the normal times for each element to develop the total normal time for the task  Compute the standard time which is also known SMV or standard minute value [Heizer and Render 2008] When observed times are not consistent, they need to be reviewed. Abnormally short or long times may be the result of an observational error and are usually discarded. Normal times (NT) are sometimes computed for each element of a job because the performance rating may vary for each element. In other words, the same worker may be fast on some tasks but slow or average on other tasks [Philip Vaccaro 2011]. Time study helps a manufacturing company to understand its production, investigate the level of individual skill, planning and production control system etc. One problem of time study is the Hawthorne effect where it is found that employees change their behavior when they come to know that they are being measured [Jannat et al. 2009]. Observations are to be made in

10

a non-intrusive manner so as not to distort employee normal work patterns [Philip Vaccaro 2011]. Standard allowed time (SAM) or Standard minute value (SMV) is used to measure task or work content of a garment. This term is widely used by industrial engineers and production people in manufacturing engineering. Standard allowed minute of an operation is the sum of three different parameters such as machine time, material handling (with personal allowances) time and bundle time [Babu 2011]. Material handling and bundle time is calculated by motion analysis. Besides, General sewing data (GSD) is a predetermined time standard (PTS) based time measuring system which has defined a set of codes for motion data for SAM calculation. Time study was done in a Bangladeshi furniture industry to measure the standard time for manufacturing of products [Jannat et al. 2009]. Motion study offer a great potential for saving any areas of human effort and reduce the cost by combining the elements of one task with elements of another. It involves the analysis of the basic hand, arm and body movements of workers as they perform work. Motion study uses the principles of motion economy to develop the work stations that are friendly to the human body and efficient in their operation. This study is used to develop the best work method and create motion consciousness on the part of all employees by developing economical and efficient tools, fixtures and production aids. In RMG industries the purpose of motion study is to analyse the motions of the operator‟s hand, leg, shoulder and eyes in a single motion of work or in a single operation cycle, so that unless motions can be eliminated. Motion study was first introduced to look at how body motions were used in the process of completing a job by using camera [Frank and Lillian Gilbreth 1885].This concept provide smooth and easy motion to improve capability of performer and get more output of time investment done by the particular resource towards their given tasks. So, it is vital to analyze the movement of workers and eliminate the unwanted motions, which lead increased worker‟s efficiency and improved productivity in a firm.

2.1.3

Assembly Line Balancing

11

Assembly Line Balancing (ALB) is the term commonly used to refer to the decision process of assigning tasks to workstations in a serial production system. Line balancing is an optimum distribution of the workload evenly across all process in a cell or value stream to remove bottleneck or excess capacity [Kumar and Mahto 2013]. It is the assignment of work to stations in a line so as to achieve the desired output rate with the smallest number of workstations [Krajewski and Ritzman 2008] .Line balancing is one of the most common optimization technique which is used to allocate task of workers in different workstation in order to increase productivity. The main goals of assembly line balancing are minimization of the workstation and maximization of the production rate. Line balancing involves assigning and balancing tasks between workstations of the assembly line in order to minimise balance delay, labour force and ultimately maximising the total production [Lim Chuan Pei 2002]. In assembly line balancing, allocation of jobs to machines is based on the objective of minimizing the workflow among the operators, reducing the throughput time as well as increasing productivity [Senem Kursun 2011]. In Indian manufacturing industries, assembly line balancing minimized the total equipment cost and number of work stations. Thus, it helped to maximize the production rate in the industry [Kumar and Mahto 2013].Assembly line can be categorized into single model assembly line, mixed model assembly line and multi model assembly line as the following Fig 2.1

(a) Single Model Assembly Line

(b) Mixed Model Assembly Line

Set up

Set up

(c) Multi Model Assembly Line

12

Fig. 2.1 Assembly lines for single and multiple products [Amardeep et al. 2013] Single model represents a type of assembly line where product is assigned in the same direction from the certain set up and won't variant it's setup .This assembly system is called single model assembly line .The goal of single model assembly line are minimizing thecycle time . Mixed model assembly line was first developed by the help of heuristic model [Thompoulos 1960]. A mixed model assembly line produces several items belonging to same family. In contrast single model assembly line produces one type of product with no variation but mixed enables a plant to achieve both high volume production and product variety .However, it complicates scheduling and increases the need for good communication about the specific parts to be produced at each station and minimizing the number of station[Kumar and Mahto 2013]. Multi model assembly line is the combination of simple and mixed model assembly line. In this model the uniformity of the assembled products and the production system is not that much sufficient to accept the enabling of the product and the production levels. To reduce the time and money this assembly is arranged in batches, and this allows the short term lot-sizing issues which made in groups of the models to batches and the result will be on the assembly levels. The line balancing method sometime s causes an unequal time assignments .The U shaped layout which is assigned by standard task helps to solve these unequal time assignments situations .In line balancing U shaped cells avoid constant displacement to the start of the line and solve money of the distribution problem. It improves the tasks assignment by offering production rate flexibility. The number of workers assigned can be changed at any time. It makes easy to adapt the cycle time to the tack time without rearranging the task assignments [Iqbal et al. 2013].

13

S1

S2

S3

S4 S7

S5

S6

Fig.2.2 U-shaped assembly line A sequence of operations is involved in making a garment. In bulk garment production, generally a team works in an assembly line (Progressive Bundle system) and each operator does one operation and passes it to other operator to do the next operation. In this way garment finally reaches to the end of the line as a completed garment. In the assembly line after some time of the line setting, it is found that at some places in the line, work is started to pile up and few operators sit idle due to unavailability of work [Shumon et al. 2013]. This type of situation is known as bottleneck. So, bottleneck can be defined as delay in transmission that causes slow production rate. When this situation happens in the line it is called an imbalanced line. Normally it happens due to two main reasons which are variation in work content (time needed to do an operation) in different operations and operator‟s performance level. To identify the location of bottleneck and eliminate them line balancing is important [Kumar and Mahto 2013]. A well-balanced assembly line reduces wastes, such as operator idleness, the need of fluctuating operators, stock, and faulty products, it also decreases the production costs of the unit for the company and allows the company to reduce the price of their products. To meet the production target, maintaining level work flow in the line is very essential. So it is very important to know the basics of quick line balancing. Line balancing can be classified as follows [Babu 2011]:  Initial balancing: The sequence of operations of a garment is analyzed and the Standard Minute Values (SMV) is allocated. The SMVs are determined by most manufacturers using standard databases available whereas some companies use their own databases based on past experience and using time studies.

14

 Rebalancing: This is performed after few hours while the whole line is completely laid down and may be performed several times in order to make the material flow with the least bottle necks in the line. Capacity studies conducted on the line also help the line balancing process.  Reactive balancing: Despite the production line being balanced, spontaneous variations are inevitable due to problems on the line. Reactive balancing is often done due to machine break downs, operator absenteeism, quality defects and shortages. The operators or the machines are moved to the bottleneck until the severity of the problem is concealed. These types of line balancing process are very common in the RMG industry.  Late hour balancing: In order to fulfill the daily demanded output from a production line the upstream operators are moved to the line end by the supervisors of some garment manufacturing companies. This happens unofficially but not uncommon and makes the line unbalanced in the next day especially in early hours. The downstream operators are waiting to receive garment pieces resulting extremely low output in early hours. The proposed manufacturing cells for garment manufacturing totally oppose late hour balancing and only initial balancing can give the preeminent result. In Indian industries, assembly line was designed with a number of operations by simulation and heuristic method to minimize the balancing loss and system loss. [Roy and Khan 2010].

2.1.4

Fishbone analysis Resembling the skeleton of a fish, the Fishbone Diagram is an analysis tool

invented by Dr. Kaoru Ishikawa, a Japanese quality control statistician. Sometimes referred to as a Cause-and-Effect Diagram, the Fishbone Diagram provides a systematic way of looking at effects and the causes that create or contribute to those effects. The fishbone diagram is a tool to evaluate the business process and its effectiveness. The purpose of the Fishbone Diagram is to help teams categorize the many potential causes of problems or issues in an orderly way. It also helps in determining root causes. Essentially, this analysis breaks the “whole” into “parts.” Fishbone Diagrams are helpful in clearly

15

breaking down the relationship between a topic and all of the possible factors that are related to it. A root-cause analysis (RCA) investigation traces the cause and effect trail from the end failure back to the root cause [Mahto and Kumar 2008]. In short, the user asks “why” to a problem and its answer five successive times. There are normally a series of root causes stemming from one problem, and they can be visualized using fishbone diagrams or tables [Gautam et al. 2012]. When used as a Cause-and-Effect Diagram, a Fishbone Diagram can represent the amount of influence of each cause. Fishbone analysis was also practiced for the analysis of the probabilities and the impact which allow determining the risk score for each category of causes as well as the global risk [Ilie and Ciocoiu 2010]. Root-cause analysis was done to identify the defects and eliminates those defects in cutting operation in CNC oxy flame cutting machine [Kumar and Mahto 2008]. In RMG industries, it is essential to identify various problem areas for productivity improvement, by applying fishbone analysis it become easier to identify the roots of the problems.

2.1.5

SWOT Analysis The SWOT analysis is an extremely useful tool for understanding and decision-

making for all sorts of situations in business and organizations. SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. SWOT analysis is a subjective assessment of data which is organized into a logical order that helps understanding, presentation, discussion and decision-making. It provides a framework for analysing a company's strengths and weaknesses, and the opportunities and threats it faces.This analysis can be carried out for a product, place, industry or person. A SWOT analysis enables firms to identify factors which need to be taken into account when developing marketing and corporate strategy. The objectives of the firm or industry should be determined after the SWOT analysis has been performed. This would allow the organization to achieve the goals or objectives [Philip and Koshy 2012].In this analysis strengths and weaknesses, are 'mapped' or 'graphed' against opportunities and threats.

16



Strengths refer to the areas of high importance which provide a business or project significant advantages over others



Weaknesses refer to the characteristics or the areas which provide disadvantages and require immediate actions



Opportunities are the elements those should be further implemented and exploited to achieve the desired performance



Threats refer to the elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the business or project SWOT analysis aims to identify the key internal and external factors seen as

important to achieving an objective. The factors come from within a company's unique value chain. Internal factors – the strengths and weaknesses internal to the organization. External factors – the opportunities and threats presented by the environment external to the organization. The SWOT analysis provides information that is helpful in matching the firm's resources and capabilities to the competitive environment in which it operates. In India, SWOT analysis was practiced to throw light on its present retail scenario and to identify weakness such as multi-diversified business, no bargaining markets etc. and various threats such as increasing competitors, government and local policies, unrecognized modern retailing etc. The analysis also discussed some customercentric initiatives to be taken in future by the retailers [Archana 2012]. SWOT analysis also identified the weakness such as poor infra-structure, poor quality standards, less productivity, unstable political situation etc. in the Pakistan‟s textile industries and recommended alternative solutions and remedies to make the industries more competitive and efficient against its biggest challengers and competitors [Akhlaq 2009]. SWOT analysis helped to identify the strengths challenges, opportunities and threats of RMG sector in Bangladesh. According to the analysis, many problem areas were identified in the mill which is related to the global challenges of textile industry such as high prices of quality products, high rated gas, electricity and oil prices, political unrest and inadequate sales center for the local market etc. [Mustafa 2006]. Textile industries of

17

Bangladesh must need to overcome these challenges to expand its market growth locally and internationally. RMG industry is the most important sector for the economy of Bangladesh. It accounts for 75.14% in 2000-2001 of the country‟s total export earnings [BGMEA Newsletter 2001] About 1.5 million workers of whom 90% are distressed women are engaged in about 3200 garment factories [Faraha 2013].Those refer to the strong points of RMG industries. It is largest manufacturing sector contributing about 5% to the GDP. But this RMG sector is now facing some challenges especially after 2004.RMG industries still face problems to increase their productivity to a certain level and reduce the wastage to produce quality product. RMG is vital sector in Bangladesh economy and SWOT analysis should be done on RMG industries to recognize the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats for the improvement of the productivity.

