Main Products And Services Services

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Fujitsu provides solutions/system integration services focused on information system consulting and integration, and infrastructure services centered on outsourcing services (complete information system operation and management).

System Platforms

Fujitsu offers system products such as servers and storage systems which form the backbone of information systems, along with network products such as mobile phone base stations, optical transmission systems, and other communications infrastructures.

Our Strength

Services

Fujitsu's services business holds the leading market share in Japan and the third-largest share worldwide. We provide services across a wide range of countries and regions, including Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Oceania.

Outsourcing services are a key field for us, where through our network of approximately 100 datacenters in 16 countries worldwide, mainly in Japan and Europe, we meet a wide variety of customer needs. Among other benefits, our services make operation of customers' information and communication technology (ICT) systems easier, and help to make their operations greener.

Fujitsu's strengths lie in its global services structure, a wealth of experience in building large-scale, advanced systems, and the technological capabilities to support these operations. We use these capabilities to help diverse customers across countries, regions and languages in utilizing ICT systems, including for government organizations and customers with a presence worldwide.

System Platforms

In system products, Fujitsu has a broad lineup of offerings to meet the needs of customers around the world. These include sophisticated and highly reliable mainframe and UNIX servers that support the backbone systems of corporations and that are equipped with proprietary CPUs—Fujitsu being one of the few global ICT companies with the technology to make its own processor chips. We also provide x86 servers for cloud computing and other promising business areas, as well as storage systems able to hold increasingly vast amounts of data.

In network products, Fujitsu holds a large market share for the optical transmission systems and mobile phone base stations used by mobile communications carriers in Japan, backed by its advanced technology and support capabilities. We also have the leading market share in the highly competitive North American market for optical transmission systems, building on our highly rated technical capabilities and track record.

Lean production refers to approaches initially developed by Toyota that focuses on the elimination of waste in allforms. Lean has been extremely successful in large high volume manufacturers. However, many small to mediumsize low volume manufacturers have not fully embraced the potential benefits of a lean production system. Thispaper focuses on the implementation of lean in a small manufacturer of all electric 4-wheel drive vehicles. The goalwas to increase the capacity and throughput rates, reduce lead-times, and improve quality and efficiency whilereducing operating costs. Through the implementation of basic lean tools such as 5S, standardized work, linebalancing, visual controls, point of use storage, and quality at the source, the small manufacturer was able to rapidlyincrease throughput and reduce quality defects by 80%. Based on observations derived from this case study,hypothesis statements are generated regarding obstacles and solutions to lean implementation in small and mediummanufacturing enterprises.KeywordsLean Manufacturing, Low Volume Manufacturing, Lean Implementation1.

