sustainability

Article
The Human-Centric SMED
Edoardo Fonda and Antonella Meneghetti *

Polytechnic Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The Human-Centric SMED (H-SMED) is an evolution of the classical methodology intro-
duced by Shingo to manage the setup process, which is particularly suitable for companies where
the setup involves activities with high human content, that can be hardly transformed into external
operations to be performed during the machine uptime. The H-SMED integrates Industry 4.0 tools,
as the MES Data Analysis, Lean Management and Ergonomics with a new attention to the centrality
of workers, in order to guide the transition towards the next Industry 5.0. The H-SMED methodology
is developed into four phases, devolved to: (1) understanding the changeover process; (2) identifying
potential improvements; (3) moving from proposal to practice; (4) training and control, in a continu-
ous improvement cycle. The case study of a world-wide known company in the fashion eyewear
industry is proposed to validate the framework, reporting a 44% reduction of setup duration.

Keywords: Industry 5.0; sustainability; lean management; ergonomics; SMED; fashion eyewear
industry

1. Introduction



The European Union has recently introduced the new concept of “Industry 5.0”, where

 the focus shifts from the technology-driven progress typical of Industry 4.0 to a thoroughly
Citation: Fonda, E.; Meneghetti, A. human-centric approach. This human-centric approach in industry puts core human needs
The Human-Centric SMED. and interests at the heart of the production process, and uses new technologies to provide
Sustainability 2022, 14, 514. https:// prosperity beyond jobs and growth, while respecting the production limits of the planet.
doi.org/10.3390/su14010514
“Rather than asking what we can do with new technology, we ask what the technology can
Academic Editors: Melissa Demartini do for us. Rather than asking the industry worker to adapt his or her skills to the needs of
and Flavio Tonelli rapidly evolving technology, we want to use technology to adapt the production process
to the needs of the worker” [1]. Moreover, Industry 4.0 is technology-driven, whereas
Received: 10 December 2021
Industry 5.0 is value-driven [2]. Thus, Industry 5.0 emphasizes the role that Industry 4.0
Accepted: 27 December 2021
technologies, such as digitalization, big data and artificial intelligence, can play to increase
Published: 4 January 2022
production system resilience and sustainability, while adapting to the worker, rather than
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral the other way around [3].
with regard to jurisdictional claims in Focusing on the setup process, embracing Industry 5.0 perspective leads to rethinking
published maps and institutional affil- classical methods and tools, such as Shingo’s SMED (Single Minute Exchange of Die),
iations. by integrating the benefits of digitalized manufacturing with a new attention to workers’
requirements, in order to gain better performance. This means also adopting a sustainability
approach, in particular its social dimension, with renewed attention paid to supporting
workers in their activities, working in symbiosis with new technologies as a fundamental
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
step towards the next Society 5.0 [4]. To this end, this study proposes the Human-Centric
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
SMED (H-SMED) by merging concepts and tools from Industry 4.0, Lean Management
distributed under the terms and
and Ergonomics. The aim is supporting workers in a continuous improvement cycle of
conditions of the Creative Commons the setup process towards better and better system performance. The methodology has
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// been developed and tested in a world-wide known company in the fashion industry, which
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ is challenged by addressing growing mass customization to be competitive and higher
4.0/). process efficiency.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 514. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010514 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 514 2 of 13

The paper is structured as follows: in Section 2 the literature on SMED is summarized,

while in Section 3 the proposed H-SMED methodology is described. In Section 4, the
results from the application to the case study are discussed and conclusions are derived in
Section 5.

2. Literature Review
An effective way to achieve good performances in a changeover process is the imple-
mentation of the Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) methodology proposed by Shingo
(1985). It aims to execute equipment setup in a single-digit number of minutes. Although
not every changeover can be completed in single-digit time, a high percentage of cases refer
to this goal [5]. The SMED provides a structured path to perform faster changeovers, thus
reducing the system downtime losses, which impact on the availability factor of the OEE
(Overall Equipment Effectiveness). At the core of SMED is the conversion of the internal
activities of a setup process, which must be executed when the machine is stopped, into
external ones, performed when the machine is operating. Dramatic setup time reduction
can be expected, exceeding 30% in most cases (e.g., Ref. [6]). Moreover, a significant cost
reduction as well as an increase of core competencies have been reported with regard to
the application of this tool [7]. SMED has been successfully applied in different industries,
from heavy machine production to food and fashion industry [8].
As underlined in [9], several publications in the literature describe SMED projects
applied in combination with other Lean Management tools (e.g., Ref. [10]) and adopting
a sustainable approach. In particular, Gabahne et al. [11] report the use of SMED with
the support of 5S method and Total Productive Maintenance, in order to improve the pro-
ductivity of the bottleneck system in the injection molding process. Kumar and Bajaj [12]
implement the 5S principle in mechanical presses machines, calculating significant im-
provements. Braglia et al. [13] suggest the integration of SMED with the 5-Whys Analysis,
which allows to highlight sub-optimum conditions in the changeover process, reducing
costs and the effort necessary to conduct the SMED program. Yazıcı et al. [14] propose the
SMED-fuzzy FMEA to prevent problems causing the extending of the setup time. Azizi
and Manoharan [15] designed an efficient VSM (Value Stream Mapping), to improve the
productivity of Small and Medium Enterprises. Ebrahimi et al. [16] developed the 3SM
(Sustainable Setup Stream Mapping), based on SMED, sustainability and VSM, thus em-
bedding environmental, social and economic aspects related to the setup analysis. Boran
and Ekincioğlu [17] focused on the operator’s work conditions considering the reduction
of non-ergonomic activities during a setup process. Brito and Gonçalves [18] introduced
the ErgoSMED to integrate SMED with Ergonomics, in order to simultaneously improve
setup times and workers’ conditions. Pacheco et al. [19] proposed the SMED-presetting
by introducing a dedicated presetting department with the responsibility to manage and
execute all external activities.
From the above literature analysis, it emerges the need of integrating Lean Man-
agement tools and practice with the increased availability of data coming from machine
sensorization and the Internet of Things pillar of Industry 4.0. However, in the light of
Industry 5.0, the awareness about the process, which can be empowered by data analysis,
should be exploited to put the human factor in the center of the setup improvement projects,
thus also embracing the social dimension of sustainability. The H-SMED methodology has
been developed to address this research gap, as described in the following section.