2.2

Objectives of the Present Work The objectives of the present work are as follows:  Observation of cycle time during garment making and calculation of standard minute value (SMV) for garments manufacturing by considering allowances in different RMG industries.  Assessment of existing capacity and productivity of selected RMG industries in Bangladesh by considering calculated SMV.  Identification of bottlenecks in process and it‟s minimization through line balancing.  Identification of problem areas for less production, more wastage and higher cost through fishbone diagram analysis in RMG industries.  Comparison of labor efficiency, production line efficiency and factory efficiency among the large and small industries.

18

2.3

Outlines of the Methodology The methodologies are as follows:  Four readymade garment (RMG) industries of Bangladesh (Appendix-A) have been selected to carry out this research work. During this research work, the total SMV of a specific production line for a specific product is calculated from the cycle time for each process by using time study method. Production capacity and worker efficiency for specific processes are calculated by using SMV (AppendixB). Then a benchmark target is selected is for line balancing  Line balancing technique is applied for four selected production lines and those lines are balanced (Appendix-C) considering existing capacity of the process. Labor force is allocated in a balanced way and improved final capacity is proposed for each process. Finally, new balanced production line layout is proposed to improve the productivity in RMG industries of Bangladesh  The potential reasons or causes which ultimately lead to less productivity are analyzed, illustrated and represented by fishbone diagram  SWOT analysis is carried out to to identify the strengths, challenges, opportunities and threats of selected RMG industries  One structured questionnaire (Appendix-E) was also used to conduct a survey on 100 production people in the RMG industries to identify other factors those are indirectly related to the productivity.

19

2.4

Scope of the Thesis

The purpose of this work was to improve the productivity by applying line balancing method to eliminate the unbalanced line.In this report, various types of relevant contents such as introduction, literature review, research objectives and methodology, data analysis and results, discussion on results and conclusion with scopes for future work are arranged chapter wise here. Chapter 1 contains the introduction part of the research report. Chapter 2 includes literature review, research objectives and outlines of the methodology. Chapter 3 consists of various types of collected data and their analysis with required graphs.

20

Chapter 4 discusses the results time study and line balancing result and provide effective suggestion. This chapter also discusses about the comparisons between existing and proposed situation of the RMG industries to evaluate the improvements due to the application of various tool and technique. Chapter 5 contains conclusion part of the research report which is followed by scopes for future work.

21

Chapter-3 Data Analysis and Results 3.1

Time Studies Time study can be defined as the methodology used to determine the standard

minute value (SMV) for an operation. Standard minute value (SMV) means the time that a qualified worker needs to carry out a specific task, working in a normal rhythm during a work day. Standard minute value (SMV) establishment has other important utilities. It is used to compare different work methods and to optimize the number of workers required achieve a schedule knowing the production cost. In this work, SMV was calculated for individual tasks of the several production line by time studies Time study is not only a technical problem of measuring the time. Human behavior can contribute significantly to the process and the operator can speed up or slowdown. It is very essential to Understand and assess the operator which is a basic requirement for a successful time study. It is necessary to clarify that the goal is to determine the standard time, not the time that the worker is really using during the observation. During this work, standard minute value (SMV) is generated by adding some allowance factor with the basic time. Basic time is calculated by multiplying the workers performance rating with the cycle time. During this project work, the procedure was repeated for all operations in a production line and cycle time was measured accordingly. In work measurement, it is very important to measure the performance rating of the worker, whose job is measured. According to International labor organization (ILO), rating is the measurement of the worker‟s rate of working relative to the observer‟s concept of the rate corresponding to the standard pace. The performance rating scale of the worker ranges from 0-100 (whereas 0 for no activity and 100 for standard performance) based on British Standard Institute (BSI) and ILO. There are some allowance factors which are necessary to take into account such as bundle allowance, machine allowance and some personnel allowance such as personal necessities which vary

22

between 5%-7% and basic fatigue caused by environmental condition or process characteristics is generally less than 4%[Iqbal et al.2013]. Due to the complexity of determining the value of all the suitable allowances a fixed allowance factor is frequently used which oscillates between 13% and 15%. For this work, allowance factor was considered from 15%-20% based on machine, personal and bundle allowance according to paper presented [Shumon et al. 2010]. Table 3.1 shows the average workers‟ performance rating and allowance factor which are assumed in this work. Equation (1.1) and (1.2) are used to calculate the SMV and basic time for the four products. Table 3.1 Product category with workers‟ performance rating and allowance factor Product Product-1 Product-2 Product-3 Product-4

Product Name Ladies Tank Top Mens Tee Shirt Mens Polo Shirt Mens Half Shirt

Average Worker‟s Performance Rating 90% 90% 75% 75%

Allowance Factor 15% 15% 20% 20%

SMV for individual process= Basic time (1 + Allowance factor)

[3.1]

Basic time  Cycle time X Performance rating

[3.2]

Process capacity and worker‟s efficiency were also determined by using SMV. Capacity of every process and working efficiency of all operators and helpers in a line were calculated by using Equation (1.3) and (1.4). Equation (1.5), (1.6) and (1.7) were used for the calculation of production line efficiency: Capacity/hour (Pieces) 

Worker's efficiency 

Line efficiency 

Total workforce Total minutes attended SMV

Total minutes produced  100 Total minutes attended

Total output (minutes)  100 Total input (minutes)

[3.3]

[3.4]

[3.5]

Total output (minutes)  Total output (piece) per day  SMV

[3.6]

Total input (minutes)  Total workforceper day  Total minutes attended

[3.7]

23

Waiting time can be calculated by using Equation (3.8). Equation (3.9), (3.10) and (3.11) were used to calculate the man-machine ratio, labor productivity and machine productivity respectively.

Waiting time/hr/l ine  Process capacity - Actual output  SMV Man to machine ratio 

[3.8]

Total workforce Total no. of available machines

Labor productivity/day/line 

[3.9]

Total output (Pieces) Total workforce

Machine productivity/day/line 

[3.10]

Total output (Pieces) Total no. of machines

[3.11]

The data for existing production (pieces per hour) and cycle time (min) of different products have been collected from four selected RMG industries (as shown in Appendix-A and Appendix-B). Fig.3.1and Fig.3.2 shows the variation of existing production and cycle time with that of process number for different products.

Existing Production (Pieces/hour)

150

Product-1 Product-2 Product-3 Product-4

140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Process Number

35

40

45

50

Fig.3.1 Variation of existing production with process number for different products

24

1.2 Product-1 Product-2 Product-3 Product-4

Existing Cycle Time (min)

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Process Number

35

40

45

50

Fig.3.2 Variation of existing cycle time with process number for different products Based on collected data, SMV, production capacity and waiting time have been calculated (Appendix-C) and the variation of SMV, production capacity and waiting time with process number for different product are shown in Fig.3.3, Fig.3.4 and Fig.3.5.

Standard Minute Value (SMV)

1.4

Product-1 Product-2 Product-3 Product-4

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Process Number

35

40

45

Fig.3.3 Variation of SMV with process number for different products

25

50

Calculated Production (Pieces per hour)

800

Product-1 Product-2 Product-3 Product-4

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Process Number

35

40

45

50

Fig.3.4 Variation of calculated production with process number for different products

110

Product-1 Product-2 Product-3 Product-4

100

Waiting Time (min)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Process Number

35

40

45

Fig.3.5 Variation of waiting time with process number for different products

26

50

3.2

Production Lines Balancing An assembly line is defined as a set of distinct tasks which is assigned to a set of

workstations linked together by a transport mechanism under detailed assembling sequences specifying how the assembling process flows from one station to another [Tyler 1991]. In assembly line balancing, allocation of jobs to machines is based on the objective of minimizing the workflow among the operators, reducing the throughput time as well as the work in progress and thus increasing the productivity [Senem Kursun 2011]. Line balancing aims to match the output rate to the production plan. This will assist management in ensuring on-time delivery and prevents buildup of unwanted inventory [Lim chun

2002]. Line balancing is an effective technique to distribute balanced

workload among the workers in a production line and to maintain uniform production flow. By line balancing selected production lines were balanced considering identified bottlenecks and waiting time in where the balancing process has shared the excess time in the bottleneck process after achieving its benchmarked target production. For line balancing work sharing distance, type of machine and worker‟s efficiency have been taken into consideration. According to [Shumon et al. (2010)], the benchmarked production target is assumed to be 80% for RMG. After line balancing new manpower setup is proposed and final capacity of each process is also reallocated. Finally, a new production layout is modeled with the balanced capacity. Equation (1.12) is used to calculate the theoretical manpower. The data required for line balancing of four products are shown in Table 3.2. Theoretica l manpower =

Benchmarke d target capacity/hour/line Process capacity/hour/line

[1.12]

Table 3.2 Required data for line balancing of four products Parameter

Product-1

Product-2

Product-3

Product-4

Total SMV Calculated production capacity at 100% efficiency Calculated production capacity at 80% efficiency (benchmarked production target)

7.1

9.4

10.2

15

245

172

241

212

196

138

193

170

After line balancing, production capacity is balanced and waiting time of the processes is reduced. After line balancing SMV, calculated production and waiting time 27

for four products are changed and shown in Fig.3.6, Fig.3.7 and Fig.3.8. Besides, for four products comparisons are made among the existing process capacity, benchmarked target and proposed capacity as shown in Fig.3.9, Fig.3.10, Fig.3.11 and Fig.3.12 respectively.