Introduction

Lean Manufacturing is accepted and widely used by the vast majority of the world’s major manufacturers. It comesin many forms and has many names (e.g., Toyota Production System, Nissan Production Way). The basis of LeanManufacturing, however, always contains the core elements that make it work. Lean contains five primary elements:Manufacturing Flow, Organization, Process Control, Metrics and Logistics [1]. Lean, when properly implemented,allows manufacturers to build quality products faster and more efficiently. It eliminates waste in the system that thecustomer does not want to pay for. Many small manufacturers have yet to embrace Lean for various reasons. Thesemanufacturers either have never been exposed to Lean or just do not have the knowledge or knowhow to implementit. Some do not see value in sending employees to expensive training because of a lack of knowledge of what Leanis and can do [2].2. Problem OverviewThis paper focuses on an Un-named Small Company (USC) that is a manufacturer of off-road vehicles. Theiroriginal product came to the plant 75% assembled and was completed at USC. In the summer of 2009, USC beganto manufacture a new product that was assembled 100% in-house. As a result, this product brought newcomplexities to USC and greatly slowed its assembly.Mississippi State University’s Center for Advanced Vehicular Systems Extension (CAVSE) was asked to help findimprovements by analyzing the processes and facility. The main objectives were to:• Achieve a minimum throughput rate of 12 vehicles per day• Eliminate overtime• Improve quality and decrease rework.3. Current Condition AssessmentBefore a Lean implementation, CAVSE needed to assess the current conditions and learn the assembly process. Thefirst step was to understand the layout and basic flow of the plant, as seen in Figure 1. Station 1 has four work areasSimmons, Holt, Dennis & Waldenthat feed two independent, and identical, lines. From there, time was spent with all members of each work stationdocumenting the best practice for each process. This information was used to standardize work between bothassembly lines. In addition, observations were made of issues that were detrimental to the efficiency of the system.Some early observations:• Work stations were very cluttered with scrap and rework parts• Workers were constantly leaving their work stations to find parts, tools, and/or hardware• Work load in the stations was not balanced• Units were being pulled offline to have welding doneThe initial production system averaged 3 finished vehicles per shift and showed an average rate of 18 defects perFigure 1: Initial Process Flow4. ImplementationThis section covers the overall approach of the Lean implementation, and issues will be identified along withcorresponding solutions.4.1 Basic Lean PrinciplesAs the process was documented, several issues listed in Section 3 were noted. The first, and most important, step ina Lean implementation is 5S (i.e., Sort, Set in Order, Shine, Standardize, and Sustain). It is a methodology forkeeping a clean, organized workstation. Each Station Lead, the designated leader within each station, was taskedwith getting his workers to clean their individual areas and to identify only what was needed. To help relieve pileupsof damaged parts, red tag bins were placed in designated locations on the shop floor. This allowed Station Leadsto tag damaged or defective parts with a description of the problem and get them out of the way. This also helps withinventory issues so the parts are accurately managed. Hardware shelves were set up in the stations and labeled binswere put in place for each variation of hardware. Above these shelves, a large process board was installed with adescription of the process as well as pictures that detail each step. Shadow-boards were constructed to organize thetools needed in each station. The shadow boards have a marked spot for each individual tool so the Lead can quicklysee if something is missing at the end of the day.A major issue indentified early in the initial assessment was that workers constantly leave their workstations to findparts, hardware, and/or tools. Ideally, the worker should not have to leave the workstation to perform his or her job.The hardware issue was solved by using the organized shelves described previously. Tools were also a large issue;Simmons, Holt, Dennis & Waldenthe workers were constantly borrowing tools from other stations or wasting time looking for tools. Tool lists werecompiled by the Station Leads. Once the shadow boards were in place, tools were purchased to replenish missingtools and all tools were marked by station. Finally, parts had to be dealt with. The bill of materials was broken intostations to make individual parts lists. At each station, locations were identified for each part and marked with alabel that contained the part number and part description. This not only made it easier for workers to find parts, butalso made it easier for the Material Handlers to replenish stock. Station Leads were given material count sheetsspecific to their stations. These sheets allowed them to take a physical count of what they had on-hand and to requestadditional parts from inventory based upon the next day’s scheduled production.4.2 Line Balancing and SubassembliesOnce all workstations had everything they needed, production rates began to increase, which exposed bottlenecks.Immediately, it could be seen that Station 3 was slowing down the system. As the process was observed, it becameclear that dashboards could be assembled and wired offline which would take a large portion of work out of Station3. A Dashboard Subassembly Station was created to feed both lines which improved overall throughput down bothassembly lines.When the work in Station 3 was completed, the units were being pulled offline to have the seat brackets welded in,and then they were moved back to the production line, disturbing the flow. This process was inserted in betweenStation 1 and Station 2, to