3. The H-SMED Methodology

The H-SMED has been thought of as a natural evolution of the classical Shingo’s
methodology, by integrating Lean Management tools (e.g., 5S, Travel Chart Analysis), with
Ergonomics principles and Data Analysis to deal with the increasing complexity that is
reshaping the manufacturing scenario. The aim is to embrace the Industry 5.0 perspective
of human centricity, particularly suitable for those industries such as the fashion one, where
craftsmanship still plays a key role and workforce is a precious resource.
 3. The H-SMED Methodology
The H-SMED has been thought of as a natural evolution of the classical Shingo’s
methodology, by integrating Lean Management tools (e.g., 5S, Travel Chart Analysis),
with Ergonomics principles and Data Analysis to deal with the increasing complexity that
is reshaping the manufacturing scenario. The aim is to embrace the Industry 5.0 perspec-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 514 3 of 13
tive of human centricity, particularly suitable for those industries such as the fashion one,
where craftsmanship still plays a key role and workforce is a precious resource.
The Human-Centric SMED is based on four phases, guiding the transition from the
“As The
Is” Human-Centric
state to the “ToSMED is based
Be” one, on four
in an phases,
iterative guiding
kaizen cyclethe
totransition
generate from the
valuable
“As Is” state to the “To Be” one, in an iterative kaizen cycle to generate valuable
knowledge and learning about the changeover process (See Figure 1 below). Hence, H- knowledge
and
SMED learning
aims atabout the changeover
increasing process
the availability (See Figure
of resources 1 below).
and, Hence, the
consequently, H-SMED aims
efficiency of
at increasing the availability of resources and, consequently, the efficiency of the system
the system where it is applied. In the following subsections, the four phases are explained
where it is applied. In the following subsections, the four phases are explained in detail as
in detail as a roadmap towards the setup process improvement.
a roadmap towards the setup process improvement.

Figure1.1.The
Figure TheHuman-Centric
Human-CentricSMED.
SMED.
3.1. Phase I: Understanding the Changeover Process
3.1. Phase I: Understanding the Changeover Process
The first stage of H-SMED is aligned with the original Shingo’s methodology: the
deep The first stage of
understanding ofH-SMED
problemsisthataligned with emerge
typically the original
during Shingo’s
a setup. methodology:
However, the the
deep understanding of problems that typically emerge during
H-SMED phase I relies on the new information availability deriving from Industry 4.0 anda setup. However, the H-
aSMED phase
particular I relies on
attention on the new information
workforce issues. availability deriving from Industry 4.0 and a
particular attention on workforce issues.
Initially, by contact with operators through interviews and direct observation on the
Initially,
field, their by contact
experiences arewith operators
collected, through
in order interviews
to firstly and into
get insights direct theobservation
process andon the
then
field, their experiences are collected, in order to firstly get insights
favor a deep understanding of criticalities in the involved setup operations. The observation into the process and
then
of the favor
workinga deep understanding
activities of criticalities
actually performed during inathe involved
setup aims tosetup
gain an operations. The ob-
overall overview
servation
of of the
the actions working
involved, theactivities
type andactually
current performed
location of the during a setup
required aims to gain
equipment, the an over-
current
all overview
movements of the
near the actions
machineinvolved,
as well asthe typefrom
away andthe current location
working of the
position. required
Some equip-
actions can
ment, the
appear currentjust
avoidable movements
from these near the observations
initial machine as well andas away potential
become from the working
candidateposi-
for
tion. Some actions can appear avoidable just from these initial
elimination or re-engineering in the following phases of the H-SMED project. Interviews observations and become
potential
are useful candidate
to come tofor elimination
grips or re-engineering
with the difficulties perceived in the followingwhile
by workers phases of the H-
performing
aSMED
setup.project. Interviews
In this phase, are useful to
it is important to be
come to grips with
open-minded andtheto difficulties
listen to theperceived
complaints by
workers
as well aswhile performing
suggestions by the a setup. In this
operators. Inphase,
order to it isbeimportant to be open-minded
more effective, listening to bothand
to listen to the
experienced complaints
workers as well as
and newbies suggestions
is relevant by the
to have operators.
a deeper In order to beofmore
comprehension the
effective,problems
technical listening to orboth experienced workers
the organizational issues and that newbies
can happen is relevant
duringtoa have a deeper
working day.
comprehension
Moreover, of the technical
by interviewing workersproblems
while they or the organizational
are performing issues thatitcan
a changeover, happen
is possible
to get acquainted
during a workingwith day.them, understand
Moreover, the humanworkers
by interviewing dynamics within
while theytheareshopfloor
performinganda
introduce
changeover, the itconcepts andto
is possible goals of a H-SMED
get acquainted project.
with them,Emphasis
understand on the human centricity
dynamics
of the project
within and empathy
the shopfloor are essential
and introduce in order and
the concepts to smooth
goals ofany resistance
a H-SMED to change.
project. The
Emphasis
support of the management and the shift supervisors is dramatically important to prove
the commitment to easing the work and directly involving operators in the improvement
process from day one.
The following two steps of phase I benefit from Industry 4.0 revolution and in particu-
lar from analysis of the huge amount of data from the shopfloor, which can be collected
by the Manufacturing Enterprise System (MES) of the company. MES-based data analysis
allows the identification of the most impacting cluster of changeovers on the performance
of the system, thus focusing the H-SMED project and managing the typical complexity of
Sustainability 2022, 14, 514 4 of 13