Standard Minute Value (SMV)

1.4

Product-1 Product-2 Product-3 Product-4

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0

Fig.3.6

5

10

15

20

25

30

Process Number

35

40

Variation of SMV with process number after line balancing

28

45

50

Calculated Production (Pieces per hour)

800

Product-1 Product-2 Product-3 Product-4

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Process Number Fig.3.7 Variation of calculated production with process number after line balancing

110 100

Product-1 Product-2 Product-3 Product-4

Waiting Time (min)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Process Number

35

40

45

Fig.3.8 Variation of waiting time with process number after line balancing

29

50

700

Capacity per hour

Benchmarked target Existing Proposed

Production (Pieces per hour)

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Process Number Fig.3.9

Variation in production with process number under different condition for product-1

Production (Pieces per hour)

400

Capacity per hour Benchmarked target Existing Proposed

300

200

100

0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Process Number Fig.3.10 Variation in production with process number under different condition for product-2

30

Production (Pieces per hour)

1600

Capacity per hour Benchmarked target Existing Proposed

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Process Number

Fig.3.11 Variation in production with process number under different condition for product-3 800

Capacity per hour Benchmarked target Existing Proposed

Production (Pieces per hour)

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Process Number

31

35

40

45

50

Fig.3.12 Variation in production with process number under different condition for product-4

3.3

Fishbone Diagram Analysis Fishbone diagram is a tool for analyzing and illustrating the process by showing

the main causes and sub-causes leading to an effect. The problem areas in RMG industries were closely noticed and identified during working time in the production floors and after discussion with the supervisors, operators and helpers in the industries. In this work, different problem areas for less productivity, more wastage and more production time are found in RMG industries are shown in Fig.3.13

32

Fig.3.13

Fishbone diagram for less productivity, more wastage and more production time in RMG industries

33

Chapter-4 Discussion on Results 4.1

Production Lines Balancing Fig.3.1 shows the variation of existing production with process number for

different products in where the production is decreased after some processes and becomes constant. Fig.3.2 shows the variation of existing cycle time with process number for four different production lines in where cycle time is slight to moderate fluctuated for first three products and for product-4 the cycle time is fluctuated more. So, time study and line balancing is necessary to apply to increase the production. Fig.3.3 shows the standard minute value (SMV) with process number for variety of products after time study. In the figure, the variation in process wise SMV for manufacturing of product-1, 2 and 3 are found similar with few exceptions. But, large variation in SMV is found for manufacturing of product-4 due to having many critical operations in the line as compare to other production lines. Fig.3.4 represents the variation of calculated production with process number for different products manufacturing in where production capacity is fluctuated more in case of product-1, 2 and 3. But, more variations in capacity are found in manufacturing of product-4, because of processes having huge variation in SMV. In case of all types of products, higher and lower process SMV results variations in the waiting time and process bottlenecks, those finally affect the efficiency and productivity of the lines. In case of four products, variations in production capacity leads more waiting time and bottlenecks in the processes according to Fig.3.5, those must be reduced to improve the line efficiency and productivity. Fig.3.7 shows the variation of calculated production with process number after line balancing in where process wise production capacity is balanced and fluctuated less as

34

compare to Fig.3.4. As a result, waiting time in the processes is reduced according to Fig.3.8 due to work sharing among the processes. Though, production lines still contain some variations in process capacity and waiting time that can also be reduced by adding extra manpower and machine in the line and to do this will add more cost to the manufacturing. Finally, process wise SMV is decreased to increase the production rate according to Fig.3.6 in where the standard minute value is fluctuated less after line balancing for four products. In this work, all graphs have shown the results at 80% benchmarked production target to decrease the waiting time and increase the productivity. For the change of further benchmarked target of production the graphs will show different results. After balancing four production lines a comparison is made between existing and proposed system to observe the variations of various parameters like productivity, production time etc. as shown in Table 4.1, Table 4.2, Table 4.3 and Table 4.4. Table 4.1 Percentage of variation of various parameters after line balancing of product-1 Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 7 8 9 10

Parameters Manpower Work Stations Machine Man Machine Ratio Output/Hour/Line (pieces) Labour Productivity Machine Productivity Line Efficiency (%)

Line Balancing Before After 29 29 14 2.1 120 41.4 85.7 49

27 26 15 1.7 196 72.6 130.7 86

% of Variation -7.0 -10.3 +7.1 -19.0 +63.3 +75.4 +52.5 +75.5

After line balancing 10.3% work stations and 7% manpower (3 helpers) are decreased from the production line. This reduced manpower may be shifted to another production line to decrease the total labor cost. Fig.3.9 shows some variations in the existing process capacity as compare to the benchmarked target and the lower capacity from the benchmarked target is identified as the bottleneck process as production flow would be trapped at those points. Comparing with the 80% bench marked production target, process no.-7, 11, 13, 17, 18, 21, 23, 24 and 26 (Appendix-C) are identified as bottleneck process in where total production has been blocked and large work in process has been stuck at those processes. Line balancing is an efficient method to make the production flow almost smoother while compare to the existing layout. Workers having

35

extra time after completing their regular works can share works with other work stations containing bottlenecks. In case of product-1, production line was found with bottleneck processes which have been balanced through sharing of works by the process no.-2, 6, 8, 19, 20, 22 and 25 (Appendix-C). Fig.3.9 also shows process wise proposed capacity per hour after balancing all processes. Besides, for the removal of process bottlenecks and to maintain smooth production, it is recommended to place additional 1 operator and 1 flat lock (FL) machine in process no.-21 (Appendix-C). Man machine ratio is also decreased from 2.1 to 1.7 after balancing the processes. Finally, Labor productivity, machine productivity and line efficiency have been increased as 75.4%, 52.5% and 75.5% respectively. After line balancing outputs have been increased from 1200 to 1960 pieces a day. Before line balancing 44000 pieces of garments have been produced by 37 days where only 23 days are required to complete the same order quantity for line balancing. So, it is possible to save 14 days lead time for manufacturing of product-1 (Tank Top). Besides, it is also possible to save the working time of two helpers (600x2=1200 minutes) per day which decreases total labor cost of the industry. Table 4.2 Percentage of variation of various parameters after line balancing of product-2 Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Parameters Manpower Work Stations Machine Man Machine Ratio Output/Hour/Line (pieces) Labor Productivity Machine Productivity Line Efficiency (%)

Line Balancing Before After 27 27 19 1.42 130 48.2 68.4 75.4

26 26 19 1.37 138 53.1 72.6 83.2

% of Variation -3.7 -3.7 0 -3.5 +6.2 +10.4 +6.1 +10.3

After line balancing 3.7% work stations and manpower (1 operator) are decreased from the production line. Fig.3.10 shows some variations in the existing process capacity as compare to the benchmarked target. Comparing with the 80% bench marked production target, process no.-16 (Appendix-C) is identified as bottleneck process in where total production has been blocked and work in process has been stuck at that process. In case of product-2, production line was found with bottleneck processes which have been balanced through sharing of works by the process no.-10 (Appendix-C). Fig.3.10 also shows process wise proposed capacity per hour after balancing all processes. Man machine ratio is also decreased from 1.42 to 1.37 after line balancing. For line balancing, total waiting time is 36

decreased to 27.8% and thus, 6% production time is reduced for order completion. Finally, labor productivity, machine productivity and line efficiency have been increased as 10.4%, 6.1% and 10.3% respectively. After line balancing outputs have been increased from 1300 to 1380 pieces a day. Before line balancing 44000 pieces of garments have been produced by 34 days where 32 days are required to complete the same order quantity for line balancing. So, it is possible to save 2 days lead time for manufacturing of product-2 (TShirt). Besides, it is also possible to save the working time of one worker (600x1=600 minutes) per day which decreases total labor cost of the industry. Table 4.3 Percentage of variation of various parameters after line balancing of product-3 Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Parameters Manpower Work Stations Machine Man Machine Ratio Output/Hour/Line (pieces) Labor Productivity Machine Productivity Line Efficiency (%)

Line Balancing Before After 41 36 26 1.6 115 28 44.2 47.7

37 35 26 1.4 193 52.2 74.2 88.7

% of Variation -9.8 -2.8 0 -12.5 +67.8 +86.4 +68.0 +86.0

After line balancing, 2.8% work stations and 9.8% manpower (4 helpers) are decreased from the production line. Fig.3.11 shows some variations in the existing process capacity as compare to the benchmarked target. Comparing with 80% bench marked production target, process no.-2, 7, 14, 24, 28, 32 and 34 (Appendix-C) are identified as bottleneck processes in where total production has been blocked and work in process has been stuck at those processes. In case of product-3, production line was found with bottleneck processes which have been balanced through sharing of works by the process no.-1, 15, 19, 21, 25, 29 and 33 (Appendix-C). Fig.3.11 also shows process wise proposed capacity per hour after balancing the bottleneck processes. Man machine ratio is also decreased from 1.6 to 1.4 after balancing the processes. Finally labor productivity, machine productivity and line efficiency have been increased as 86.4%, 68% and 86% respectively. After line balancing outputs have been increased from 1150 to 1930 pieces a day. Before line balancing 14000 pieces of garments have been produced by 12.3 days whereas 7.3 days are required to complete the same order quantity for line balancing. So, it is possible to save 5 days lead time for manufacturing of product-3 (Polo Shirt). Besides, it

37

is also possible to save the working time of four workers (600x4=2400 minutes) per day which decreases total labor cost of the industry. Table 4.4 Percentage of variation of various parameters after line balancing of product-4 Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Parameters

Line Balancing Before After

Manpower Work Stations Machine Man Machine Ratio Output/Hour/Line (pieces) Labor Productivity Machine Productivity Line Efficiency (%)

53 48 30 1.8 60 11.3 20 28.3

54 44 37 1.5 170 31.5 46 78.7

% of Variation +2.0 -8.0 +23.0 -17.0 +183.0 +179.0 +130.0 +178.0

After line balancing, 23% machines are increased and 8% work stations are reduced from the production line. 6 helpers are shifted from the process no.-6, 8, 24, 30 and 38 (Appendix-C) but 7 new operators are added to the process no.-5, 10, 19, 25, 27, 33 and 39 (Appendix-C) to meet 80% benchmarked production target. So, total 2% workers are newly attached with the production line after line balancing. Fig.3.12 shows some variations in the existing process capacity as compare to the benchmarked target. Comparing with the 80% bench marked production target, process no.-5, 10, 12, 14, 25, 39 and 41(Appendix-C) are identified as bottleneck processes in where total production has been blocked and work in process has been stuck at those processes. In case of product-4, production line was found with bottleneck processes which have been balanced through sharing of works by the process no.-2, 7, 17, 23, 27, 33, 35 and 43 (Appendix-C). Fig.3.12 also shows process wise proposed capacity per hour after balancing the processes. Man machine ratio is also decreased from 1.8 to 1.5 after balancing the process. Finally labor productivity, machine productivity and line efficiency have been increased as 179%, 130% and 178% respectively. After line balancing outputs have been increased from 600 to 1700 pieces a day. Before line balancing 4000 pieces of garments have been produced by 6.7 days whereas 2.4 days are required to complete the same order quantity for line balancing. So, it is possible to save 4.3 days production lead time for manufacturing of product-4 (Men‟s half shirt). Exception is found for product-4 as production line needed to add and exchange some operators and helpers which increase the manufacturing cost about $213. It is only happened due to meet the same benchmarked production target with other three

38

products. Table 4.5 shows the percentage variation of various parameters of different production lines after line balancing. Table 4.5 Percentage variation of various parameters of different production lines after line balancing Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Parameters Manpower Work Stations Machine Man Machine Ratio (MMR) Output/Hour/Line (pieces) Labor Productivity Machine Productivity Line Efficiency (%)

Percentage variation Product-1 Product-2 Product-3 -7% -10.3% +7.1% -19% +63.3% +75.4% +52.5% +75.5%

-3.7% -3.7% 0 -3.5% +6.2% +10.4% +6.1% +10.3%

-9.8% -2.8% 0 -12.5% +67.8% +86.4% +68% +86%

Product-4 +2% -8% +23% -17% +183% +179% +130% +178%

Following points have been noted after comparing the percentage variation of various parameters of four balanced production lines: 

After line balancing total manpower is reduced for product-1, 2 and 3 but is increased for product-4 due to increase in productivity to meet the same benchmarked production target.



