Abstract: 5S system is a technique which maintains the quality of working conditions in the organization. Amongst various available Lean resources, 5S is a powerful technique that can bolster objectives of the organization to get continuous improvement in performance and productivity. This paper presents the implementation of 5S in a manufacturing company &amp; 5S rating system was used to audit all changes in the company which enhanced the efficiency of the workers &amp; ultimately the productivity of the company is enhanced to 91 %

Anmol Bhatia

Ashish S Pareta

Vibhor Kakkar

Vijay Singh Dalal

Vineet Choraria

CiteSeerX

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 4, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2015      ISSN 2277-8616 
208 
IJSTR©2015 
www.ijstr.org 
Implementation Of 5S Quality Tool In 
Manufacturing Company: A Case Study 
 
Vibhor Kakkar, Vijay Singh Dalal, Vineet Choraria, Ashish S. Pareta, Anmol Bhatia 
 
Abstract: 5S system is a technique which maintains the quality of working conditions in the organization. Amongst various available Lean resources, 5S 
is a powerful technique that can bolster objectives of the organization to get continuous improvement in performance and productivity. This paper 
presents the implementation of 5S in a manufacturing company & 5S rating system was used to audit all changes in the company which enhanced the 
efficiency of the workers & ultimately the productivity of the company is enhanced to 91 %. 
 
Index Terms: 5S Rating system, Time Analysis, Lean, Continuous improvement, Transportation, Tools & Quality. 
———————————————————— 
 
1 INTRODUCTION 
5S is useful approach for giving foundation of organization and 
help to improve communication, lead time, downtime, defect, 
inventory, injury and costs associated with them [1]. Order, 
neat and cleanliness have considered as continuous 
improvement part and also starting point of continuous 
improvement [2]. 5S is able to link total productive 
maintenance (TPM) and other approaches also [3]. There is 
no such difference between ISO 9001 guidelines and rules of 
5S [6]. If team member consider 5S, majority of routine 
problems can be resolved easily [4]. 5S implementation mayn‘t 
be possible without the training and workers mayn't be able to 
sustain those changes [5].  
 
2 PROBLEM STATEMENT  
Span Autotech Pvt. Ltd deals in manufacturing of sheet metal 
components. Company manufactures products by using 
processes- hydraulic power press cutting & bending; and 
welding. In company, rejection of company is approx. 1200 
and there was lot of time wastage in a company just for 
hunting down required objects (tool, material etc.). Whenever 
company hires a new team member, Supervisor and foreman 
made lot of efforts just to train member. Material flow problem 
existed in a company. No bin system was present. For 
transporting material to shop, simple trolley was used which 
takes lot of human effort and that isn't even safe (in a 
ergonomics way).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Communication gap existed between management and team 
members. Finally, there were movement problems which exist, 
safety conditions weren't good and communication gap 
existed. 
 
3 METHODOLOGY  
 
3.1 Sort 
 It helps the company to keep track of everything which is 
required and throw unwanted items. First of 5S is to clean 
workplace for perfect operations. Company collected every 
item; it determined whether it would be useful, and then 
distinguishing items into categories based on their usage: Low, 
Medium and High. Nobody in the organization can notice what 
items should kept and what items should throw-away, so keep 
all unsure items for some weeks to make sure of a waste. 
Unsure items kept place where frequency of movement of 
people is low. In sorting, team members (direct) helped to sort 
tools. Workers cleaned items of the cabinet, throw all 
damaged items and managed all the items in specified 
positions. 
 
3.2 Set in order 
It is the way to make items look neat and reduce the time for 
hunting of tools and components. Second S keeps every item 
set in an order. Putting name tags over box and item should be 
kept according to its name. Company got varieties of tools and 
components, so set in order helps the workers to save time 
and to gather the required items.  
 
3.3 Shine 
The common idea is to clean, shine and neat everything in the 
workplace. In order to make things have much longer usage 
life and have perfect environment, Company asked their 
workers to clean their work-place before leaving the company. 
 
3.4 Standardize 
After implementing successfully all three above steps, the 
supervisors will ask their workers to maintain everything same 
as it was organized.  
 
3.5 Sustain 
Final step and hardest step of 5S implementation, asks the 
managers to keep everything same going every day. Company 
make a checklist for helping managers to make sure 
everything is fine. Making workers do sorting, set in order, 
shine, and standardize, daily, means that they are sustained. 
 
