Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 26 (2015) 133 138

12th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing

Method for selecting improvement measures for discrete production

environments using an extended energy value stream model
J. Fischera,b *, N. Weinerta, C. Herrmannb
a
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, Systems Engineering, Munich, Germany
b
Sustainable Manufacturing and Life Cycle Engineering Research Group, Institute of Machine Tools and Production Technology (IWF),
Technische Universitt Braunschweig, Germany

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 162 4403511; E-mail address: jan.fischer.ext@siemens.com

Abstract

Improving energy efficiency in discrete manufacturing environments has been one of the key goals of recent research and industrial activities in
production management, leading to a large and still increasing amount of different methodologies and improvement measures in that field (here
called Solution Elements). Despite the growing interest, most of these are rarely applied, or are implemented in an improper manner instead
of identifying and realizing the most appropriate ones from a holistic, factory wide perspective. For coping with these challenges a flexible,
multi criteria and multi step selection process is introduced by which the applicability of solution elements is evaluated for a specific discrete
production environment. The selection process is based on an approach taking multiple criteria derived from the current (as-is) situation in a
factory as well as from user preferences into account. For data gathering an extended energy value stream approach is utilized that allows the
derivation of value stream specific energy and cost drivers. The approach was tested in an industrial use-case, which is introduced in this paper.
2014
2015 The Authors.
Elsevier B.V. Published by Elsevier
This is an open access B.V.
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of Assembly Technology and Factory Management/Technische Universitt Berlin.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Assembly Technology and Factory Management/Technische Universitt Berlin.
Keywords: Energy efficient production; Sustainable roduction; Lean production; Decision support;

1. Introduction been investigated in a most recent survey among 80

1.1. Macroscopic Background
The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) indicated that the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions is more important than ever if the
goal of limiting the worldwide temperature rise to two
degrees shall be kept [1]. Among others the industrial sector
is held responsible for high greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, given a share of about 30 % (direct and indirect)
in total worldwide emissions.
Due to that, the requirement to reduce GHG emissions
mainly via improving energy efficiency has established
green goals in production managements strategies.
Although recent scientific and industrial approaches aim to
improve the energy efficiency performance of discrete
productions leading to a large variety of methodologies,
tools and practices (here called: Solution Elements), the
actual application rate of such elements in industrial
environments is comparably low. Reasons for that have
industrial companies conducted by Bey et al. [2]. They
identified two clusters of barriers keeping companies
from implementing environmental practices:
x lack of information (regarding environmental impact
and expert knowledge)
x lack of allocated resources (both time and human).
One possibility to mitigate the resource barriers is the
integrated conduction of economically and environmentally
friendly practices, thus lowering the partial share of effort
for applying environmental methodologies. Research also
shows that especially an integrated conduction of lean and
green strategies can be complementary and that e.g. lean
strategies can even be utilized as a catalyst for applying
environmental practices. [3]
Against this background in this paper a methodology
the Solution Finder is introduced that targets the
mitigation of the mentioned barriers by providing an
integrated decision support system that derives standardized
improvement measures for specific factories. The selection
is based on factory specific, quantified, financial and