dynamic production environments. Furthermore, the identification of the initial cluster

to be considered gives the chance to limit the last step of phase I, the video recording, to
the pertaining activities only. This can be, in fact, a very time-consuming but unavoidable
step, in order to deepen the comprehension of the setup process achieved with the initial
interviews and observations. The detailed list of all the operations currently involved
during the selected changeover with their specifications (execution time, required tools
and materials, related location in the working space, movements, etc.) can be gathered and
forms the input of the following phase II. Then, MES data provide the chance to analyze
the efficiency as a basis for a potential work re-organization, aimed at improving the setup
process and speeding up production.

3.2. Phase II: Identifying Potential Improvements

The phase II of H-SMED is devolved to point out potential improvements and solu-
tions. The first step classifies all the activities involved in the changeover process as internal
(to be performed necessarily during machine downtime) and external (to be potentially
executed during machine uptime), following the traditional Shingo’s methodology.
To further increase the benefits of SMED from a human-centric perspective, ergonomic
solutions should be integrated into the setup activities. Such ergonomic improvements are
intended to ease the workers in their job during a changeover, reducing fatigue and physical
stress, which impact on task execution and, therefore, on the overall setup time. During
this step, the realization of prototypes for novel ergonomic equipment can be helpful for
testing the effectiveness of the proposed solutions on the shopfloor in phase III.
The following step of phase II is devolved to the definition and formalization of a
re-engineered setup process. This is possible due to the adoption of lean techniques, such
as 5S to reduce the disorder and confusion on the shopfloor, or the Travel Chart Analysis to
map workers’ movements, thus identifying and removing the avoidable ones.
Benefits deriving from the lean approach can be even more important when the work
content is largely based on craftsmanship activities, which can be hardly externalized. In
this case, leaning internal activities becomes a priority, since they cannot be overlapped
with other operations during the machine uptime.
Once the setup process has been re-engineered, the training should initially involve a
small subgroup of the workforce, typically the most skilled workers. This step pursues:
the critical understanding of MES data analysis; the adoption of 5S mindset to introduce
more order into the shopfloor; the use of ergonomic solutions developed to ease the setup
activities; and the externalization of all the setup activities that can be performed during
the machine production time.
Finally, as a consequence of the workforce analysis of the previous phase I, the man-
agement can decide to re-organize the workforce by redefining roles and related tasks,
formalizing “who has to do what” on the shopfloor.

3.3. Phase III: From Proposals to Practice

Phase III converts proposal into practice, by testing and adjusting on the shopfloor
the re-engineered setup process and all the solutions identified in the previous phase II.
The first group of trained workers are supposed to test the new setup process and tools
on the field, so that criticalities on its actual implementation can emerge. The aim is to
overcome them and adapt the new process to human requirements and well-being during
job execution.
When the group has shown confidence in and agreement on the new method to
follow for a changeover, then the H-SMED project proceeds with the next steps: the new
videorecording of the re-engineered setup method and the new listing of all operations to
be executed during a changeover. These steps are functional for the analysis of obtained
improvements, by comparison of the process performance in the “As is” scenario, mapped
in phase I, and the new scenario proposed by the H-SMED project. Actual benefits derived
from the H-SMED project can thus be shared with all the stakeholders.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 514 5 of 13

3.4. Phase IV: Training and Control

Phase IV refers to the training of workers to increase their knowledge and commitment.
Since the first training of phase III has involved only a small group, the H-SMED framework
requires extending the training to all of the manpower involved in the setup process. At
this point, the management should define and realize audits to reinforce and spread the
change. Besides returning precious information on the actual implementation of the new
process, audits can reduce the risk of the progressive relaxation of the introduced good
practices with a downgrade to the previous behavior, since workers tend to perform their
tasks in a conservative way. In this phase, it is possible to introduce other data-driven tools
to support the management in the control of activities on the shopfloor, by exploiting MES
information. From MES, in fact, department performance, as volumes manufactured per
day per shift and per operator and the number of setups performed can be gathered and
analyzed. A useful tool is an MES-based control dashboard to be shared every day in a
meeting with the shift supervisors, to increase awareness about the department’s current
performance and issues to be overcome. A correct share of information is the first step for
triggering operators’ commitment to process improvement.
In conclusion, the framework is thought of as a kaizen cycle. This means that these
phases and steps could be iterated until results are obtained. When the management is
satisfied about a given changeover performance, the process of improvement will continue
addressing another type of changeover. In fact, the framework is thought to proceed,
iteratively, with the next cluster of setups following again the presented roadmap.