__________________________ 
 
 Author Vibhor Kakkar is a U.G. Scholar in Mechanical 
Engineering from ITM University, Gurgaon India, PH-
9873259318. E-mail: vibhorkakkar79@gmail.com  
 Co-Author Vijay Singh Dalal is a U.G. Scholar in 
Mechanical Engineering from ITM University, Gurgaon 
India, PH-8826335469. E-mail: vjd636@gmail.com 
 Co-Author Vineet Choraria is a U.G. Scholar in 
Mechanical Engineering from ITM University, Gurgaon 
India, PH-9891935393.  
E-mail: vineetjain96@yahoo.com  
 Co- Author Guide Ashish S. Pareta is an Assistant 
Professor of Department of Mechanical Engineering in 
ITM University, Gurgaon India, PH-9818137567,  
E-mail: ashishsinghpareta@itmindia.edu  
 Co-Author Guide Anmol Bhatia is an Assistant 
Professor of Department of Mechanical Engineering in 
ITM University, Gurgaon India, PH- 9953797615,  
E-mail:  anmolbhatia@itmindia.edu 
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 4, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2015      ISSN 2277-8616 
209 
IJSTR©2015 
www.ijstr.org 
4 THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE OF 5S 
 
4.1 Problem 1: 
Team member (direct) takes a lot of time in hunting for the 
objects (raw material, tool, sub-assemblies etc.) according to 
their requirements. 
 
Expectations: 
Get right object for right work every time & in shortest span of 
time. 
 
Results: 
 
 
 
Figure 1: Raw material was placed on racks according to 
thickness and breath of sheets. Length of sheet was fixed. 
 
 
 
Figure 2: Sub-assemblies of components weren't named, but 
after first S, naming was done. 
 
 
 
Figure 3: There are 5 tool boxes like shown above, tools were 
placed haphazardly manner but after 5S everything was 
placed after its name and name slips were put for every tool. 
 
Time analysis for tool box was shown in results. Average time 
was reduced by around 11 seconds. 
 
4.2 Problem 2: 
Hindrance in movement of material. 
 
Expectation: 
Assign a proper place for keeping raw material, bin and waste. 
 
Results: 
Arrangements were made placing bins near machine, marking 
were made for doing this. Bins were provided where there 
were no bins. 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Raw material was placed on floor, now bins were 
provided. 
 
 
 
Figure 5: Scrap was placed on floor, now separate bins were 
provided for scrap and another bin for finished material. 
 
4.3 Problem 3: 
Transportation of die from shelf to machine. 
 
Expectations: 
some machine for transporting die. 
 
Results: 
Purchase hydraulic jack for transporting purpose. 
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 4, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2015      ISSN 2277-8616 
210 
IJSTR©2015 
www.ijstr.org 
 
 
Figure 6: Trolley (old) and jack (new). 
 
4.4 Problem 4: 
Communication gap existed between management and team 
members (direct). 
 
Expectations: 
To improve communication and use direct team members 
views in discussions. 
 
Results: 
Now every product was displayed on board. Before 5S, 
customer complaints were directly registered in office, but after 
5S, complaints of rejected pieces were directly put on display 
on board so that every team member can give their reviews. 
 
Figure7: Kaizen implemented for display. 
Figure 8: Kaizen implemented for display. 
 
4.5 Problem 5: 
Safety of team members weren't up-to good standards. 
 
Expectations: 
Good and comfortable working conditions. 
Results: 
Safety guards were placed for every machine. There was no 
marking on floor, after 5S marking was done on whole shop 
area. 
 
 
Figure 9: Shop floor after 5S. 
 
5 5S RATING SYSTEM 
This system shows the improvement done by particular S of 
5S. The total rating is out of 25 further divided into five equal 
parts [7]. Results are shown by graph. 
 
5.1 1
st
 S Seiri (Sort) 
First S is basically dealing with material availability and 
process of manufacturing. Rating criteria:  
 Availability of material: give 1 mark if fully available 
otherwise 0.  
 Defective finished goods: if there are A items which 
contains B items as defective then marks will be: [1-{B/A}]  
 Operating condition: If there is a proper flow of material, 
then the value ‗1‘ is given otherwise ‗0‘ is assigned. 
 Relative information: information about process 
guidelines, working conditions, material information, tool 
information etc., is also important. 1 marks for full 
information otherwise 0.  
 Waste elimination: Let total C be number of waste listed, 
but only D number was removed, then marks will be as 
follows: [1-{D/C}]. 
 