2212-8271 2015 Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Assembly Technology and Factory Management/Technische Universitt Berlin.
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.100
134 J. Fischer et al. / Procedia CIRP 26 (2015) 133 138
environmental impacts that are derived utilizing an
extended energy value stream approach taking the total
energy consumption of a factory into account. The
methodology was then tested in a real factory of the
Siemens AG, where metro cars are manufactured.
1.2. Requirements - Key Features
Against the background presented in the previous
chapter, the methodology developed provides the following
key features:
x consideration of costs and the holistic energy
consumption of a factory including peripheral consumers
x highlighting of relevant fields of action in factories that
have a high improvement potential, but where no
applicable solutions are available up to date
x prediction of effects of applying lean and green solution
elements including cross impact effects i.e. how do lean
solution elements influence green goals and vice versa
x structuring and selection of technical measures as well as
methodological approaches and frameworks;
Performance and application requirements:
x little effort for application i.e. little time, cost and human
effort
x structuring and management of gathered factory data
x user friendly GUI for editing the required elements (e.g.
Factory Models, Solution Elements, Selection
Processes).
2. State of Research and theoretical background
In this chapter, some of the most relevant and most
recent research activities are presented that aim to provide
methodological support in holistic brown-field evaluation
and optimization of factories, while integrating economical
and/or environmental perspectives. Based on that, the gap
in current research activities is derived and requirements for
the developed methodology are defined.
2.1. Energy value stream mapping
The traditional Value Stream Mapping as originally
described by Rother and Shook [4] has proven to be a
highly effective method to quickly identify performance
shortages in a factory, while maintaining a holistic
perspective of the value creating process steps i.e. not
losing oneself in details of possibly lesser relevance.
However, the methodology has several shortcomings as it
does not directly consider e.g. environmental or financial
aspects.
Hence, in recent years numerous approaches aim to
include the environmental perspective within the traditional
value stream approach (e.g. [5,6,7,8]). These approaches
consider the direct energy consumption of production
machines but partially or completely neglect the energy
consumption of the peripheral systems of a factory (e.g.
lighting, transport, heating) as defined by Schenk et al.[9].
Posselt, Fischer et al. developed an extended energy value
stream approach providing algorithms to map the total
energy consumption of factories cause-dependently to
individual value stream processes [10]. This approach is
utilized in the following and further extended by integrating
a financial perspective.
2.2. Derivation of standardized solution elements
Besides the value stream methodologies several
approaches describe the derivation of standardized solution
elements for the purpose of designing discrete
manufacturing systems:
Bergmann [11] provides a methodology to derive lean
and green practices for the purpose of designing sustainable
and lean production systems. Evaluation of factories is
based on a top-down approach using the viable system
model and thus targeting a broader perspective up to
normative and strategic management levels. Energy value
stream based data is not taken into consideration.
Lanza et al. [12] describe the selection of lean and green
practices based on factories improvement potential,
derived by applying maturity models, benchmarking and
expert knowledge. Combinations of lean and green
practices are then generated via catalogues, mapping the
interactions between practices and optimization objectives.
Final decisions for implementation are then based on a
monetary assessment step using cost-time profiles.
Crespo [13] defines the so called KoI-Concept for
selecting structured solution elements in order to design
lean production systems for SMEs. For selecting solution
elements the so called KoI Factors are being utilized,
matching the companys available resources (e.g. time,
costs, knowledge) with the ones demanded by the possible
solution elements. Environmental practices are not
explicitly taken into consideration.
The selected state of research shows a clear gap in the
integrated selection of lean and green solution elements.
Current methodologies either lack the holistic value stream
perspective or the methodological description of how to
derive structured solution elements from value streams.
3. Methodological Approach - The Solution Finder
3.1. Overview
In this chapter the development and description of the
individual steps of the methodological approach are
introduced. The approach can generally be separated into a
user preference based pre-selection phase employing the
solution elements structural properties and a factory data
based, main selection phase utilizing more objective data
like the extended energy value stream analysis. The main
selection process requires more effort by the user due to the
factory modeling and thus the required derivation of data,
but usually yields better results than the solely user
preference based selection, since it is based on user
independent, objective information. This combination of
employing subjective, user opinion based knowledge and
objective, data centered information usually yields the best
results
 J. Fischer et al. / Procedia CIRP 26 (2015) 133 138 135

Methodology/Tool Gener. Criteria Class concept Ext. E-VSA Energy Driver Design Param. Solution Elemen. Final Selection
User preference Extendable Connection Proportional to Extendable set of Database of Specification of
based hierarchical model between energy energy consumpt. or levers to improve Solution Elements: Solution Elements
preselection, pre- Description of consumption and costs of Value-Str. energy and cost e.g. Methods, Best Weighting
weighting of solution factorys entities value adding Mathematical drivers Practices, Models, E.g. TCO, Cross-
elements process connection to Value D.P. Driver Technical Solutions Impact Analysis,
Stream Weighting Matrix manual decision
Process Step