Total work satiations are minimized for all types of products.



Man machine ratio is decreased for all types of products.



Total waiting time and bottlenecks are minimized from four production lines in where even no bottlenecks are found to remain present in the lines for product-1 and 2.



Line efficiency, labor productivity and machine productivity are increased in momentous amount in case of product-1, 3 and 4 as compare to product-2.



For all kinds of products production lead time is reduced to deliver four products in required quantity.



To meet 80% benchmarked production target line required to add extra machine and manpower to increase the productivity. This is only happened because of having more critical and time consuming operations in the production line.

39

4.2 Fishbone Diagram Analysis

In RMG industries different problem arises from the different potential reasons or causes which ultimately lead to create an adverse effect on productivity improvement. There are eight variables such as manpower, machine, material, method, maintenance, measurement, management and environment are identified and accounted for more wastage, more production time, less productivity and higher production cost. Major problems which were focused on four RMG industries for less productivity are:

 Due to storage capacity of the raw material, defective trimming of the product, defective material choosing, wrong placement of trims are the main causes of more wastages in RMG industries.  Due to long changeover, delays from previous worker, waiting for works, waiting for instructions are the root causes of increasing waiting time in the production line.  Production time increases due to machine breakdown, idle time of machine, long time for machine repairing, needle breaking and also for wainting for mechanics.  Lack of skilled workers, lack of training facilities, lack of supervision, lack of engineer, improper workload are also causes for less productivity in RMG industries.  More waiting time and bottlenecks were resulted in the production lines, which maximized the production time and minimized the productivity.  More inspection time, lack of proper knowledge which causes improper inspection also the main reason for the wastages in RMG industries.  Workers‟ concentration towards the work is reduced due to poor ventilation and lighting facilities, which were also accountable for less productivity.

40

 Unbalanced layout, less investment, power crisis, lack of facilities, lack of motivation, narrow passage, poor maintenance of the machines are also the main causes of less productivity. 4.3

SWOT Analysis SWOT Analysis is a useful technique for understanding any industries Strengths

and Weaknesses, and for identifying both the Opportunities open to that industry and the Threats that industry might be faced in future. This type of analysis was done on the overall situation of four RMG industries to identify the strength, weakness, opportunity and threats for productivity improvement. Table 4.6 shows the SWOT analysis for productivity improvement in RMG industries. One structured questionnaire (Appendix-F) was also used to conduct a survey on 100 people including supervisors, operators and helpers of different sections in four readymade garments (RMG) industries. The aim of this survey was to study and investigate various parameters pertaining to workers‟ personal information as well as overall working environment of the industries which may have indirect impacts on the productivity of the RMG industries. After study of the questionnaire following points have been identified and recorded which may also decrease workers‟ performance as well as overall productivity of the RMG industries: 

Lack of skilled workers



Lack of provision of training facilities by the industries



Lack of consistent workers in the RMG industries



Marital status and no. of children of the workers



Lack of active baby daycare facilities



Lower salary structure and less satisfaction of the workers



Improper working conditions like ventilation and lighting

41

Table 4.6

SWOT analysis for productivity improvement in RMG industries Strengths (S)

  

Weaknesses (W)

Low-cost power generation by using gas as fuel. Cheap labor force Availability and flexibility of raw materials.

                  

Threats (T)

Less investment. Lack of training opportunities. Lack of skilled manpower. Lack of quality management Excessive defects and more re-work. More waiting time and too much bottlenecks. Lack of engineering. More production time. Imbalanced work load distribution Long changeover time. Purchasing of wrong materials. Lack of supervision. Poor salary structure of workers. Lack of worker‟s motivation. Lack of incentive scheme. Poor working conditions. Lack of lighting and ventilation facility No or improper IE dept. Lack of new technologies and layout. Opportunities (O)

 Rapid technological growth from outside.  Competition with other existing and upcoming global market.  Political imbalance.  Labor unrest.  Interrupted utility supply.  Infrastructural bottleneck.

 Implementing the new methods.  Increase of customer relation.  More production orders from customers.  Increase of business growth in global market especially in USA, Canada, and Australia and EU countries.  Export opportunity in Japan and CIS countries.  Increase of profit margin.

42

Chapter-5 Conclusions and Recommendation 5.1

Conclusions By the time study, SMV and production capacity of the processes were calculated

separately (Appendix-B) for four different production lines. Line balancing has decreased 3-10% workforce for product-1, 2 and 3 but 2% workforce had to increase for product-4 to meet the same benchmarked production target. After line balancing 2-10% of work stations, 27-78% of waiting time and 20-100% of process bottlenecks are reduced from four production lines. After line balancing four production systems (Appendix-D) are newly proposed for four products which have finally reduced 6-64% of production lead time for the improvement of 10-179% of labor productivity and 6-130% of machine productivity. Extra machinery and manpower are attached with two production lines (for product-1 and 4) for productivity improvement at the same benchmarked production target with other two production lines (for product-2 and 3). It is only happened because of having some critical, time consuming and excessive bottleneck processes in the production lines. The reduced workforce after line balancing can be shifted to other production lines to minimize the total labor cost. Different problem areas associated to man, machine, maintenance, material, method, measurement, management and environment were recognized during observation and are obviously indicated by fishbone or cause-effect diagram. These problem areas (causes) are also accountable to enlarge the production time as well as hamper overall productivity (effect). As a result, RMG industries require more lead time for order completion which becomes hard to manage in maximum cases.

43

By SWOT analysis it becomes possible to identify various internal factors such as strength, and weakness and external factors such as opportunity and threats of RMG industries to improve its productivity, capacity and export growth in global markets. Now-a-days, RMG manufacturers of Bangladesh are seeking ways to maximize their resources utilization, increase productivity and minimize production cost. In this respective point of view, this study becomes more important to provide the technical overview about the productivity improvement and reduction of waiting time and production cost.

5.2

Recommendation One piece flow production system was found in the existing production layouts of

product-1, 2 and 3 whereas section production system linked with one piece flow was found for product-4. After line balancing new production layout models (Appendix-D) are proposed for four products in where combination of both modular and traditional manufacturing systems (one piece flow/group) are recommended to use for the reduction of waiting time, and bottlenecks and to maximize the productivity. The workers having skill on multi-tasks should be integrated with the proposed systems to share the works of other work centers. Only skilled workers should be entitled for the production processes and that‟s why proper training and supervision must necessary to achieve the optimum improvements in productivity and efficiency. Time study and line balancing techniques are only used in the sewing section and the application of those techniques in the cutting and finishing sections will further increase more productivity in the RMG industries. Besides time studies, line balancing and fishbone analysis may also be employed to the RMG industries for the reduction of excessive wastes, and more production time and to increase the productivity which will help Readymade garments (RMG) industries to compete and survive with less manufacturing cost and higher product quality.

44

References Ahamed, F., “Could Monitoring and Surveillance be Useful to Establish Social Compliance in the Ready-made Garment (RMG) Industry of Bangladesh?”, Int. Journal of Management and Business Studies, Vol.3(3), pp.87-100, 2013 Akhlaq, M. A., “SWOT Analysis of the Textile Industry of Pakistan”, Pakistan Textile Journal, pp.37-39, 2009 Amardeep, R.T.M. and Gautham, J., “Line Balancing of Single Model Assembly Line”, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol.2(5), pp.1678-1680, 2013 Archana, B., “A Case Study on Retailing in India”, Excel International Journal of Multidisciplinary Management Studies, Vol.2(7), pp.178-188, 2012 Asiabi, H. P. and Ve Asiabi, H. P., “Just In Time (JIT) Production and Supply Chain Management”, International Iron & Steel Symposium, 02-04 April, Turkey, pp.1221-1227, 2012 Babu, V. R., “Industrial Engineering in Apparel Production”, Wood head Publishing India Pvt. Ltd., pp.62-63, 2011 Bandyopadhyay, J. K., “Implementing Just-In-Time Production and Procurement Strategies”, International Journal of Management, Vol.12(1), pp.1-9, 1995 Bhuiyan, M. Z. A., “Present Status of Garment Workers in Bangladesh: An Analysis”, IOSR Journal of Business and Management, Vol.3(5), pp.38-44, 2012 Bose, T. K. “Application of Fishbone Analysis for Evaluating Supply Chain and Business Process-A Case Study on the St. James Hospital”, International Journal of Managing Value and Supply Chains, Vol.3(2), pp.17-24, 2012

45

Chahal, V., “An Advance Lean Production System in Industry to Improve Flexibility and Quality in Manufacturing by Implementation of FMS & Green Manufacturing”, Int. Journal of Emerging Tech. and Advanced Engineering, Vol.2(12), 2012 Chakrabortty, R. K. and Paul, S. K., “Study and Implementation of Lean Manufacturing in a Garment Manufacturing Company: Bangladesh Perspective”, Journal of Optimization in Industrial Engineering, Vol.7, pp.11-22, 2011 Ferdousi, F. and Ahmed, A., “An Investigation of Manufacturing Performance Improvement through Lean Production: A Study on Bangladeshi Garment Firms”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol.4(9), pp.106-116, 2009 Fullerton, R. R. and Mc Watters, C. S., “The Production Performance benefits from JIT Implementation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol.19, pp.81–96, 2001 Gautam, R., Kumar, S. and Singh, Dr. S., “Kaizen Implementation in an Industry in India: A Case Study”, International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology, Vol.2(1), pp.25-33, 2012 Ghodrati, A. and Zulkifli, N., “The Impact of 5S Implementation on Industrial Organizations‟ Performance”, International Journal of Business and Management Invention, Vol.2(3), pp.43-49, 2013 Gill, P. S., “Application of Value Stream Mapping to Eliminate Waste in an Emergency Room”, Global Journal of Medical Research, Vol.12(6), 2012 Hasan, J., “The Competitiveness of Ready Made Garments Industry of Bangladesh in Post MFA Era: How Does the Industry Behave to Face the Competitive Challenge?”, British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade, Vol.3(3), pp.296-306, 2013 Heizer, J. and Render, B., “Operation Management”, Eight Edition, Pearson Education, Inc., pp.354, 2007 Hines, P. and Rich, N. “The Seven Value Stream Mapping Tools”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.17(1), pp.46-64, 2005