4. The Case Study

The proposed H-SMED methodology was tested in the hinging department of a global
leader in the manufacturing of eyewear. In the hinging department, the metal hinges,
which are needed to successively attach the temples to the glasses frame, are drowned in
the eyewear front piece.
The fashion industry is particularly suitable for assessing the H-SMED effectiveness,
since it still relies on high human work content and skills strictly connected to the “Made in
Italy” excellence. Thus, optimizing the setup process in order to efficiently produce a large
number of different models to satisfy customer expectations, while supporting precious
resources in their job execution, is becoming crucial to maintaining competitiveness.

4.1. Applying Phase I

After the first presentation with the operators, the direct observation of their work,
the use of equipment and the discussion of perceived difficulties were performed. From
the interviews with workers, it has emerged that there are three main types of setups:
the “Basic”, the “Hinge Change” and the “Out & Out”. The “Basic” setup involves the
change of the templates, which are unique for each model, the checking of the “zero” of the
sonotrode (which is used to drown the hinges, unique for each specific model, in the middle
spot of the eyewear endpieces) and of the milling machine tip. This means that the operator
only has to disassemble the templates from their position and assemble the new pair—one
for each cart of the machine (i.e., left and right side). It is the simplest possible type of
changeover, which occurs when the incoming model differs from the previous one only for
the caliber dimension of the templates. The “Hinge Change” setup, instead, adds to the
“Basic” setup the feeler adjustment and the hole centering of the milling machine tip. This
type of changeover is required when the model to be processed is associated with the same
type of hinges of the previous one, thus requiring the same milling cutter and sonotrode tip.
The “Out & Out” setup is the most elaborate changeover that can be realized in the hinging
department, with a current average duration of about one hour. With respect to the latter
setup type, the change of the tip of the sonotrode, as well as the replacement of the cutter
of the milling machine, are required. This setup is performed when the equipment needed
to drown the hinge on the frame endpieces is completely different from the previous one
(e.g., the sonotrode tip, the milling cutter and the templates).
 tip. This type of changeover is required when the model to be processed is associated with
the same type of hinges of the previous one, thus requiring the same milling cutter and
sonotrode tip. The “Out & Out” setup is the most elaborate changeover that can be real-
ized in the hinging department, with a current average duration of about one hour. With
respect to the latter setup type, the change of the tip of the sonotrode, as well as the re-
Sustainability 2022,placement
14, 514 of the cutter of the milling machine, are required. This setup is performed when 6 of 13
the equipment needed to drown the hinge on the frame endpieces is completely different
from the previous one (e.g., the sonotrode tip, the milling cutter and the templates).
The next step toThe
be next
applied
stepwas theapplied
to be MES datawasanalysis.
the MESThe datahinging department
analysis. The hinging is department
part of a complexis part of a complex
manufacturing manufacturing
system, due to thesystem,
high mix dueofto the highthat
products mixevery
of products
day that every
are processed inday arevolumes
large processedandin large volumes and
with different with different
productive cycles. productive
The prioritycycles.
at thisThe priority at
this pointwhich
point was to understand was tofamily
understand which
of setups wasfamily of setups
currently wasimpacting
the most currently onthethe
most impacting
department available capacity, in order to focus the H-SMED on it. The MES data drivenThe MES data
on the department available capacity, in order to focus the H-SMED on it.
driven
analysis confirmed theanalysis confirmed
clusterization the clusterization
of setups suggested of bysetups suggestedwith
the interviews by the
theinterviews
op- with the
erators. The mostoperators.
frequentThe most
setup frequent
type could besetup type could
identified be“Out
as the identified
& Out”as the
one,“Out
as re-& Out” one, as
reported on a weekly
ported on a weekly basis in Figure 2. basis in Figure 2.

Figure 2. MES based setup analysis for each machine in the hinging department.
Figure 2. MES based setup analysis for each machine in the hinging department.

Therefore, the “Out & Out”

Therefore, thesetup
“Out family
& Out”was setupchosen
familyaswas thechosen
focus of
as the initialofcycle
the focus the initial cycle in
in the H-SMEDthe project. It is worth remembering that the H-SMED framework
H-SMED project. It is worth remembering that the H-SMED framework is thought is thought of
of as a loop thataswill continue
a loop to cycle
that will on one
continue type on
to cycle of setup
one typeuntil
of the
setupdesired performances
until the desired performances are
are reached andreached
then moveand to another
then move setup cluster.
to another setup cluster.
By exploiting data collecteddata
By exploiting from the shopfloor
collected from the IoT integrated
shopfloor resources,
IoT integrated perfor- performances
resources,
mances of the human resources
of the human of theofhinging
resources department
the hinging department werewerealsoalso
analyzed,
analyzed,in order
in order to optimize
to optimize their their tasks
tasks andand define
define specific
specific organizationalroles.
organizational roles.InInFigure
Figure 3, an example
exampleofofthe production
the production (see the green lines) and the number of setups performed performed by by each
each operator
operator of a shift for a
givenweek
of a shift for a given weekisisshown
shown(see(seethe
theblue
bluebars
barsfor
forthe
the“Out
“Out&&Out”Out”setup,
setup,thethe pink bars for the
pink
bars for the “Hinge change” setup and the light blue ones for the “Basic” setup). It can bebe noticed how
“Hinge change” setup and the light blue ones for the “Basic” setup). It can
there was a subset of workers who were in charge of most changeovers (see operators 1, 7,
8, 9 and 10), while a small subgroup was totally devolved to production only (see operator
2, 4, 13). The remaining workers (namely operator 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14) were hybrid figures
who could be involved either in simple setups (e.g., “Basic” or “Hinge Change” type) or in
production, with different efficiency (see the green line of production quantity). Similar
patterns were recognized across different weekly periods and shifts.
Thus, the following questions arose, to be addressed in phase II of the H-SMED project:
could it be more convenient to increase workforce specialization, for example, exclusively
dedicate a subset of workers to the setup process only, in order to capitalize on learning
phenomena? To what extent can a stronger specialization improve both the setup process
and the production one?
 noticed how there was a subset of workers who were in charge of most changeovers (see
operators 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10), while a small subgroup was totally devolved to production
only (see operator 2, 4, 13). The remaining workers (namely operator 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14)
were hybrid figures who could be involved either in simple setups (e.g., “Basic” or “Hinge
Sustainability 2022, 14, 514 7 of 13
Change” type) or in production, with different efficiency (see the green line of production
quantity). Similar patterns were recognized across different weekly periods and shifts.