Table 1: Seiri rating table 
 
Seiri Rating 
We
eks 
 
Averag
e of 
material 
operati
ng 
conditio
ns 
Defect
ive 
goods 
Relative 
informati
on 
waste 
eliminati
on 
Total 
Rating S1 
1 1 1 0.15 1 0.15 3.3 
2 1 1 0.2 1 0.2 3.4 
3 1 1 0.3 1 0.35 3.65 
4 1 1 0.45 1 0.4 3.85 
5 1 1 0.5 1 0.55 4.05 
6 1 1 0.6 1 0.67 4.27 
7 1 1 0.75 1 0.7 4.45 
8 1 1 0.8 1 0.7 4.5 
9 1 1 0.9 1 0.75 4.65 
10 1 1 0.9 1 0.75 4.65 
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 4, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2015      ISSN 2277-8616 
211 
IJSTR©2015 
www.ijstr.org 
5.2- 2
nd
 S Seiton (Set in order):  
Second S deals with arrangement of equipment and tools on 
the shop floor.  
Rating criteria: 
 Sequence rating: let there are an M number of total tools 
and N number which aren't in sequence, then the rating 
will be [1-{N/M}].  
 Material arrangement: let X be the lack of material and Y 
be material required, then, rating will be: [1-{X/Y}].  
 Process arrangement setting: let G be the number of total 
processes and H be number of irregular processes, rating 
is as follows: [1-{H/G}].  
 Material arrangement consistency: Let U be arrangement 
of material bins and V be number that fails to achieve 
exact position. Then rating would be: [1-{V/U}].  
 Working efficiency= total allotted time to process / working 
time for processing.  
 
Table 2: Seiton rating table 
 
Seiton Rating 
We
eks 
Seque
nce 
Rating 
Materi
al 
Arrang
ement 
Material 
Arrange
ment 
Consist
ency 
Proces
s 
arrang
ement 
Wor
king 
Effic
ienc
y 
Total 
Rating 
S2 
1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.85 2.55 
2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.85 2.55 
3 0.35 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.85 2.7 
4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.85 2.75 
5 0.5 0.85 0.8 0.6 0.85 3.6 
6 0.65 0.85 0.8 0.6 0.85 3.75 
7 0.7 0.85 0.8 0.7 0.85 3.9 
8 0.85 0.85 0.8 0.8 0.87 4.17 
9 1 0.85 0.8 0.9 0.87 4.42 
10 1 0.85 0.8 0.9 0.87 4.42 
 
5.3- 3
rd
 S Seiso (Shine/clean):  
Third S deals in order to do work in a clean environment.  
Rating criteria: 
 General cleaning of workplace – machine gets 1 for clean 
and 0 for unclean. 
 Proper working conditions: let J be number of wrong 
arrangement and I be the total number of favorable 
conditions, then rating would be: [1-{J/I}]  
 Safety from accident: safety is given on scale means if 
there is chance rating will be 0 and if they feel safe, rating 
will be 1.  
 Cleaning consistency: Let Q be the total no. of time 
cleaning required and R be number of times the cleaning 
not done, so consistency rate will be [1-{R/Q}].  
 Path for movement of material: Let J is the total no. of 
times hindrance and K be the total no. of movements. 
Then rating will be: [1-{K/J}]. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3: Seiso rating table 
 
SEISO RATING 
Week
s 
Clean 
Workpla
ce 
Machine 
Cleanlin
ess 
People 
Workin
g 
Conditi
on 
Safet
y 
Cleaning 
Consiste
ncy 
Total 
Ratin
g S3 
1 1 1 0.4 0.9 0.4 3.7 
2 1 1 0.4 0.9 0.4 3.7 
3 1 1 0.65 0.9 0.4 3.95 
4 1 1 0.65 0.9 0.4 3.95 
5 1 1 0.8 0.9 0.6 4.3 
6 1 1 0.8 0.9 0.6 4.3 
7 1 1 0.8 0.9 0.7 4.4 
8 1 1 0.85 0.9 0.8 4.55 
9 1 1 0.85 0.94 0.8 4.59 
10 1 1 0.85 0.94 0.8 4.59 
 
5.4- 4
th
 S Seiketsu (Standardize):  
Seiketsu rating can be calculated by taking average of last 
three S, because standards of any system will fall & rise by 
factors of mean rate. Rating of Seiketsu = (rating of Seiri + 
rating of Seiton + rating of Seiso)/3.  
 
Table 4: Seiketsu rating table 
 
Seiketsu Rating 
Weeks Total Rating S4=(S1+S2+S3)/3 
1 3.1833 
2 3.2167 
3 3.4333 
4 3.5167 
5 3.9833 
6 4.1067 
7 4.2500 
8 4.4067 
9 4.5533 
10 4.5533 
 
5.5- 5
th
 S Shitsuke (Sustain): 
Shitsuke rating can be calculated by last four S because 
without that regularity will not maintain. Shitsuke Sustain rating 
= (rating of Seiri + rating of Seiton +rating of Seiso + rating of 
Seiketsu)/4 Rating of this table is shown in results. 
 
6. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS: 
Span Autotech Pvt. Ltd. now looks totally different. Impact on 
5S was so huge that company is happy and now they start 
implementing more quality tools like Failure mode and effect 
analysis (FMEA), production part approval process (PPAP) 
etc. By implementing 5S, we achieved time reduction for 
hunting down objects (like raw material, tool, sub-assembly 
etc.). We put tag names after every component in a company 
and for tool box; we showed results by time analysis.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 4, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2015      ISSN 2277-8616 
212 
IJSTR©2015 
www.ijstr.org 
Table 5: Time analysis before 5S 
 
Table 6: Time analysis after 5S 
 
* All values are of time in seconds. 
 
By using 5S rating system, we explain how we improved every 
part of 5S and how training went with team members that they 
start following changes, resulting in good rating of 5S. Training 
was good because for eliminating communication gap, 
company supervisors start sharing problems with team 
members and taking their views for solving problem of 
components. 
 
Table 7: Shitsuke rating 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5S layout was made for company and deputation of team 
leaders was performed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10: 5S Layout of Span Autotech Pvt. Ltd. 
 
The company got some troubles while implementing 5S and 
there was issues because rejection rate was bit increased 
near 4
th
-5
th
 week of 5S but after few weeks of implementation, 
rejection rate was reduced.  
 
 
Graph 1: Efficiency of 5S rating system 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
We would like to thank Mr. Anil Kakkar, CEO of Span Autotech 
Pvt. Ltd., for allowing us to work in company and guide us in 
project.  
 
REFERENCES 
[1] A. Nilipour, & M. Jamshidian, ―5S as an environmental 
organization management tool: Benefits and barriers,‖ 
Proceedings of the 3rd International Management 
Conference, 2005, Dec 20-25, Tehran, Iran. 
 
[2] S.M. Yusof and E. Aspinwall, ―Case studies on the 
 
Spann
er 
Allen 
Key 
C-
Clam
p 
nut 
and 
bolt 
set 
Drill 
Millin
g 
tool 
Cutti
ng 
Tool 
Staff 1 24 15 12 17 24 26 20 
Staff 2 23 14 16 23 27 27 20 
Staff 3 22 13 11 24 34 23 19 
Staff 4 24 10 11 23 32 34 17 
Staff 5 21 17 11 23 24 35 15 
Avera
ge 
22.8 13.8 12.2 22 28.2 29 18.2 
 
Spann
er 
Allen 
Key 
C-
Clam
p 
Nut 
and 
Bolt 
set 
Drill 
Millin
g 
tool 
Cutti
ng 
Tool 
Staff 1 11 10 8 11 15 12 8 
Staff 2 12 11 7 11 14 13 10 
Staff 3 14 9 6 12 15 11 10 
Staff 4 9 9 10 11 8 14 11 
Staff 5 8 10 10 12 6 10 7 
Avera
ge 
10.8 9.8 8.2 11.4 11.6 12 9.2 
Shitsuke Rating 
Weeks Overall Rating S5=((S1+S2+S3+S4)/4)*100/5 
1 63.6667 
2 64.3333 
3 68.6667 
4 70.3333 
5 79.6667 
6 82.1333 
7 85.0000 
8 88.1333 
9 91.0667 
10 91.0667 
 
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 4, ISSUE 02, FEBRUARY 2015      ISSN 2277-8616 
213 
IJSTR©2015 
www.ijstr.org 
implementation of TQM in the UK automotive SMEs,‖ 
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 
vol. 18, no.7, pp. 722-744, 2001. 
 
[3] R. Gapp, R. Fisher, and K. Kobayashi, ―Implementing 5S 
within a Japanese context: an integrated management 
system,‖ Management Decision, vol. 46, no.4, pp. 565-
579, 2008. 
 
[4] A. Hamzah and S. Ho, ―TQM training for small and 
medium industries in Malaysia.‖ Training for Quality, vol. 2, 
no.2, pp. 27-35. 1994. 
 
[5] S. Pavnaskar, J. Gershenson, and A. Jambekar, 
―Classification scheme for lean manufacturing tools.‖ 
International Journal of Production Research, vol. 41, 
no.13, pp. 3075-3090, 2003. 
 
[6] Pheng, L.S., ―Towards TQM - Integrating Japanese 5S 
principles with ISO 9001: 2000 requirements,‖ The TQM 
Magazine, vol. 13, no.5, pp. 334-341, 2001. 
 
[7] Saaty, T.L 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: McGraw-
Hill, New York 


Implementation Of 5S Quality Tool In Manufacturing Company: A Case Study

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=33203D673A60DC8A7B7852C5EA87036A?doi=10.1.1.1040.1218&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Implementation Of 5S Quality Tool In Manufacturing Company: A Case Study

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX