In this paper, a novel lean approach to address material losses in production processes is presented. It is termed materials cost deployment (MaCD) and has the objective of identifying, analyzing, and reducing or eliminating material losses. Thanks to the modification of the manufacturing cost deployment framework, MaCD proposes an alternative structure for classifying and analyzing material losses, setting the focus on areas where the greatest losses are placed, and providing opportunities for greater efficiency and effectiveness in reducing and eliminating them. With the proposed approach, material losses within the factory are identified and classified into causal and resultant losses. Each loss is then quantified, also in monetary terms. The improvement actions to tackle each causal loss are identified and then evaluated by means of a quantitative measure in order to find the preferable ones. Finally, a practical decision procedure is applied to select which improvement interventions to start, and hence which causal losses to tackle, according to technical and economic factors. The effectiveness and practicality of MaCD in addressing material losses are shown by means of an industrial application concerning a European multinational group operating in the food and beverage industry.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Womack J, Jones D (2003) Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Free Press, London
de Oliveira RI, Sousa SO, de Campos FC (2019) Lean manufacturing implementation: bibliometric analysis 2007–2018. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 101(1–4):979–988. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-2965-y
Thürer M, Tomašević I, Stevenson M (2017) On the meaning of ‘waste’: review and definition. Prod Plan Control 28(3):244–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1264640
Formoso CT, Soibelman L, De Cesare C, Isatto EL (2002) Material waste in building industry: main causes and prevention. J Constr Eng Manag 128(4):316–325. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:4(316)
Sun Y, Fowler JW, Shunk DL (2011) Policies for allocating product lots to customer orders in semiconductor manufacturing supply chains. Prod Plan Control 22(1):69–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2010.490020
Braglia M, Castellano D, Frosolini M, Gallo M (2018) Overall material usage effectiveness (OME): a structured indicator to measure the effective material usage within manufacturing processes. Prod Plan Control 29(2):143–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1395920
Dunn T (2014) Manufacturing flexible packaging: materials, machinery, and techniques. William Andrew. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-09950-1
Allwood JM, Ashby MF, Gutowski TG, Worrell E (2011) Material efficiency: a white paper. Resour Conserv Recycl 55(3):362–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.11.002
Alayón C, Säfsten K, Johansson G (2017) Conceptual sustainable production principles in practice: do they reflect what companies do? J Clean Prod 141:693–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.079
Bhamu J, Sangwan KS (2014) Lean manufacturing: literature review and research issues. Int J Oper Prod Manag 34(7):876–940. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-08-2012-0315
Yamashina H, Kubo T (2002) Manufacturing cost deployment. Int J Prod Res 40(16):4077–4091. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540210157178
Brown M, Hale K (2014) Applied research methods in public and nonprofit organizations. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco
Kothari CR (2004) Research methodology: methods and techniques. New Age International, New Delhi
Braglia M, Castellano D, Gabbrielli R, Marrazzini L (2020) Energy cost deployment (ECD): a novel lean approach to tackling energy losses. J Clean Prod 246:119056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119056
Rother M, Shook J (1999) Learning to see: value stream mapping to add value and eliminate Muda. Productivity Press, Cambridge
Forno AJD, Pereira FA, Forcellini FA, Kipper LM (2014) Value stream mapping: a study about the problems and challenges found in the literature from the past 15 years about application of lean tools. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 72(5–8):779–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-014-5712-z
Faulkner W, Badurdeen F (2014) Sustainable value stream mapping (Sus-VSM): methodology to visualize and assess manufacturing sustainability performance. J Clean Prod 85:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.042
Hansen RC (2002) Overall equipment effectiveness: a powerful production/maintenance tool for increased profits. Industrial Press Inc, New York
Sonmez V, Testik MC, Testik OM (2018) Overall equipment effectiveness when production speeds and stoppage durations are uncertain. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95(1–4):121–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-1170-8
Chien C, Diaz AC, Lan Y (2014) A data mining approach for Analyzing semiconductor MES and FDC data to enhance overall usage effectiveness (OUE). Int J Comput Intell Syst 7(sup2):52–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2014.947114
Garza-Reyes JA (2015) From measuring overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) to overall resource effectiveness (ORE). J Qual Maint Eng 21(4):506–527. https://doi.org/10.1108/JQME-03-2014-0014
Carmignani G (2017) Scrap value stream mapping (S-VSM): a new approach to improve the supply scrap management process. Int J Prod Res 55(12):3559–3576. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1308574
Braglia M, Frosolini M, Gallo M, Marrazzini L (2019) Lean manufacturing tool in engineer-to-order environment: project cost deployment. Int J Prod Res 57(6):1825–1839. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1508905
Abisourour J, Hachkar M, Mounir B, Farchi A (2020) Methodology for integrated management system improvement: combining costs deployment and value stream mapping. Int J Prod Res 58(12):3667–3685. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1633482
American National Standards Institute (1979) American National Standard Process Charts: ANSI Y15.3M. The Society
Patel S, Desai DA, Narkhede BE, Maddulety K, Raut R (2019) Lean six sigma: literature review and implementation roadmap for manufacturing industries. Int J Bus Excell 19(4):447–472. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEX.2019.103461
Zahraee SM (2016) A survey on lean manufacturing implementation in a selected manufacturing industry in Iran. Int J Lean Six Sigma 7(2):136–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-03-2015-0010
Sassone R, Peter G, Schaffer WA (1978) Cost-benefit analysis: a handbook, vol 182. Academic Press, New York
Dantzig GB (1957) Discrete-variable extremum problems. Oper Res 5(2):266–288
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Consent to participate
Consent for publication
The Journal has the Author’s permission to publish our research paper.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Detailed calculation of the case study C-Matrix (Fig. 12)
An exhaustive description of the calculations carried out to estimate in economic terms the observed material losses is reported below.
This quantification procedure requires a cost coefficient ρj to convert in economic terms the material losses recorded at each operation unit j. According to the adopted hypotheses, these cost coefficients can be derived as a specific percentage of the average product family’s unit cost c (which amounts to 5.047 €/kg) and are summarized in Table 3.
With the cost coefficients in Table 3, we can easily quantify in economic terms the material losses as ascribed in the case study C-Matrix (Fig. 12). We report below, as an example, the total cost calculation for the first row of C-Matrix in Fig. 12.
Loss: quality of supplies—Comments: Materials and finished products lost due to inadequacy of one of the ingredients of finished products’ recipe. Where: Silos and raw materials warehouse.
The amount of material loss at “Silos and raw materials warehouse” due to this loss factor was estimated as 1347.233 kg/year (see column “Direct loss” in Fig. 12). With the cost coefficient value in Table 3, we can derive a direct loss of 1347.233 kg/year · 3.0484 €/kg = 4106.95 €/year.
In this case, the analysis team identified only one resultant loss.
Loss: material contamination—comments: materials lost due to wrong or expired ingredients. Where: dosing & mixing.
The amount of material loss at “Dosing & mixing” due to this loss factor was estimated as 1627.320 kg/year (see the corresponding column in the “Resultant losses” section of Fig. 12). With the cost coefficient value in Table A.1, we can derive the cost of this resultant material loss as 1627.320 kg/year · 3.5332 €/kg = 5749.62 €/year.
About this article
Cite this article
Braglia, M., Gallo, M. & Marrazzini, L. A lean approach to address material losses: materials cost deployment (MaCD). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 113, 565–584 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-06632-3
- Material losses
- Material efficiency
- Manufacturing cost deployment
- Lean manufacturing
- Root cause analysis
- Continuous improvement