Figure 3. Example of MES based workforce analysis for a shift. The green lines report the weekly
Figure 3. Example of MES based workforce analysis for a shift. The green lines report the weekly
produced quantity per operator, the blue bars the “Out & Out” setup, the pink bars the “Hinge
produced quantity per operator, the blue bars the “Out & Out” setup, the pink bars the “Hinge
Change” setup and the light blue bars the “Basic” setup.
Change” setup and the light blue bars the “Basic” setup.
Thus, the following questions
Following arose,
the MES to be
Data addressed
Analysis in phase
results, II of theframework
the H-SMED H-SMED pro-
proposes to video
ject: could it be record
more convenient
the most impactful cluster in order to deepen the investigation. exclu-
to increase workforce specialization, for example, The video recording
sively dedicaterequired
a subset 54 of min
workers
and 19to the setup process
s elapsed time from only, in order
setup to capitalize
beginning until theon
first compliant
learning phenomena? To what extent can a stronger specialization improve both
frame was obtained. Then, all the activities were listed in a table, fragmenting the setup the whole
process and theprocess
production one?
in elementary tasks, to gather a detailed comprehension of the current “Out & Out”
Following changeover.
the MES Data AnAnalysis results,
extract of such athelistH-SMED
is shownframework
in Table 1. proposes to video
record the most impactful cluster in order to deepen the investigation. The video record-
ing required 544.2.minApplying
and 19 sPhase II time from setup beginning until the first compliant
elapsed
frame was obtained.All Then, all the activities
the activities listed inwere listed in aphase
the previous table,I of
fragmenting
the H-SMED theproject
whole were marked
process in elementary tasks, to gather a detailed comprehension of the current “Out
as external or internal, following the traditional Shingo’s concept of externalization & (See
Out” changeover. TableAn1,extract of such In
last column). a list is shown
terms of timeinsavings,
Table 1.the externalizable tasks amount to 7 min
and 38 s only, on a total of 54 min and 19 s setup time. Such a reduction is far from the
desirable result described by Shingo (1985) in the classical SMED after externalization. It
comes that in this case, the greatest chance of speeding-up the setup process relies not on
externalization, but on making the internal activities as lean and ergonomic as possible,
with a new attention paid to the human resource.
During the interviews with workers in phase I, they particularly stressed the problem
of tiring up their wrists and the difficulty of giving the right torque to stick the templates in
the correct position at the first attempt. Another highlighted criticality was the equipment
disassembly, which should avoid the jamming of the various mechanical elements. Based
on such evidence gathered during phase I, some proposals for new, more ergonomic
solutions were developed and then prototyped in the company mechanical department.
In particular, the round-headed screws for tightening the templates on the carts were
replaced by screws with a countersunk head. This should help the workers during the
template removal and adjustments, reducing the probability of sticking the templates and,
consequently, shortening any waste of time. The new screws have the same head shape as
other components, as the tray holder and the lateral claws. This means that it is possible to
use the same T shape Allen key with all of them, thus reducing the tools required during the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 514 8 of 13

process. The buttonhole that holds the tray holder was redesigned to ease the adjustment of
the quotas of the tray holder. The new position of the screws has increased the ergonomics
of the device. The setup operator, in fact, can change the tightening angle, reducing the
effort needed to set the correct height of the tray holder. Furthermore, these ergonomic
screws can ease the tightening of the lateral thrust lugs, saving time and reducing the effort
to fix the frames. A new milling cutter zero was also realized to facilitate the “reset” of the
milling cutter thanks to a more ergonomic hilt. When it comes to assembly of the milling
cutter tip, the setup operator can easily fix it in the right site rotating the hilt like a big screw.
With the introduction of these new solutions, the fatigue of installing and removing the
equipment can be dramatically reduced, with benefits to the time required to perform the
related activities. Moreover, these ergonomic improvements lead to benefits not only for
the working efficiency, but also for the health and safety of the workforce, thus increasing
the system sustainability. The operator can be more protected against the accidents at
work, such as cuts and scratches to remove the stuck equipment, and the carpal tunnel
syndrome, which might occur because of the repetitive manual fixing of components in the
right position. Furthermore, as soon as workers realized the attention paid to improve their
wellbeing at work, they became more open-minded and prone to undertake programs of
improvement. In the H-SMED this step is fundamental because the human factor is set
at the center and it is not possible to reach better performance if the first performer, the
worker, is not committed at all to the project.

Table 1. Excerpt of task list for the “Out & Out” setup. In the last two columns, F (red) is a task
performed in front of the machine, M (green) away from the machine, I (light blue) is an internal time
activity, E (blue) an external time activity.

Operation Description Timing Detail

Start Start End End
No Operation Task Type Duration Position M/F E/I
min sec min sec
Setup Sanitize the
1 Preparation 0 0 1 44 01:44 Front F I
preparation workstation
Setup Remote control
2 Preparation 1 44 1 58 00:14 Front F E
preparation plug-in
Setup
3 Login MES Preparation 1 58 2 28 00:30 Front F I
preparation
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Sonotrode Assembly new
14 Assembly 9 3 9 47 00:44 Right F I
replacement sonotrode tip
Sonotrode Machine block
15 Preparation 9 47 10 20 00:33 Right F I
replacement handling
Sonotrode Check
16 Control 10 20 10 32 00:12 Right F I
replacement sonotrode zero
Milling cutter Moving, left
17 Movement 10 32 11 4 00:32 Left M I
replacement machine
Milling cutter Old milling
18 Disassembly 11 4 11 26 00:22 Left F I
replacement cutter removal
Milling cutter Milling cutter
19 Assembly 11 26 11 46 00:20 Left F I
replacement assembly
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Production of Consensus
122 Movement 53 31 54 21 00:50 Away M I
the hinged piece required
Production of
123 Start production Start 54:19
the hinged piece

The analysis of the “As is” state in the previous phase I of the H-SMED had highlighted
the opportunity of introducing some changes in the current setup process. Apart from
the externalization of some activities (e.g., the preparation of the equipment before the
start of the changeover), internal tasks can be re-engineered in order to cut the overall
Sustainability 2022, 14, 514 9 of 13

setup duration. In particular, the main discovered criticalities from phase I analysis were:
the excess of movements away from the working station; the difficult identification of the
proper tool to be picked from the shelf; the lack of an acknowledged sequence to perform
the tasks. The study of the potential reduction of movements departed from a Travel
Chart Analysis, the simple Lean tool aimed at mapping routes that the setup operators
adopt within the department layout. The reduction of unnecessary movements for picking
individual equipment was gained by introducing a tool trolley, to be moved around the
department by its assigned worker, without the necessity to reach the shelf. Moreover, a
specific setup operator was identified and charged with the responsibility of keeping all
the tool trolleys in order and “ready to use”, adopting a 5S approach.
The setup process re-engineering led to rethinking several activities performed during
the changeover. For example, collecting the disassembled equipment into a box to be
delivered to the shift supervisor at the end of the setup process, with the worker leaving
the machine only once. The supervisor, successively, sorts the equipment and properly
stores it on the shelf.
The proposed rationalization of the changeover process can lead to a total setup
duration of about 28 min and 30 s, thus to a potential time reduction of 25 min and 49 s
in comparison to the “As is” setup recorded during phase I, for a 48% relative decrease.
This reduction, obtained by easing and leaning the internal activities, shows how it is still
possible to pursue strong improvement of the setup process, even when activities can be
seldom externalized.
Given such a significant expected improvement, the next step involved the initial
knowledge transfer to workers. The training started with a first meeting, in which all
the proposals to improve the changeover process were explained to a selected and small
subset of setup operators, with the participation of the management. The management
involvement was fundamental to encouraging and motivating workers to embrace new
solutions and commit themselves to the change. In order to assess if a worker had really
understood all the passages, a good technique was to listen to him while retrieving all
the steps by memory. This required good communicative skills and patience to follow the
worker in this pedagogical path. To support the explanation of the novelties, a checklist
was also utilized in the training activity. Such a checklist was proposed firstly away from
the department, asking setup operators to join the meeting room. This precaution was
suggested by the automaticity concept: people pay attention only if a payback, a reward,
or important information to improve their own condition can be gained. Thus, if the
environment where novelties are explained is too familiar, people are not prone to paying
so much attention, rapidly forgetting the received information [20].
As a consequence of the workforce analysis of phase I, the management decided to
re-organize the hinging department and assign defined roles to the working figures. More
precisely, this step is related to the definition and formalization of “who has to do what”.
The first decision refers to the hybrid figure currently working in the department, who
can be assigned either to production or to changeovers. The management decided to
remove this figure, converting all the workers into production operators or setup operators,
while maintaining the balance of competences between the different shifts. When a worker
was skilled enough in the setup process, he was converted into a pure setup operator,
who can be involved in production only in the case of a lack of setup activities to be
carried out. On the contrary, if he was more effective in the manufacturing process, he
was exclusively assigned to production. The definition of only two roles leads to a higher
degree of specialization of the workers, with the consequence of allowing them to benefit
from the learning curve and perform more efficiently in both roles. The setup operators are
responsible for setting-up the hinging machines using the re-engineered method, but also
for controlling the good state of the equipment stored as “ready-to-use” (e.g., without the
necessity to grind or sand it). Job enlargement and job enrichment can thus be pursued,
concurring with a better satisfaction of the workforce, as is typical of the Total Productive
Maintenance approach [21].
Sustainability 2022, 14, 514 10 of 13

4.3. Applying Phase III

During phase III, the selected group of just-trained setup operators tried in the field to
effectively integrate: the externalization or elimination of some activities (e.g., unnecessary
movements); the ergonomic solutions developed to ease their work; the 5S approach to
foster more order into the department.
When agreement on a feasible sequence of tasks and a correct method to follow during
a changeover was reached and tested, video recording of the new process for a complete
setup was performed, similarly to phase I. The new videoclip has a duration of 30 min and
32 s with a reduction, if compared with the 54 min and 19 s of the phase I, of about 24 min,
equal to a relative feasible decrease of 44%. All the tasks were successively listed, so that
comparisons with the previous process could be derived. An example for the “As is” and
the “To be” states for the equipment replacement is provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison between the As-is and To-be duration of the equipment replacement.

