Keeping it simple

Japanese auto makers are experimenting with shop floor flexibility to keep costs on a tight leash

When Maruti Suzuki India launched the highly successful compact car Swift in 2005, followed up by the sedan Swift Dzire in 2008, there was commotion in the board room instead of celebration. While the company's dealers were asking for bigger stocks, its production managers were splitting hairs over how to meet the growing demand. As the waiting time for customers kept increasing - from two to six months - its engineers went back to the drawing board to look for ways to cut production time.

Among the first things the company did was abolish the idea of keeping two separate production lines for the two cars. The key was to make the production process flexible so that multiple variants of the two car models could be manufactured on the same line. While the move helped speed up the assembly process, there was one more step that Maruti Suzuki engineers took - they reprogrammed the assembly line robots to automatically 'adjust' to the contours of the car model on the line. The "flexibility" as Rajiv Gandhi, executive director (production) Maruti Suzuki India, puts it, "expanded production capabilities by transforming the existing production line into a faster, more precise operation".

It was a simple adjustment at the shop floor but it was one that allowed Maruti Suzuki to cut out the prospect of worker fatigue or of adding costly labour.

Since then Swift has raced past the million-unit sales mark (in 2013, in a little over eight years). Today, it is the second-largest selling car in the country with close to 2 lakh units sold annually. For its part, Swift DZire became India's best-selling car last year, ending the Alto's long stint at the top.

Robots have been a part of automotive manufacturing for decades - and not just in Suzuki factories. But as a new generation of safer, more user-friendly robots emerges, they are working more closely alongside humans, making processes faster and flexible, thus freeing up valuable corporate resources. Here, we will take a look at some new techniques (aside from automation) that Japanese automakers - long hailed as ambassadors of manufacturing excellence globally - are adopting in India to make their assembly lines more efficient.

Begin at the beginning
Analysts reckon that 60 per cent of the cost of a car comprise investment in the production facility while 20 per cent is accounted for by the parts/components that actually go into making the car (the rest being labour and marketing costs). This means the idea of keeping costs low should kick in right at the beginning-that is, when setting up or refurbishing the production facility itself.

Take Toyota Kirloskar Motors, which has taken simple steps at the shop floor to cut wastage. So instead of having cars dangling down from ceilings, the cars at its factory are rolled on a simple raised platform. This helps in keeping the height of the ceiling at its factory lower, thus reducing building costs. It also helps if you are thinking ergonomically - line workers can concentrate on a stationary object placed at eye level, rather than constantly looking up and reaching out for a vehicle under construction. Then, instead of moving along an assembly line vertically (engine to boot), the cars - in some instances - move sideways (imagine a parking lot in the mall or next to an office building). This step allows the line to be 35-40 per cent shorter than those with cars lined up vertically, leading up to a 'smaller' factory where investments are much lower.

The company's automation strategy hinges on multi-tasking robots and at reducing the size of machines to be able to build smaller plants at new locations.

Work along the way
Some automakers are looking at solutions that will allow lines to get lengthened or shortened at will or on building special paint spray lines that will allow the three coats of paints to be applied on top of each other while they are still wet so as to eliminate the extra time for them to dry out completely.

For Honda India, the blueprint for a low-investment plant came from the company's plant in Yorii, in Saitama Prefecture, Japan. At this factory high-speed welding robots make the car body frames, advanced hemming machines shape doors and hoods, and 3D printing cuts the need for prototyping to some extent. The advanced production line has reduced the number of the total processes by 9 per cent and cut the assembly lead time by 18 per cent.

By replicating the whole process at its facility in India, the company has cut the risk of trial and error. It spends more of the management time in learning the peculiarities of the Indian market. Its plant in Alwar -which until the roll-out of the Amaze was producing body panels and engine components only - is remodelled in such a way that different variants of different car models (whether petrol or diesel) can be assembled keeping in mind ebb and flow of customer demand.