improve flow and decrease line disruption.The next bottleneck to surface was Station 5. The roof cage was assembled on the vehicle, adding additional time instation. In order to reduce the bottleneck and labor content, a Roof Cage Subassembly Station was created to feedboth lines. As a result this subassembly did not have enough work content to be balanced with the assembly lines, soWinch Subassembly and Passenger Foot Rest Subassembly were added. In addition, it was required to removeEmergency Brake Assembly to meet the target production rate. This was accomplished by creating anothersubassembly area which fed both lines, further improving overall line balance and flow.The resulting flow, along with the in-station changes, increased the production rate from 3 to 14 vehicles per day onaverage while only increasing the manpower by one operator. Figure 2 shows the process flow after thesubassemblies were implemented.Figure 2: Subassembly Process FlowOnce the new subassembly stations were in place, the desired production rate was surpassed, but the line was stillnot completely balanced. Station 4’s work content was low and contained idle time. Stations 2 and 3 were runningSimmons, Holt, Dennis & Waldenslightly faster than Station 5 which was setting the line pace. Rear fender flares and winch install were moved fromStation 5 to Station 4 to help balance out the times. This move increased Station 4’s time while keeping both Station4 and Station 5’s time under the target.Due to strong sales, USC asked what could be done to further increase the production rate. After analyzing timestudies, it was determined that a new station could be created between Stations 2 and 3 that would match the lowestprocessing times of other stations. An equal amount of work was pulled from Stations 2 and 3 and a new Station 2.5was created. This new line configuration did achieve a production rate of 20 vehicles per day and can be seen inFigure 3.Figure 3: Balanced Process Flow4.3 Quality ConcernsAs stated in Section 3 of this paper, initially the finished vehicles were averaging 18 quality issues per unit. Timewas spent with the quality control group to discuss what the quality concerns were and how to resolve them. APareto Analysis was prepared to determine the most common quality issues. Once these issues were documented,check sheets for each station were devised that identified key quality characteristics to check before the unit movedto the next station. Station Leads were given responsibility for items on their respective check sheets and heldaccountable for quality issues found in final inspection. Once the check sheets were implemented and became anormal part of the process, quality improved rapidly. After a few weeks of use, the quality issues per unit droppedfrom an average of 18 to an average of 3 per unit. The decrease in quality problems also proportionally decreasedthe amount of rework needed per unit.4.4 Warehousing and LogisticsAn issue that plagued the Material Handlers was the inability to find parts quickly and efficiently. The warehouse atUSC was spread across five buildings, with limited organization. Before beginning to organize these warehouses, aninventory of the racks and a layout of each building was drawn in CAD to create a plan. From there, an inventory ofall parts was taken, recording not only part quantities, but also locations. This data showed that the warehousescomingled current production parts, obsolete parts and service parts. After analyzing the data, it was determined thatthe current warehouse space was underutilized and contained plenty of available space. A layout plan was developedto better organize the warehouses. This included removing all obsolete parts, and separating the current model partsfrom the previous model parts. This new organizational plan is shown in Figure 4.Simmons, Holt, Dennis & WaldenFigure 4: Site Layout with WarehousesThis plan was soon implemented, scrapping all obsolete parts and placing service parts into a specific area. AnIncoming Material Staging Area was allocated to allow the unloading of containers, inventorying by part numberprior to storage. Afterwards, the warehouses were organized and parts were easier for the material handlers to find.5. ConclusionsIn this project, a Lean Manufacturing implementation was successfully instituted in a small, low volumemanufacturer with limited previous knowledge of Lean systems. Many small manufacturers have not had the chanceto implement Lean because of a lack of knowledge of Lean, lack of funding for training, or a lack of astuteleadership to encourage a Lean implementation [2]. To have a successful implementation, buy-in must exist in theentire organization from top management down to the line workers. Upper management must stay engaged andconstantly challenge employees to improve and develop higher value added work. As long as discipline ismaintained the Lean tools will continue to work and expose new opportunities for improvement. Employees have towork tighter as a team, but will find that their jobs become easier with improvements.By attacking the bottlenecks as they appear, throughput was increased rapidly by over 600%. Lean also decreaseddefects by 83% and improved overall efficiency through the entire manufacturing process in a three month timeframe.AcknowledgementsThe Authors would like to thank all Team Members from CAVSE, Management and Line Workers from USC fortheir hard work and dedication. The Authors would also like to thank USC for the opportunity to help improve theoverall production of the plant. Finally, the Authors would like to thank the Public and Private support in the form ofpartial funding for this project.Simmons, Holt, Dennis & WaldenReferences1. Feld, William M., Lean Manufacturing: Tools, Techniques and How to Use Them. Boca Raton, FL: St.Lucie Press, 2000.2. Pius, Achanga, and Esam, Shehab, 2006, "Critical Success Factors for Lean Implementation withinSME’s," Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(4), 460-471.