Definition Instantiation Derivation of Weighting Weighting Weighting Selection

of User hier. Factory- ext. Energy Energy/Cost Design Solution Solution
Preferences model Value Stream Driver Parameter Elements Elements
Results

Instance of hierar- Ext. Energy Weighted Energy Weighted Design Weighted Solution
chic Data Model Value Stream and Cost Driver Parameter Elements
Pre-weighted
Solution Elements

Fig. 1. Overview of the application process of the methodological approach

detailed information provided in the text fields if the

3.2. Structuring and Pre-Weighting of Solution Elements respective methodology is applicable in his specific factory.
In addition, the text based properties can be utilized in an
In order to select solution elements in a partially automated information retrieval process by being matched
automated, algorithm based selection process, the elements with user specified or factory data generated keywords.
have to be structured in a standardized, machine
interpretable form. When defining the structuring Table 1. Exemplary selection of Solution Elements structuring properties
(shortened description)
properties, one is faced with the challenge of defining the
right amount of information that on the one hand side Criterion Possible Values
contains enough data to allow a well informed selection of Type of Solution Software Tool, Model/Framework, KPI,
solution elements during the selection process and on the Element Methodology/Best Practice, Technical Solution,
Other
other hand as little information as possible in order to
minimize the modeling effort for the solution elements Abilities regarding Data Collection, Improve System
problem solving steps Understanding, Evaluation/Assessment,
designer. Hence, only these properties that show the best
Compare different Solutions, Implementable
differentiation between the individual elements should be Solution, Implementation, Control
incorporated. Challenges also arise from the many different
Target Energy Efficiency, Cost Reduction, Process
types of solution elements ranging from technical devices to Quality, Times, Flexibility (variants)
generic frameworks or simulation suites.
KPI <Selection from Database>
Table 1 gives an overview of some of the properties used
Affect on Design <Selection from Design Parameter List (see
in the selection process along with their possible values.
Parameter Table 2)>
Properties used for pre-selection are for example the
Applicability at Enterprise, Site, Building, System, Machine,
applicability areas (e.g. the factory level or the addressed
Factory Level Component, Process-Chain, Process
function of the factory), the type of solution element (e.g.

technical solution, best practice, framework) or the ability
to support a user in certain and generic problem solving
steps. The specification of solution elements regarding the The first step of the selection process approach utilizes
criteria values is usually not just expressed in true or not these generic properties and targets the pre-weighting and
true but in intermediate steps using seven point Likert filtering of solution elements. The user can express his
scale items [14]. In this way the often fuzzy and uncertain preference towards certain kinds of solution elements by
relationship between solution elements and discrete selecting or deselecting criteria values as well as specifying
properties can be expressed more accurately with only a numerical weights to each criterion. It can further be
small increase of effort for the solution element editor. specified on whether the simultaneous selection of multiple
In addition to the machine interpretable properties, free criteria values shall be interpreted in a logical AND,
form texts, as already described in the Guideline Sheet by OR or AVG relationship. The final result of this first
Weinert, Fischer et al. [15] are used in order to describe e.g. phase is a pre-ranking of all solution elements based on
the application of the methodology, examples of values between 0-1.
implementation or the motivation. The user effort for
describing the elements in a text based form is often low, 3.3. Hierarchic Factory Data Model
since solution elements are usually already described
somewhere. They can serve in the last selection step as a The main purpose of the factory model is to provide a
final decision support, where the user decides based on the common data structure for deriving the extended energy
136 J. Fischer et al. / Procedia CIRP 26 (2015) 133 138