For its part, Nissan (which operates in a strategic partnership with France's Renault through a cross-shareholding agreement since 1999) depends on local sourcing to reduce the cost burden on its books. In a departure from its usual machinery sourcing policy, Nissan has taken on Pune-based PARI for its plant in Chennai as well as for a new line producing engines in Europe, at Cleon (a major Renault powertrain plant), near Rouen, France. Sourcing equipment in Chennai has been a great opportunity for the Renault-Nissan alliance to discover new suppliers. In addition to sourcing machinery, the alliance also has two logistics platforms. These are for sourcing and shipping components from Pune and Chennai for Renault and Nissan plants abroad.

The company has tried to make the production system at Chennai as simple as possible using a lot of manual processes to build in flexibility. It follows a random production method (that is cars are built to order; however, the difference between build-to-order in India and elsewhere is that the customer in India wants the car immediately. So the build orders are based on dealer predictions), under which it can make changes on the assembly line based on the platform or model. These can be made in batches as low as a single unit.

Look at the extent of flexibility its assembly line affords. It is able to accommodate up to four different platforms and eight different upper bodies. This is enabled by a clever jig-changing system, a little like what Nissan does in China, but further improved by taking the best of both Renault and Nissan. For example, for making all the closures, the AIMS way is to use roller hemming as this is much more flexible than clinching by presswork. All this has helped the company to bring down the jig changeover time to 10 seconds, the same time it takes for the body to advance between stations.

According to Toshihiko Sano, CEO and managing director, Renault Nissan Automotive India, "Production of multiple vehicles of different brands in the same manufacturing facility is the unique advantage of the company." The company has also introduced simple innovations in the factory building and at the paint shop specifically to reduce wastage. The paint shop, for instance, has installed a special system (first of its kind in India) to cut water wastage completely. The Chennai plant of Nissan-Renault has also installed a three-wet painting system under which the car is dried only once, instead of three times, which is the norm. Also sections of the factory roof are fitted with transparent sheets, allowing for natural light to illuminate the floor.

Learning from Toyota : Jeffrey K Liker

  THE OVERALL STRATEGY OF LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEMS IS THE SAME FOR DEVELOPED AND EMERGING MARKETS: perfect quality, lowest cost, just-in-time with high safety and employee morale. That does not change. What does change are the specific vehicles that can be sold in a market. For example, Toyota has been caught without enough low-cost options in emerging markets like India and China and has had to develop new vehicles for those markets. Toyota always has the philosophy of investing in team members, including stable employment. In emerging markets where turnover of hourly employees is common for small increases in pay, Toyota has had to work to retain its core group of team members. Investing in team member skill and creating efficient workplace also means there is less pressure to use automation as a way to reduce cost.

There are other opportunities. So even in expensive Japan, Toyota often will use less automation than its competitors. People are the most flexible resource and automation is a fixed capital cost. Of course, in developing countries where labour rates are lower, Toyota can use even less automation and rely more on people. Yet, Toyota still works very hard to be highly cost efficient, whether in an expensive developed country or a developing country.

The automation philosophy to be followed, as I have mentioned in my book, The Toyota Way, are:

• Use technology to support people, not to replace people. Often it is best to work out a process manually before adding technology to support the process.
   
• Conduct actual tests before adopting new technology in business processes, manufacturing systems, or in products.
   
• Reject or modify technologies that conflict with your culture or which might disrupt stability, reliability, and predictability.
   
• Consider all new technologies when looking into new approaches to work. Quickly implement a thoroughly considered technology if it has been proven in trials and it can improve flow in your processes.

This does not mean that companies can avoid technology or be afraid of introducing new technology. It means companies should be thoughtful about technology, studying all the implications intensely before jumping on the bandwagon. Think about how it will affect the overall flow of material and information. Consider implications for stable employment of your team members. Consider all the life cycle costs. Consider how user-friendly it is for the operator and for those who have to maintain it. Consider opportunities to improve your current process so you are comparing a very lean process using the technology you have to new technology rather than comparing an inefficient operation with a lot of waste to the alternative of new technology. The balancing act is thinking, studying, and continually improving instead of thoughtlessly doing simple cost-benefit analysis and jumping into major investments for new technology.

In my opinion many companies have such great opportunities to improve the processes they already have, with very little capital investment, and should focus on that before spending a lot of money on advanced technology.

Jeffrey K Liker
Professor, Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, & author, The Toyota Way