46

Ilie, G. and Ciocoiu, C. N., “Application of Fishbone Diagram to Determine the Risk of an Event with Multiple Causes”, Management Research and Practice, Vol.2(1), pp.120, 2010 Islama, M. S., “Labor Incentive and Performance of the Industrial Firm: A Case Study of Bangladeshi RMG Industry”, IOSR Journal of Business and Management, Vol.7(3), pp.52-63, 2013 Islamb, M. M., Khan, A. M. and Islam, M. M., “Application of Lean Manufacturing to Higher Productivity in the Apparel Industry in Bangladesh” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol.4(2), pp.1-10, 2013 Islamc, M. M., Khan, A. M. and Khan, M. M. R., “Minimization of Reworks in Quality and Productivity Improvement in the Apparel Industry”, International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol.1(4), pp.148-164, 2013 Islamd, M. M. N. and Sultana, M., “Starting the Lean Journey with Value Stream Mapping in the Garments Industry of Bangladesh”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechanical Eng., 18-20 December, Bangladesh, pp.1-6, 2011 Jannat, S., Hoque, M. M., Sultana, N. and Chowdhury, I. J., “Time Study of a Furniture Industry: A Case Study at Navana Furniture Industry”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechanical Engineering, 26-28 December, Bangladesh, pp.1-5, 2009 Kumar, N. and Mahto, D., “Assembly Line Balancing: A Review of Developments and Trends in Approach to Industrial Application”, Global Journal of Researches in Engineering Industrial Engineering, Vol.13(2), pp.29-50, 2013 Kumar, V., “JIT Based Quality Management: Concepts and Implications in Indian Context”, International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, Vol.2(1), pp.40-50, 2010 Kuo, T., Shen, J. P. and Chen, Y. M., “A Study on Relationship between Lean Production Practices and Manufacturing Performance”, International Symposium of Quality Management, Taiwan, pp.1-8, 2008 47

Lingareddy, H., Reddy, G. S. and K. J., “5s as a Tool and Strategy for Improvising the Work Place”, International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology, Vol.4(2), pp.28-30, 2013 Mahto, D. and Kumar, A., “Application of Root Cause Analysis in Improvement of Product Quality and Productivity”, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol.1(2), pp.16-53, 2008 Mossman, A., “Creating Value: A Sufficient Way to Eliminate Waste in Lean Design and Lean Production”, Lean Construction Journal, pp.13-23, 2009 Mostafa, M. G., “Challenges, Opportunities, and Threats of Textile Sector in Bangladesh: A Look into the Dacca Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited”, Daffodil Int. University Journal of Business and Economics, Vol.1(1), pp.47-59, 2006 Mukul, A. Z. A., Rahman, M. A. and Ansari, N. L., “Labor Law Practices in EPZ Area: An Impact of RMG Sector in Bangladesh”, Universal Journal of Management and Social Sciences, Vol.3(5), pp.23-33, 2013. Rameez, H. M. and Inamdar, K.H, “Areas of Lean Manufacturing for Productivity Improvement in a Manufacturing Unit”, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol.45, pp.584-587, 2010 Ramnath, B.V., Elanchezhian, C. and Kesavan, R., “Application of Kanban System for Implementing Lean Manufacturing (A Case Study)”, Journal of Engineering Research and Studies, Vol.1(1), pp.138-151, 2010 Roy, D., Khan, D., “Assembly Line Balancing to Minimize Balancing Loss and System Loss”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol.6(11), pp.1-5, 2010 Satao, S. M., Thampi, G.T., Dalvi, S. D., Srinivas, B. and Patil, T. B., “Enhancing Waste Reduction through Lean Manufacturing Tools and Techniques, a Methodical Step in the Territory of Green Manufacturing”, International Journal of Research in Management & Technology, Vol.2(2), pp.253-257, 2012

48

Shumon, M. R. H., Arif-Uz-Zaman, K. and Rahman, A., “Productivity Improvement through Line Balancing in Apparel Industries”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, January 9-10, Bangladesh, pp.100-110, 2010 Vaidya, R. D.; Shende, P. N.; Ansari N. A.; Sorte, S. M., “Analysis Plant Layout for Effective Production”, International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Vol.2 (3), 2013 Wakjira, M. W. and Singh, A. P., “Total Productive Maintenance: A Case Study in Manufacturing Industry”, Global Journal of Researches in Engineering, Vol. 12(1), pp.24-32, 2012 Zhenyuan, J., Xiaohong, L., Wei, W., Defeng, J. and Lijun, W., “Design and Implementation of Lean Facility Layout System of a Production Line”, International Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol.18(5), pp.260-269, 2011

49

Appendix-A: RMG Industry Profile Name of the Industry Style Garden Ltd.

Location Type Nature IE Activities Certification Clients Production Lines Production capacity/day Workforce Type of Products

: Mirpur-12, Dhaka-1216. : Only garment making : Supporting industry : None : None : Exposures Ltd. : 01 : 550 pieces : 150 : Ski Jacket and Long Pant

Fakir Apparels Ltd.

Location Type Nature IE Activities Certification Clients Production Lines Production capacity/day Workforce Type of Products

: BSCIC, Hosiery Industrial Estate, Narayangonj. : Composite (Knitting, Dyeing, Printing & Garment) : 100% export oriented industry : Yes : Oeko-Tex and WRAP : H & M, Gap, Levi‟s, Esprit, S.Oliver, Tesco etc. : 90 : 1, 40, 000 pieces : 7,500 : T-Shirt, Polo Shirt, Tank Top, Mens Shorts etc.

AJI Apparels Industry Ltd.

Location Type Nature IE Activities Certification Clients Production Lines Production capacity/day Workforce Type of Products

: 226, Singair Road, Hemayetpur, Savar, Dhaka. : Composite (Knitting, Dyeing, Printing & Garment) : 100% export oriented industry : Yes : ISO : Carrefour, Tesco, Wal-Mart, Sears, K mart etc. : 44 : 48, 600 pieces : 2, 200 : Mens Polo Shirt

MIM Dresses Ltd.

Location Type Nature IE Activities Certification Clients Production Lines Production capacity/day Workforce Type of Products

: Baishaki Super Market (2nd Floor), Mirpur-1, Dhaka. : Only garment making : Sub-contract industry : None : None : New Yorker : 02 : 2, 400 pieces : 200 : Mens Half Shirt and Ladies Skirt

50

Appendix-B: Time Study Data Table B.1 Process wise SMV and capacity per hour for product-1 in sewing section Process No.

Processes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Matching and Folding Right shoulder joint Trimming Loop joint Folding Neck piping Trimming Shoulder in tucking Trimming and Folding Shoulder out tucking Left shoulder joint Trimming Arm hole piping Trimming Side seam Trimming and Folding Side seam Trimming and Folding Arm hole in and out tucking Thread cutting Bottom hem tucking Trimming Body hem tucking Folding Hem security tucking Cutting and Folding Care label joint Thread cutting Turning over

No. of Operator

No. of Helper

M/C Type

Basic Time (min)

SMV

Capacity /Hour (Pieces)

1

1 1

OL PM FL PM PM PM FL OL OL PM PM FL PM PM -

0.252 0.117 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.153 0.135 0.153 0.108 0.135 0.198 0.225 0.360 0.225 0.360 0.216 0.315 0.198 0.351 0.297 0.117 0.135 0.432 0.153 0.189 0.153 0.297 0.225 0.288

0.290 0.135 0.176 0.176 0.176 0.176 0.155 0.176 0.124 0.155 0.228 0.259 0.414 0.259 0.414 0.248 0.262 0.228 0.404 0.342 0.135 0.155 0.497 0.176 0.217 0.176 0.342 0.259 0.331

207 444 341 341 341 341 387 341 484 387 263 232 145 232 145 242 229 263 149 175 444 387 121 341 276 341 175 232 181

15

14

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

14

51

7.1

Table B.2 Process No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Process wise worker‟s efficiency for Product-1 in sewing section

Process

SMV

Matching and Folding Right shoulder joint Trimming Loop joint Folding Neck piping Trimming Shoulder in tucking Trimming and Folding Shoulder out tucking Left shoulder joint Trimming Arm hole piping Trimming Side seam Trimming and Folding Side seam Trimming and Folding

0.290 0.135 0.176 0.176 0.176 0.176 0.155 0.176 0.124 0.155 0.228 0.259 0.414 0.259 0.414 0.248 0.262 0.228 0.404 0.342 0.135 0.155 0.497 0.176 0.217 0.176 0.342 0.259 0.331

Arm hole in and out tucking

Thread cutting Bottom hem tucking Trimming Body hem tucking Folding Hem security tucking Cutting and Folding Care label joint Thread cutting Turning over

Total Total Output Minutes /Day Produced (Pieces) 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200

7.1

52

406.0 189.0 246.4 246.4 246.4 246.4 217.0 246.4 173.6 217.0 319.2 362.6 538.2 336.7 538.2 322.4 340.6 296.4 525.2 444.6 162.0 186.0 596.4 211.2 260.4 211.2 410.4 310.8 397.2

Total Minutes Attended

Worker‟s Efficiency (%)

600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

68 32 41 41 41 41 36 41 29 36 53 60 90 56 90 54 57 49 88 74 27 31 99 35 43 35 68 52 66

Table B.3

SMV and capacity per hour for product-2 in sewing section Basic Time (min)

SMV

Capacity /Hour (pieces)

OL OL FL PM PM -

0.261 0.315 0.324 0.306 0.351 0.315 0.288

0.300 0.362 0.373 0.352 0.404 0.362 0.331

200 166 161 170 149 166 181

1

PM

0.306

0.352

170

1

PM

0.306

0.352

170

Left shoulder joint Sleeve open hemming Sleeve dechain Shoulder trimming Body matching

1 1

Sleeve join tacking and Folding

1 1 1 1 1 1

OL FL PM OL OL OL PM OL

0.216 0.333 0.315 0.315 0.315 0.333 0.243 0.243 0.279 0.315 0.279

0.248 0.383 0.362 0.362 0.362 0.383 0.279 0.279 0.321 0.362 0.321

242 157 166 166 166 157 215 215 187 166 187

1

PM

0.351

0.404

149

1

PM

0.315

0.362

166

Bottom hemming Thread cutting

1

Care label sewing and joint

1 1 1

FL PM -

0.297 0.288 0.288 0.306 0.351

0.342 0.331 0.331 0.352 0.404

175 181 181 170 149

8

19

Process No.

Processes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Matching and Folding Both shoulder joint Neck piping Back neck piping Back end tacking Front neck top stitching Cutting and Marking

8

Back tape top stitching with main label joint Left shoulder joint tacking and Shoulder out tacking

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

First sleeve joint Second sleeve joint Side seam one Label joint Side seam two Sleeve in and out tacking Bottom hem tacking and Hem security tacking

No. of No. of M/C Operator Helper Type 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1

Sticker removing Thread cutting

19

53

9.4

Table B.4 Process No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Process wise worker‟s efficiency for product-2 in sewing section

Process Matching and Folding Both shoulder joint Neck piping Back neck piping Back end tacking

SMV

Total Total Output Minutes /Day Produced (Pieces)

Total Minutes Attended

Worker‟s Efficiency (%)

0.300

1400

420.0

600

70

0.362 0.373 0.352 0.404 0.362 0.331

1400 1400 1400 1300 1300 1300

506.8 522.2 492.8 525.2 470.6 430.3

600 600 600 600 600 600

84 87 82 88 78 72

0.352

1300

457.6

600

76

Left shoulder join tacking and Shoulder out tacking

0.352

1300

457.6

600

76

Left shoulder joint Sleeve open hemming Sleeve dechain Shoulder trimming Body matching

0.248

1300

322.4

600

54

0.383

1300

497.9

600

83

0.362 0.362 0.362

1300 1300 1300

470.6 470.6 470.6

600 600 600

78 78 78

Front neck top stitching

Cutting and Marking Back tape top stitching with main label joint

15

Sleeve join tacking and Folding

0.383

1300

497.9

600

83

16 17 18 19 20

First sleeve joint Second sleeve joint Side seam one Label joint Side seam two

0.279 0.279 0.321 0.362 0.321

1300 1300 1300 1300 1300

362.7 362.7 417.3 470.6 417.3

600 600 600 600 600

60 60 70 78 70

0.404

1300

525.2

600

88

0.362

1300

470.6

600

78

21 22

Sleeve in and out tacking Bottom hem tacking and Hem security tacking

23 24

Bottom hemming Thread cutting

0.342 0.331

1300 1300

444.6 430.3

600 600

74 72

25

Care label sewing and joint

0.331

1300

430.3

600

72

26 27

Sticker removing Thread cutting

0.352 0.404

1300 1300

457.6 525.2

600 600

76 88

9.4

54

Table B.5 Process No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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

SMV and capacity per hour for product-3 in sewing section Processes

Back front matching Body marking Sleeve scissoring Shoulder joint Shoulder top stitch Sleeve matching Sleeve joint Matching and Trimming Placket rolling Body and Placket joint Placket top stitching Nose tucking Trimming Collar tucking Collar joint Cuff joint Back neck piping Marking Placket closing Upper placket stitching Lower placket stitching Placket box Back neck top stitching Label joint Trimming Opening tuck Bottom hemming Trimming Marking Side seem Side vent tucking Trimming Side vent tuck joint Side vent top stitching Chap tucking Trimming

No. of Operator

No. of Helper

M/C Type

Basic Time (min)

SMV

Capacity /Hour (pieces)

1 1 1

OL PM OL

0.248 0.263 0.225 0.263 0.225 0.188 0.308

0.298 0.316 0.270 0.316 0.270 0.226 0.370

201 190 222 190 222 265 162

-

0.165

0.198

303

4

PM PM PM PM PM OL OL FL PM PM PM PM PM PM PM FL OL PM OL PM PM -

0.225 0.210 0.225 0.225 0.188 0.263 0.225 0.248 0.263 0.150 0.210 0.210 0.225 0.240 0.248 0.278 0.150 0.248 0.263 0.113 0.188 0.375 0.225 0.158 0.375 0.345 0.383 0.128

0.270 0.252 0.270 0.270 0.226 0.315 0.270 0.297 0.316 0.180 0.252 0.252 0.270 0.288 0.297 0.334 0.180 0.298 0.316 0.136 0.226 0.450 0.270 0.190 0.450 0.414 0.460 0.154

222 238 222 222 265 190 222 202 190 333 238 238 222 208 202 180 333 201 190 441 265 133 222 316 133 145 130 390

15

26

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 26

55

10.2

Table B.6 Process wise worker‟s efficiency for product-3 in sewing section Process No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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

Process Back front matching Body marking Sleeve scissoring Shoulder joint Shoulder top stitch Sleeve matching Sleeve joint Matching and Trimming

Placket rolling Body and Placket joint Placket top stitching Nose tucking Trimming Collar tucking Collar joint Cuff joint Back neck piping Marking Placket closing Upper placket stitching Lower placket stitching Placket box Back neck top stitching Label joint Trimming Opening tuck Bottom hemming Trimming Marking Side seem Side vent tucking Trimming Side vent tuck joint Side vent top stitching Chap tucking Trimming

SMV

Total Output /Day (pieces)

Total Minutes Produced

Total Minutes Attended

Worker‟s Efficiency (%)

0.298 0.316 0.270 0.316 0.270 0.226 0.370 0.198 0.270 0.252 0.270 0.270 0.226 0.315 0.270 0.297 0.316 0.180 0.252 0.252 0.270 0.288 0.297 0.334 0.180 0.298 0.316 0.136 0.226 0.450 0.270 0.190 0.450 0.414 0.460 0.154

1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1300 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150 1150

387.4 410.8 351.0 410.8 351.0 293.8 481.0 257.4 351.0 327.6 351.0 351.0 293.8 393.8 337.5 371.3 395.0 225.0 315.0 315.0 337.5 331.2 341.6 384.1 207.0 342.7 363.4 156.4 259.9 517.5 310.5 218.5 517.5 476.1 529.0 177.1

600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

65 69 59 69 59 49 80 43 59 55 59 59 49 66 56 62 66 38 53 53 56 55 57 64 35 57 61 26 43 86 52 36 86 79 88 30

10.2

56

Table B.7 Process No.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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

SMV and capacity per hour for product-4 in sewing section Processes

Pair tucking Plate cutting Box plate making Checking & Trimming Button plate making Trimming Form fitting Pocket making Trimming Pocket ironing Pocket marking Pocket joint Trimming Yoke making Trimming Front yoke joint Over locking Trimming Top stitching Front back matching Front joint Checking & Trimming Over locking Trimming Top stitching Pulling & Transferring Collar matching Collar joint Checking & Trimming Collar top sewing Trimming Sleeve rolling Checking & Trimming Sleeve matching Sleeve joint Trimming Arm hole top Stitching Trimming Care label joint Checking Side seam Checking & Trimming Sleeve tucking Trimming Hemming Trimming

No. of Operator

No. of Helper

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1

57

M/C Type

Basic Time (min)

SMV

Capacity /Hour (pieces)

PM PM PM RM PM Iron PM PM PM OL PM PM OL PM PM PM PM OL PM PM OL PM PM -

0.195 0.103 0.135 0.105 0.692 0.113 0.120 0.210 0.113 0.098 0.158 0.758 0.113 0.729 0.105 0.405 0.203 0.105 0.135 0.105 0.585 0.128 0.203 0.105 0.120 0.113 0.113 0.698 0.248 0.435 0.098 0.548 0.174 0.083 0.225 0.098 0.518 0.098 0.218 0.098 0.435 0.188 0.816 0.143 0.395 0.113

0.234 0.124 0.655 0.126 0.830 0.136 0.144 0.252 0.136 0.118 0.190 0.910 0.136 0.875 0.126 0.486 0.244 0.126 0.162 0.126 0.702 0.154 0.244 0.126 0.144 0.136 0.136 0.838 0.298 0.522 0.118 0.658 0.209 0.125 0.270 0.118 0.622 0.118 0.263 0.118 0.522 0.226 0.900 0.172 0.474 0.136

256 484 92 476 72 441 417 238 441 508 316 66 441 69 476 123 246 476 370 476 85 390 246 476 417 441 441 72 201 115 508 91 287 480 222 508 96 508 228 508 115 265 67 349 127 441

47 48

Hemming ¾ Transferring

1 30

58

1

PM -

23

30

0.198 0.180

0.234 0.216 15

256 278

Table B.8

Process wise worker‟s efficiency for product-4 in sewing section

Process No.

Process

SMV

Total Output /Day (pieces)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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

Pair tucking Plate cutting Box plate making Checking & Trimming Button plate making Trimming Form fitting Pocket making Trimming Pocket ironing Pocket marking Pocket joint Trimming Yoke making Trimming Front yoke joint Over locking Trimming Top stitching Front back matching Front joint Checking & Trimming Over locking Trimming Top stitching Pulling & Transferring Collar matching Collar joint Checking & Trimming Collar top sewing Trimming Sleeve rolling Checking & Trimming Sleeve matching Sleeve joint Trimming Arm hole top Stitching Trimming Care label joint Checking Side seam Checking & Trimming Sleeve tucking Trimming

0.234 0.124 0.655 0.126 0.830 0.136 0.144 0.252 0.136 0.118 0.190 0.910 0.136 0.875 0.126 0.486 0.244 0.126 0.162 0.126 0.702 0.154 0.244 0.126 0.144 0.136 0.136 0.838 0.298 0.522 0.118 0.658 0.209 0.125 0.270 0.118 0.622 0.118 0.263 0.118 0.522 0.226 0.900 0.172

900 900 850 850 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

59

Total Minutes Produced

Total Minutes Attended

Worker‟s Efficiency (%)

210.6 111.6 556.8 107.1 539.5 88.40 93.60 163.8 88.40 76.70 123.5 546.0 81.60 525.0 75.60 291.6 146.4 75.60 97.20 75.60 421.2 92.40 146.4 75.60 86.40 81.60 81.60 502.8 178.8 313.2 70.80 394.8 125.4 75.00 162.0 70.80 373.2 70.80 157.8 70.80 313.2 135.6 540.0 103.2

600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

40 20 90 20 90 10 20 30 10 10 20 90 10 90 10 50 20 10 20 10 70 20 20 10 10 10 10 80 30 50 10 70 20 10 30 10 60 10 30 10 50 20 90 20

45 46 47 48

Hemming Trimming Hemming ¾ Transferring

0.474 0.136 0.234 0.216

600 600 600 600

15

60

284.4 81.60 140.4 129.6

600 600 600 600

50 10 20 20

Appendix-C: Line Balancing Data Table C.1 Balancing process to equalize the bottleneck process for product -1

Balancing Capacity Per Hour

Side seam joint

Process Name

145

196

2

Right shoulder joint

Total Capacity/Hour (pieces) Balanced Capacity/Hour (pieces)

13

Process No.

1

Balanced Capacity/ Hour (pieces)

Process No.

Process Name

Balancing Process

Total Capacity/Hour (pieces)

Sl. No.

Bottleneck Process

444

289

Process-2 can work for 39 min. and share work with Process-13 for last 21 min. 2

11

Arm hole piping

144

196

6

Neck piping

341

219

Process-6 can work for 38.5 min. and share work with Process-11 for last 21.5 min.

3

7

Trimming & Shoulder in tucking

181

196

8

Trimming, Folding & Shoulder out tucking

215

197

Process-8 can work for 55 min. and share work with Process-7 for last 5 min. 4

17

Arm hole in and out tucking

148

196

19

Bottom hem tucking

444

247

Process-19 can work for 40.6 min. and share work with Process-17 for last 19.4 min. 5

24

Care label joint

175

196

19

Bottom hem tucking

444

247

Process-19 can work for 52.8 min. and share work with Process-24 for last 7.2 min. 6

18

Thread cutting

175

196

20

Trimming

387

341

Process-20 can work for 52.8 min. and share work with Process-18 for last 7.2 min. 7

23

Hem security tucking, Cutting & Folding

153

196

22

Folding

341

245

Process-22 can work for 43.1 min. and share work with Process-23 for last 16.9 min. 8

26

Turning over

181

196

25

Thread cutting

232

Process-25 can work for 55 min. and share work with Process-26 for last 5 min.

61

213

Benchmarked Target/Hour (pieces)

Waiting time (min)

0.290 0.135 0.176 0.176 0.176 0.176 0.331

207 444 341 341 341 341 181

196 196 196 196 196 196 196

3.20 12.4 25.5 25.5 25.5 4.00 0.00

Trimming, Folding & Shoulder out tucking

0.279

215

196

Left shoulder joint Trimming Arm hole piping Trimming Side seam Trimming and Folding Side seam Trimming and Folding

0.228 0.259 0.414 0.259 0.414

263 231 144 231 145

0.248

17

Bottlenecks (min)

Theoretical Manpower

Actual Manpower

Proposed Manpower

Process No.