value stream. The factory model is based on a hierarchic 3.5. Deriving Energy and Cost Drivers
class structure that mainly describes the physical elements
of the factory and their relationships. Physical entities that Based on the values contained in the extended energy
can be modeled include e.g. buildings, technical building value stream, so called energy- and cost drivers can be
services, production machines, workplaces and transport derived that visualize the maximum saving potential for a
systems. The model thus enables a user friendly and set of about 20 base indicators.
comprehensible way of collecting data differentiating the
entities of the model along their various data sources. Table 2. Energy-/Cost Drivers derived from the Extended Energy Value
Stream
In the primary prototype software, the creation of the
factory model can be executed manually via a Windows Type Energy Driver
forms user interface. In future versions the software should, Time based Off-Time, Idle-Time, Set-Up-Time, Process-Time,
as far as possible, derive this data from other existing Transport-Time, Storage-Time
resources like ERP systems or factory ontologies e.g. via Load based Ventilation-Load, Heating-Load, Lighting-Load, Off-
APIs (application programming interface) - thus Load, Idle-Load, Set-Up-Load, Process-Load, Transp.-
Load
minimizing the effort for data gathering.
Cost based Imputed Rent, Labor Cost, Bound Capital (Product,
Machine), Depreciation
3.4. The extended energy value stream
Other Workplace Area, First-Pass-Yield, Scrap-Rate
Based on the hierarchic factory model, an extended
energy value stream analysis, based on the one already They provide a first mean to differentiate the top level
introduced in [10], is conducted. The value stream analysis KPIs (i.e. kWh/process-step or /process-step) into
allows the mapping of the factorys total energy numerous values that lead to different areas of
consumption including all kinds of peripheral systems to responsibility in a factory i.e. what is the maximum
value streams or even individual processes and thus allows saving potential by minimizing e.g. the idle time,
drawing a correlation between value adding and actual processing load or storage time. These indicators are
energy consumption that is required for efficiency quantifiable and the relationship between their value and
indicators. The approach presented in [10] was, now, the top level KPI can be mathematically described. In Fig. 3
extended by specifications for various cost factors. In the derivations of the Energy Drivers Off-Time and
combination with the energy data, this allows detailed Lighting-Load are exemplarily shown. In addition, the
statements regarding the environmental as well as economic consumed energy can be separated into wasted- and value-
effects of measures that are targeting the optimization of the adding energy, hence allowing the usage of penalty factors
value stream. Furthermore, a first estimation of the for the drivers consisting (mainly) of wasted energy.
relationship between wasted energy and costs vs. value
adding energy and costs based on the concepts of the seven

Transport (coming)

Transport (leaving)
Heating
lean wastes (e.g. motion, waiting, transport) is derived (see 4th Order Ventilation
P2nd P3rd P4th

f
Fig. 3) and can be utilized for the weighting of energy or e
d g Lighting h

cost drivers by a penalty factor. (see next step)

Loads [kW]

c
3rd (central)

2nd Order
Production Process b (Transport)
#Empl. #Ressources Waiting
3rdOrd

P3rd Avg. 3rd-Ord-Dev. Load [kW]

Conventional VSA

Proc.
PProcess
PSet-Up

Motion
Overprocessing

Waiting Overpro-
CT Cycle Time [s] naffected #Machines connected Inventory duction
Motion, Waiting
P1st

Inventory
LS Lot Size [pcs.]
PIdle

Inven-
PLight,i Lighting Load [kW]
1st Ord.
POff

tory
FPY First Pass Yield [%]
4th Order

PVent,i Ventilation Load [kW]

a
EPEI Every-Part-Every-Interval PHeat,i Heating Load [kW]
... 2 TOff TIdle TSet-Up TProcess TTransp. TStorage
AWorkpl Workplace Area [m ]
AShared Share of Common Area [m] Shared among all
... Shared among all
Processes on
Products in a batch Allocated
PT Process Time [s] CIIM Imputed Interest-Mach. [] Machine/Workplace
peroids of
Prod.Mach. + 1st Ord.