AS IS
Equipment Replacement Duration [hh:mm:ss] Tasks No
Preparation 00:00:33 2
Disassembly 00:05:46 4
Assembly 00:02:24 4
Adjustment 00:04:08 5
Movement 00:00:10 1
Order 00:00:03 1
TOTAL 0:13:04 17
TO BE
Equipment Replacement Duration [hh:mm:ss] Tasks No
Preparation 00:00:56 2
Disassembly 00:00:58 4
Assembly 00:01:52 4
Adjustment 00:03:48 4
Movement 00:00:00 0
Control 00:01:11 2
Order 00:00:25 4
TOTAL 0:09:10 20

More than 4 min were earned in the disassembly macro-operation (see the related row
in Table 2), thanks to the ergonomic solutions introduced, with the same number of tasks
of the previous process. The assembly of the equipment (see Table 2), maintaining four
tasks, gathered a relative reduction of 32 s. The adjustments were accomplished by four
operations instead of five, with a relative decrease of 20 s. The optimization of the process
allowed the devotion of 1 min and 11 s to the additional control of the replaced equipment,
which can prevent quality issues and scraps during production.

4.4. Applying Phase IV

Since the automation level is rather limited in the hinging department and the
changeover tasks are executed with a high human content, the only way to master the new
knowledge has been to replay the re-engineered activities again and again, extending the
training to all the employees, and the ergonomic solutions to all the machines.
In order to map and sustain the progress of improvements in the hinging department,
the board organized, every month, some audits, where the duration of the setup was
detected for each setup operator. This information is essential to track the development
of a specialized worker’s skills and to adjust the methodology, aiming at a continuous
improvement path in compliance with the H-SMED approach. The necessity to control
the performances of the department led to the development of an MES-based dashboard.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 514 11 of 13

Following the dashboard features, during a brief daily meeting, the management talks
with the shift supervisors about the number of setups performed each day per cluster; the
total volume processed in the previous day by the hinging department; the production
capacity per shift in the hinging phase; the production capacity per worker per shift. The
adoption of a data-driven approach increased the knowledge of all the stakeholders of the
hinging department and information sharing on the shopfloor. The dashboard reveals the
inefficiencies and criticalities that can be faced with more awareness. Thus, it provides
a good basis for discussion in the daily meeting, so that actions to solve the problems
can be identified in a timely manner and continuous improvement can be fostered. The
data-driven analysis has changed the department: the access to the data, the sharing of
information and the monitoring of the performances have increased the involvement of
workers in their job. The setup operator now can better understand the importance to
speed-up the setup process in order to reduce the inactivity of the hinging machines. The
H-SMED project has stimulated the shift supervisors to improve the management of their
workers and has increased the whole system’s working transparency.
Finally, it is important to emphasize how the specialization of workers in the setup
execution has positively impacted the performance improvement since the beginning of its
application. The new working organization was revealed to be effective at both reducing
setup duration and increasing working efficiency, exploiting not only learning phenomena,
but also workers’ skills and inclination, increasing job satisfaction. In particular, it was
observed how the production quantity was more levelled among workers devolved to the
manufacturing process, while setup could be more easily and uniformly distributed among
setup specialists.

5. Conclusions
The emerging vision of Industry 5.0 sets the human pillar in the center of the pro-
duction systems, complementing the development of Industry 4.0 with the new paradigm
of “Economy that works for people” [1]. In this human-centric perspective, the rapidly
evolving technologies should support the adaptation of the production process to workers,
in an effort to promote all three dimensions of sustainability, matching economic prosperity
and respect of the planet with social well-being.
Machine sensorization and the Internet of Things pillar of Industry 4.0 have led to a
huge availability of data. However, the increased awareness about the process, which is
empowered by data analysis, should be exploited to put the human factor at the center
of any improvement project. The H-SMED framework has been developed as a solution
to rethink and lean the setup process, while aligning it with the new concept of Industry
5.0. The H-SMED integrates the benefits coming from the data driven approach typical
of Industry 4.0, with a particular attention paid to improving workers’ conditions and
easing their tasks. To this end, the introduction of ergonomics and the attention to human
commitment to the setup improvement project can be considered as distinctive features of
the H-SMED approach.
The H-SMED methodology involves four phases in a continuous improvement cycle:
(I) understanding the changeover process; (II) identifying potential improvement; (III) from
proposals to practice; (IV) training and control. It has been first validated in the department
of a world-wide leader of the eyewear industry. In such manufacturing environments,
the setup process is mainly composed of internal-time activities, such as adjustments
and controls, which are carried out by a strong human component and can be hardly
transformed into external-time activities, as primarily required by the classical SMED.
Despite these premises, the integration of lean practices with data-driven analysis and
ergonomics, as proposed by the H-SMED approach, has gained significant improvements
of the setup duration (44% reduction).
However, in order to achieve and maintain such valuable results, some efforts should
be addressed to sustain the human centric perspective of H-SMED. First of all, workers’
wellbeing should be considered by the management as the crucial basis upon which to gain
Sustainability 2022, 14, 514 12 of 13