Existing Capacity/Hour (pieces)

Existing capacity per hour, waiting time, bottlenecks and proposed manpower after line balancing for product-1

SMV

Table C.2

0 0 0 0 0 0

1.0 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1

1 1 1 1 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

0.30

0

0.9

2

1

196 196 196 196 196

15.3 9.10 0.00 9.10 0.00

0 0 0 0 0

0.7 0.8 1.4 0.8 1.4

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

241

196

11.2

0

0.8

1

1

0.262

229

196

8.60

0

0.9

1

1

0.228

263

196

15.3

0

0.7

1

1

Arm hole in and out tucking

0.404

148

196

0.00

0

1.3

1

1

18 19 20 21 22

Thread cutting Bottom hem tucking Trimming Body hem tucking Folding

0.342 0.135 0.155 0.497 0.176

175 444 387 121 341

196 196 196 196 196

0.00 6.90 22.4 22.7 8.60

0 0 0 0 0

1.1 0.4 0.5 1.6 0.6

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 2 1

23

Hem security tucking, Cutting & Folding

0.393

153

196

0.00

0

1.3

2

1

24 25 26

Care label joint Thread cutting Turning over

0.342 0.259 0.331

175 232 181

196 196 196

0.00 4.30 0.00

0 0 0

1.1 0.8 1.1

1 1 1

1 1 1

230

0

23.1

29

27

Process

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Matching and Folding Right shoulder joint Trimming Loop joint Folding Neck piping

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Trimming & Shoulder in tucking

7.1

62

Table C.3 Proposed SMV, Benchmarked target per hour, existing capacity per hour and proposed capacity per hour for product-1 Process No.

Process

Proposed SMV

Benchmarked Target/Hour (pieces)

Existing Capacity /Hour (pieces)

Proposed Capacity/ Hour (pieces)

196 196 196 196 196 196 196

207 444 341 341 341 341 181

207 289 341 341 341 219 196

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Matching and Folding Right shoulder joint Trimming Loop joint

Trimming & Shoulder in tucking

0.290 0.208 0.176 0.176 0.176 0.274 0.306

8

Trimming, Folding & Shoulder out tucking

0.305

196

215

197

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Left shoulder joint Trimming Arm hole piping Trimming Side seam Trimming and Folding Side seam Trimming and Folding Thread cutting Bottom hem tucking Trimming Body hem tucking Folding

0.228 0.260 0.306 0.260 0.306 0.249 0.262 0.228 0.306 0.306 0.243 0.176 0.306 0.245

196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196

263 231 144 231 145 241 229 263 148 175 444 387 121 341

263 231 196 231 196 241 229 263 196 196 247 341 196 245

23

Hem security tucking, Cutting & Folding

0.306

196

153

196

24 25 26

Care label joint Thread cutting Turning over

0.306 0.282 0.306

196 196 196

175 232 181

196 213 196

Folding Neck piping

Arm hole in and out tucking

63

Table C.4 Balancing process to equalize the bottleneck process for product-2

Balancing Capacity Per Hour

First & Second sleeve joint

Process Name

108

138

10

Left shoulder joint

Total Capacity/Hour (pieces) Balanced Capacity/Hour (pieces)

16

Process No.

1

Balanced Capacity/Hour (pieces)

Process No.

Process Name

Balancing Process

Total Capacity/Hour (pieces)

Sl. No.

Bottleneck Process

242

175

Process-10 can work for 43.3 min. and share work with Process-1 for last 16.7 min.

64

Process

SMV

Existing Capacity/Hour (pieces)

Benchmarked Target/Hour (pieces)

Waiting time (min.)

Bottlenecks (min.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Matching and Folding Both shoulder joint Neck piping Back neck piping Back end tacking Front neck top stitching Cutting and Marking

0.300 0.362 0.373 0.352 0.404 0.362 0.331

200 166 161 170 149 166 181

138 138 138 138 138 138 138

18.6 10.1 8.60 11.3 4.40 10.1 14.2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8

Back tape top stitching with main label joint Left shoulder join tacking and Shoulder out tacking

0.352

170

138

11.3

0

0.8

1

1

0.352

170

138

11.3

0

0.8

1

1

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Left shoulder joint Sleeve open hemming Sleeve dechain Shoulder trimming Body matching

Sleeve in and out tacking

0.248 0.383 0.362 0.362 0.362 0.383 0.558 0.321 0.362 0.321 0.404

242 157 166 166 166 157 108 187 166 187 149

138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138

9.10 7.30 10.1 10.1 10.1 7.30 0.00 15.7 10.1 15.7 4.40

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

21

Bottom hem tacking and Hem security tacking

0.362

166

138

10.1

0

0.8

1

1

22 23 24 25 26

Bottom hemming Thread cutting

0.342 0.331 0.331 0.352 0.404

175 181 181 170 149

138 138 138 138 138

12.7 14.2 14.2 11.3 4.40

0 0 0 0 0

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

267

0

21.3

27

26

9

Sleeve join tacking and Folding First & Second sleeve joint

Side seam one Label joint Side seam two

Care label sewing and joint

Sticker removing Thread cutting

9.4

65

Theoretical Manpower Actual Manpower Proposed Manpower

Process No.

Table C.5 Existing capacity per hour, waiting time, bottlenecks and proposed manpower after line balancing for product-2

Table C.6 Proposed SMV, Benchmarked target per hour, total capacity per hour and proposed capacity per hour for product-2 Process No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Process Matching and Folding Both shoulder joint Neck piping Back neck piping Back end tacking Front neck top stitching Cutting and Marking Back tape top stitching with main label joint Left shoulder join tacking and Shoulder out tucking

Left shoulder joint Sleeve open hemming Sleeve dechain Shoulder trimming Body matching Sleeve join tacking and Folding First & Second sleeve joint

Side seam one Label joint Side seam two Sleeve in and out tacking Bottom hem tacking and Hem security tacking Bottom hemming Thread cutting Care label sewing and joint

Sticker removing Thread cutting

Proposed SMV

Benchmarked Target/Hour (pieces)

Existing Capacity /Hour (pieces)

Proposed Capacity/ Hour (pieces)

0.300 0.361 0.373 0.353 0.403 0.361 0.331

138 138 138 138 138 138 138

200 166 161 170 149 166 181

200 166 161 170 149 166 181

0.353

138

170

170

0.353

138

170

170

0.343 0.382 0.361 0.361 0.361 0.382 0.435 0.321 0.361 0.321 0.403

138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138 138

242 157 166 166 166 157 108 187 166 187 149

175 157 166 166 166 157 138 187 166 187 149

0.361

138

166

166

0.343 0.331 0.331 0.353 0.403

138 138 138 138 138

175 181 181 170 149

175 181 181 170 149

66

Table C.7 Balancing process to equalize the bottleneck process for product-3

Balancing Capacity Per Hour

2

Body marking

190

193

Process Name

1

Back front matching

Total Capacity/Hour (pieces) Balanced Capacity/Hour (pieces)

1

Process No.

Process No.

Process Name

Balancing Process

Total Capacity/Hour (pieces) Balanced Capacity/Hour (pieces)

Sl. No.

Bottleneck Process

201

198

Process-1 can work for 59 mins and share work with process-2 for last 1 min 2

7

Sleeve joint

162

193

9

Placket rolling

222

194

Process-9 can work for 52.5 mins and share work with process-2 for last 7.5 mins 3

7

Sleeve joint

162

193

15

Collar joint

222

207

Process-15 can work for 56 mins and share work with process-7 for last 4 mins 4

14

Collar tucking

190

206

19

Placket closing

238

218

Process-19 can work for 55 mins and share work with process-14 for last 5 mins 5

24

Label joint

180

198

21

Lower placket stitching

222

200

Process-21 can work for 54 mins and share work with process-24 for last 6 mins 6

28

Trimming & Marking

166

208

25

Trimming

333

250

Process-25 can work for 45 mins and share work with process-28 for last 15 mins 7

32

Side vent tuck joint

133

200

29

Side seem

266

200

Process-29 can work for 30 mins and share work with process-32 for last 30 mins

8

34

Chap tucking

130

206

33

Side vent top stitching

290

205

Process-33 can work for 25 mins and share work with process-34 for last 35 mins

67

Process

SMV

Existing Capacity/Hour (pieces)

Benchmarked Target/Hour (pieces)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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

Back front matching Body marking Sleeve scissoring Shoulder joint Shoulder top stitch Sleeve matching Sleeve joint Matching and Trimming Placket rolling Body and Placket joint Placket top stitching Nose tucking Trimming Collar tucking Collar joint Cuff joint Back neck piping Marking Placket closing Upper placket stitching Lower placket stitching Placket box Back neck top stitching Label joint Trimming Opening tuck Bottom hemming Trimming & Marking Side seem Side vent tucking Trimming Side vent tuck joint Side vent top stitching Chap tucking Trimming

0.298 0.316 0.270 0.316 0.270 0.226 0.370 0.198 0.270 0.252 0.270 0.270 0.226 0.315 0.270 0.297 0.316 0.180 0.252 0.252 0.270 0.288 0.297 0.334 0.180 0.298 0.316 0.362 0.450 0.270 0.190 0.450 0.414 0.460 0.154

201 190 222 190 222 265 162 303 222 238 222 222 265 190 222 202 190 333 238 238 222 208 202 180 333 201 190 166 266 222 316 133 290 130 390

193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193

10.2

68

Waiting time (min.) Bottlenecks (min.) Theoretical Manpower Actual Manpower Proposed Manpower

Process No.

Table C.8 Existing capacity per hour, waiting time, bottlenecks and proposed manpower after line balancing for product-3

0.00 0.00 7.80 0.00 7.80 16.3 0.00 21.8 0.30 1.30 7.80 7.80 16.3 4.00 3.80 2.70 0.00 25.2 6.30 11.3 1.80 4.30 2.70 1.70 10.2 2.40 0.00 5.20 3.00 7.80 23.3 3.00 5.00 6.00 30.3

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.5 0.9 0.6 1.5 1.3 1.5 0.5

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 4

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1

255

3

33

41

37

Table C.9 Proposed SMV, Benchmarked target per hour, total capacity per hour and proposed capacity per hour for product-3 Process No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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

Process Back front matching Body marking Sleeve scissoring Shoulder joint Shoulder top stitch Sleeve matching Sleeve joint Matching and Trimming Placket rolling Body and Placket joint Placket top stitching Nose tucking Trimming Collar tucking Collar joint Cuff joint Back neck piping Marking Placket closing Upper placket stitching Lower placket stitching Placket box Back neck top stitching Label joint Trimming Opening tuck Bottom hemming Trimming & Marking Side seem Side vent tucking Trimming Side vent tuck joint Side vent top stitching Chap tucking Trimming

Proposed SMV

Benchmarked Target/Hour (pieces)

Existing Capacity /Hour (pieces)

Proposed Capacity/ Hour (pieces)

0.303 0.311 0.270 0.316 0.270 0.226 0.311 0.198 0.309 0.252 0.270 0.270 0.226 0.291 0.290 0.297 0.316 0.180 0.275 0.252 0.300 0.288 0.297 0.303 0.240 0.299 0.316 0.288 0.300 0.270 0.190 0.300 0.293 0.291 0.154

193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193

201 190 222 190 222 265 162 303 222 238 222 222 265 190 222 202 190 333 238 238 222 208 202 180 333 201 190 166 266 222 316 133 290 130 390

198 193 222 190 222 265 193 303 194 238 222 222 265 206 207 202 190 333 218 238 200 208 202 198 250 201 190 208 200 222 316 200 205 206 390

69

Table C.10

Balancing process to equalize the bottleneck process for product-4

Balancing Capacity Per Hour

Box plate making

92

148

Balanced Capacity/Hour (pieces)

3

Process Name

Total Capacity/Hour (pieces)

1

Process No.

Process No.

Process Name

Balancing Process

Total Capacity/Hour (pieces) Balanced Capacity/Hour (pieces)

Sl. No.

Bottleneck Process

2

Plate cutting

484

186

Process-2 can work for 23 mins and share with Process-3 for last 37 mins 2

10

Pocket joint

132

165

7

Pocket making

238

179

Process-7 can work for 45 mins and share with Process-10 for last 15 mins 3

12

Yoke making

137

206

17

Top stitching

370

185

Process-17 can work for 30 mins and share with Process-12 for last 30 mins 4

14

Front yoke joint

123

174

23

Top stitching

417

243

Process-23 can work for 35 mins and share with Process-14 for last 25 mins 5

25

Collar joint

143

174

27

Collar top sewing

230

180

Process-27 can work for 34 mins and share with Process-25 for last 26 mins 6

39

Sleeve tucking

134

163

33

Arm hole top Stitching

192

173

Process-33 can work for 48 mins and share with Process-39 for last 12 mins 7

39

Sleeve tucking

134

163

35

Care label joint

228

175

Process-35 can work for 46 mins and share with Process-39 for last 14 mins 8

41

Hemming

127

170

43

Hemming 3/4

256

Process-43 can work for 40 mins and share with Process-41 for last 20 mins

70

170

0.234 0.124 0.655 0.126 0.830 0.280 0.252 0.254 0.190 0.910 0.136 0.875 0.126 0.486 0.244 0.126 0.162 0.126 0.702 0.154 0.244 0.126 0.144

256 484 92 476 144 214 238 236 316 132 441 137 476 123 246 476 370 476 170 390 246 476 417

170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170

0.00 2.00 0.00 39.0 38.4 12.3 2.00 17.0 28.0 0.00 37.0 1.00 39.0 2.20 18.5 39.0 2.40 39.0 0.00 34.0 18.5 39.0 10.6

0.00 0.00 14.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.7 0.4 1.8 0.4 2.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 2.6 0.4 2.5 0.4 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 2.0 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.4

1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

Waiting time (min.) Bottlenecks (min.)

Proposed Manpower

Pocket marking Pocket joint Trimming Yoke making Trimming Front yoke joint Over locking Trimming Top stitching Front back matching Front joint Checking & Trimming Over locking Trimming Top stitching

Actual Manpower

Trimming & Pocket ironing

Theoretical Manpower

Pair tucking Plate cutting Box plate making Checking & Trimming Button plate making Trimming & From fitting Pocket making

Benchmarked Target/Hour (pieces)

Process

Existing Capacity/Hour (pieces)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Existing capacity per hour, waiting time, bottlenecks and proposed manpower after line balancing for product-4

SMV

Process No.

Table C.11

24

Pulling, Transferring & Collar matching

0.272

221

170

7.00

0.00

0.8

2

1

25 26 27 28 29

Collar joint Checking & Trimming Collar top sewing Trimming Sleeve rolling

0.838 0.298 0.522 0.118 0.658

143 201 230 508 182

170 170 170 170 170

3.40 9.00 5.30 40.0 8.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.4 0.8 1.5 0.3 1.9

1 1 1 1 2

2 1 2 1 2

30

Checking, Trimming & Sleeve matching

0.334

287

170

39.0

0.00

1.0

3

1

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Sleeve joint Trimming Arm hole top Stitching Trimming Care label joint Checking Side seam Checking & Trimming Sleeve tucking

0.27 0.118 0.622 0.118 0.263 0.118 0.522 0.226 0.9

222 508 192 508 228 508 230 266 134

170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170

14.0 40.0 1.70 40.0 1.30 40.0 31.3 22.0 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.4

0.8 0.3 1.8 0.3 0.7 0.3 1.5 0.6 2.5

1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1

1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2

71

40 41 42 43 44

Trimming Hemming Trimming Hemming ¾ Transferring

0.172 0.474 0.136 0.234 0.216

349 127 441 256 278

15

72

170 170 170 170 170

31.0 0.00 37.0 0.00 23.0

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.5 1.3 0.4 0.7 0.6

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

812

40

42.6

53

54

Table C.12

Process No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Proposed SMV, Benchmarked target per hour, total capacity per hour and proposed capacity per hour for product-4

Process Pair tucking Plate cutting Box plate making Checking & Trimming Button plate making Trimming & From fitting Pocket making Trimming & Pocket ironing

Pocket marking Pocket joint Trimming Yoke making Trimming Front yoke joint Over locking Trimming Top stitching Front back matching Front joint Checking & Trimming Over locking Trimming Top stitching

Proposed SMV

Benchmarked Target/Hour (pieces)

Existing Capacity/ Hour (pieces)

Proposed Capacity/ Hour (pieces)

0.234 0.323 0.405 0.126 0.417

170 170 170 170 170

256 484 92 476 144

256 186 148 476 144

0.280

170

214

214

0.335 0.254 0.190 0.364 0.136 0.291 0.126 0.345 0.244 0.126 0.324 0.126 0.353 0.154 0.244 0.126 0.247

170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170 170

238 236 316 132 441 137 476 123 246 476 370 476 170 390 246 476 417

179 236 316 165 441 206 476 174 246 476 185 476 170 390 246 476 243

24

Pulling, Transferring & Collar matching

0.271

170

221

221

25 26 27 28 29

Collar joint Checking & Trimming Collar top sewing Trimming Sleeve rolling

0.345 0.299 0.333 0.118 0.330

170 170 170 170 170

143 201 230 508 182

174 201 180 508 182

30

Checking, Trimming & Sleeve matching

0.209

170

287

287

31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Sleeve joint Trimming Arm hole top Stitching Trimming Care label joint Checking Side seam

0.270 0.118 0.347 0.118 0.343 0.118 0.261

170 170 170 170 170 170 170

222 508 192 508 228 508 230

222 508 173 508 175 508 230

73

38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Checking & Trimming Sleeve tucking Trimming Hemming Trimming Hemming 3/4 Transferring

0.226 0.368 0.172 0.353 0.136 0.353 0.216

170 170 170 170 170

170 170

74

266 134 349 127 441 256 278

266 163 349 170 441 170 278

Appendix-D: Existing and Proposed Layout Existing

Proposed

P-01

P-01

P-02

P-02

P-03

P-03

P-04

P-04

P-05

P-05

P-06

P-06

P-07

P-07

P-08

P-08

P-09

P-09

P-10

P-10

P-11

P-11

P-12

P-12

P-13

P-13

P-14

P-14

P-15

P-15

P-16

P-16

P-17

P-17

P-18

P-18

P-19

P-19

P-20

P-20

P-21

FL

P-21 (a)

P-21 (b)

P-22

P-22

P-23

P-23

P-24

P-24

P-25

P-25

P-26

P-26

P-27 P-28

Inspection

P-29 Inspection

Fig.D.1 Existing and Proposed layout for product-1 manufacturing

75

Existing

Proposed

P-01

P-01

P-02

P-02

P-03

P-03

P-04

P-04

P-05

P-05

P-06

P-06

P-07

P-07

P-08

P-08

P-09

P-09

P-10

P-10

P-11

P-11

P-12

P-12

P-13

P-13

P-14

P-14

P-15

P-15

P-16

P-16

P-17

P-17

P-18

P-18

P-19

P-19

P-20

P-20

P-21

P-21

P-22

P-22

P-23

P-23

P-24

P-24

P-25

P-25

P-26

P-26

P-27 Inspection Inspection

Fig.D.2 Existing and Proposed layout for product-2 manufacturing

76

P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 P-11 P-12 P-13 P-14 P-15 P-16 P-17 P-18 P-19 P-20 P-21 P-22 P-23 P-24 P-25 P-26 P-27 P-28 P-29 P-30 P-31 P-32 P-33 P-34 P-35 P-36 Inspection

Fig.D.3 Existing layout for product-3 manufacturing

77

P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 P-11 P-12 P-13 P-14 P-15 P-16 P-17 P-18 P-19 P-20 P-21 P-22 P-23 P-24 P-25 P-26 P-27 P-28 P-29 P-30 P-31 P-32 P-33 P-34 P-35 Inspection

Fig.D.4 Proposed layout for product-3 manufacturing

78

Front Making Section P-4

P-3

P-5

P-2

P-1

P-6

P-7

P-8

P-9

P-11

P-10

P-12

P-13

Sleeve Making Section P-32

P-33

P-34

P-35

P-36

79

Assembly and Output Section Yoke

P-14 P-15 P-16

Back

P-17 P-18 Front

P-20

P-19

P-21 P-22 P-23 P-24

P-25 P-26 P-27

Collar

P-28 P-30

P-29

P-31 P-37

Sleeve

P-38 P-39 P-40 P-41

Process sequence

P-42 Work sharing

P-43 P-45

P-44

P-46

P-47 P-48 Inspection

Fig.D.5 Existing layout for product-4 manufacturing

80

Front Making Section P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 (a)

P-5 (b)

+ 1RM

P-10 (b)

+ 1PM

P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 (a) P-11

Sleeve Making Section P-29 P-30 P-31 P-32

81

Assembly and Output Section Yoke

P-12 P-13 P-14

Back

P-15 P-16 Front + 1PM

P-18 P-19 (a)

P-17

P-19 (b)

P-20 P-21 P-22

P-23 P-24 P-25 (a)

+ 1PM

P-27 (a)

P-27 (b)

Collar

P-25 (b)

+ 1PM

P-26

P-28 + 1PM

P-33 (a) P-33 (b)

Sleeve

P-34 P-35 P-36 P-37

: Process sequence

P-38

: Work sharing

+ 1PM

P-39 (a) P-39 (b)

P-41

P-40

P-42

P-43

+

: Addition

P-44 Inspection

Fig.D.6 Proposed layout for product-4 manufacturing

82

Appendix-E Questionnaire for the study on Productivity Improvement in RMG Industries Name of the Industry Address

Location Tel:

Fax:

Type of products manufactured Employee no. Name of the employee Educational background Sex Age (yrs) Job designation Marital status Number of child Placement of child Working duration Skill level of the worker Safety knowledge Training facilities Repetitive tasks Salary (BD Tk.) Satisfaction with the salary Overall satisfaction Influence of incentives and other benefits in performance Consistency in pace of worker Baby daycare facilities Ventilation and lighting facilities

Male Below 15 Supervisor Unmarried 1-2 Babycare 0-3 Skilled Yes Yes Yes 2000-3000 Agree Satisfied More

Training Achieved Female 15-20 20-25 > 25 Operator Helper Married Separated Divorce 2-3 3-4 >4 Home Other place 4-6 7-9 >9 Semiskilled Unskilled No No No 3000-4000 4000-5000 > 5000 Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Less No opinion

Yes

No

Yes Yes

No No

83

Dissatisfied