a better performance of the whole production system. The workforce’s commitment to the
setup improvement project is essential for its success, but the natural aversion towards
any change in the work organization and methodology is more easily overcome if workers
can realize that by H-SMED they are mainly improving their own job, with the complete
support of their supervisors. Then, H-SMED requires the re-qualification of manpower
with new competences in order to deal with the digitalized world, such as the capability to
read and understand the available data critically. The introduction of simplified tools such
as control dashboards has been revealed as useful for gradually developing them. Growing
awareness of the process and of the issues emerging daily in a dynamic working environ-
ment has enabled a quick reaction and a continuous improvement mindset in the shopfloor.
Ergonomics also plays a main role in easing setup tasks, speeding up the changeover
process and creating a safer working environment. Therefore, proposals of new solutions
should be encouraged, prototyped and tested on the shopfloor by the workers themselves,
in order to enhance both feasibility and acceptance. Direct involvement of workers in
the setup process improvement, as pursued by the H-SMED, can further contribute to
integrating the Industry 5.0 concept of human centricity in production systems.
Future research can be devoted to testing the H-SMED approach in different industries
to further assess its potential. Different data-driven methodologies can also be integrated
in order to face complex and dynamic working environments.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.F. and A.M.; methodology E.F. and A.M.; software, E.F.;
validation E.F. and A.M.; formal analysis E.F. and A.M.; investigation E.F. and A.M.; data curation,
E.F.; writing—original draft preparation E.F. and A.M.; writing—review and editing, E.F. and A.M.;
visualization, E.F.; supervision, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Breque, M.; de Nul, L.; Petridis, A. Industry 5.0—Towards a Sustainable, HUMAN-centric and Resilient European Industry; European
Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [CrossRef]
2. Xu, X.; Lu, Y.; Vogel-Heuser, B.; Wang, L. Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0—Inception, conception and perception. J. Manuf. Syst.
2021, 61, 530–535. [CrossRef]
3. Longo, F.; Padovano, A.; Umbrello, S. Value-Oriented and Ethical Technology Engineering in Industry 5.0: A Human-Centric
Perspective for the Design of the Factory of the Future. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4182. [CrossRef]
4. Lu, Y.; Adrados, J.S.; Chand, S.S.; Wang, L. Humans Are Not Machines-Anthropocentric Human-Machine Symbiosis for
Ultra-Flexible Smart Manufacturing. Engineering 2021, 7, 734–737. [CrossRef]
5. Shingo, S. A Revolution in Manufacturing: The SMED System; Productivity Press: Cambridge, OR, USA, 1985.
6. Sousa, E.; Silva, F.J.G.; Ferreira, L.P.; Pereira, M.T.; Gouveia, R.; Silva, R.P. Applying SMED methodology in cork stoppers
production. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 17, 611–622. [CrossRef]
7. Haddad, T.; Shaheen, B.W.; Németh, I. Improving Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) of Extrusion Machine Using Lean
Manufacturing Approach. Manuf. Technol. 2021, 21, 56–64. [CrossRef]
8. Godina, R.; Pimentel, C.; Silva, F.J.G.; Matias, J.C.O. A Structural Literature Review of the Single Minute Exchange of Die: The
Latest Trends. Procedia Manuf. 2018, 17, 783–790. [CrossRef]
9. Bento da Silva, I.; Godinho Filho, M. Single-minute exchange of die (SMED): A state-of-the-art literature review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Syst. 2019, 102, 4289–4307. [CrossRef]
10. Oliveira, J.; Sá, J.C.; Fernandes, A. Continuous improvement through “Lean Tools”: An application in a mechanical company.
Procedia Manuf. 2017, 13, 1082–1089. [CrossRef]
11. Gabahne, L.D.; Gupta, M.M.; Zanwar, D. Overall Equipment Effectiveness Improvement: A Case of injection molding machine.
Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2014, 3, 1–10. [CrossRef]
12. Kumar, V.; Bajaj, A. The Implementation of Single Minute Exchange of Die with 5’S in Machining Processes for reduction of Setup
Time. Int. J. Recent Technol. Mech. Electr. Eng. 2015, 2, 32–39.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 514 13 of 13

13. Braglia, M.; Frosolini, M.; Gallo, M. SMED enhanced with 5-Whys Analysis to improve setup reduction programs: The SWAN
approach. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 90, 1845–1855. [CrossRef]
14. Yazıcı, K.; Gökler, S.H.; Boran, S. An integrated SMED-fuzzy FMEA model for reducing setup time. J. Intell. Manuf. 2021, 32,
1547–1561. [CrossRef]
15. Azizi, A.; Manoharan, T. Designing a Future Value Stream Mapping to Reduce Lead Time Using SMED-A Case Study. Procedia
Manuf. 2015, 2, 153–158. [CrossRef]
16. Ebrahimi, A.; Khakpour, R.; Saghiri, S. Sustainable setup stream mapping (3SM): A systematic approach to lean sustainable
manufacturing. Prod. Plan. Control 2021, 1–19. [CrossRef]
17. Boran, S.; Ekincioğlu, C. A novel integrated SMED approach for reducing setup time. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 92,
3941–3951. [CrossRef]
18. Brito, M.; Gonçalves, M.A. ErgoSMED: A Methodology to Reduce Setup Times and Improve Ergonomic Conditions, IHSED 2019.
Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 2020, 1026, 549–554. [CrossRef]
19. Pacheco, D.A.; Heidrich, G.D. Revitalizing the setup reduction activities in Operations Management. Prod. Plan. Control 2021,
1–21. [CrossRef]
20. Solomon, M.R. Consumer Behavior Buying, Having, and Being, 12th ed.; Pearson: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 157–158.
21. Nakajima, S. TPM an Introduction to Total Productive Maintenance; Productivity Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1988.