RT Set-Up Time [s] CIIP Imputed Interest-Product [] Time

Legend: Wasted Energy Value-Adding Energy
Costs

TOff Off Time [s] CIR Imputed Rent []

Energy Driver Off-Time = a + b + c + d + e + f
TIdle Idle Time [s] CL Labour Costs []
Energy Driver Light-Load = d + g + h
PProc Avg. Processing Load [kW] CDM Depreciation Costs []
CEn Energy Costs []
PRamp Avg. Ramp-Up Load [kW] Fig. 3. Exemplary derivation of two energy drivers based on the total
PIdle Avg. Idle/Off Load [kW] E1-4 1st-4th Ord. Energy [kWh] amount of energy consumption of a value adding process
PTransp Avg. Transport Load [kW] EVA Value Add. Energy [kWh]
Total
2nd Order

Tcome Transport Time (coming) [s] ENVA Non-Val. Add. Energy [kWh] 3.6. Weighting of Design Parameters (DPs)
Tgo Transport Time (going) [s] CVA Value Add. Cost []
Pshared Shared Transp. Load [kW] CNVA Non-Val. Add. Cost [] The derivation of solution elements from energy- and
cost drivers is usually not directly possible, since the direct
Fig. 2. Exemplary Value Stream Process Box based on [10] and further
extended (amongst others) by cost properties
correlation is often hardly predictable or quantifiable. The
so called design parameters (DPs) function as an
 J. Fischer et al. / Procedia CIRP 26 (2015) 133 138
intermediate set of quantities bridging this gap between
solution elements and drivers. They can be interpreted as
levers in a factory that can be usually applied to achieve
certain goals. Design Parameters are for instance the layout
of a building, the lighting system or the machine design (see
Table 3).
Since the amount of levers that can be applied changes
e.g. due to new scientific developments or new trends (e.g.
cyber physical systems), the amount of design parameters is
not fixed and can be extended. Nevertheless, for the regular
application of the methodology the amount of design
parameters shall not necessarily have to be changed, since
this would largely increase the effort for application. Hence,
a standard set of 25 DPs was defined, covering most of the
relevant fields of action.
Table 3. List of relevant Design Parameters ordered by factory level of
most likely applicability (open set)
Application Level Design Parameters
Site Heating Supply/Distribution, Central Pneumatic
Energy Generation/Distribution, Factory Layout
Building/Segment Lighting Equipment, Information/Visual Mgmt.,
Heating System (incl. Heat Recovery),
Ventilation, Building Layout, Design of
Building Shell, Transport Equipment,
Distribution of Pneumatic Energy, Shift-System
Process Chain Lot-Size, Long-Term Schedule (months/weeks),
Short-Term Schedule (days/hours),
Manufacturing-Control Mechanism
Process-/Machine- Batch Size, Machine-Control, Machine-
Level Selection/Design, Workplace Design, Material
Provision, Process-Technology, Work
Instructions, Employee Skills/Knowledge,
Employee Motivation, Maintenance Strategy
The derivation of the parameters was executed based on
a generic process module and an Ishikawa (fishbone)
diagram using W.-questions as fishbone-titles. The
mapping between energy/cost drivers and DPs is executed
by a mapping matrix that defines the correlation strength
between DPs and energy/cost drivers based on values
between (0-1). The result of this step is thus a weighted
vector of DPs correlating with the saving potential of DPs
(if a correlation of 1 equals saving potential of 100%). After
the weighting the user can then deselect these DPs that are
not relevant in his case (e.g. due to special boundaries).
3.7. Weighting of Solution Elements
The weighted vector of DPs is then used in the following
step to derive a weighted vector of solution elements. For
achieving the vector, a similar approach as in the previous
step is executed utilizing a mapping matrix containing
values between -1 and 1. This allows the modeling of a
negative impact of a solution element towards a certain
design parameter. The matrix values were derived from the
user input during the modeling of the solution elements by
using Likert Scale items [14] indicating amongst others the
max. affect and the probability of the Solution Element
having an effect towards the respective DP, hence allowing
137
the prediction of the strength of correlation and the
expected variance. The variance value can then be exploited
in the subsequent step to interpret the reliability of the
weighting result.
3.8. Final Selection of Solution Elements
Afterwards the user preference based ranking of solution
elements and the Design Parameter based one is brought
together. The DPs-ranking works like another criterion but
should be assigned a high weight due to its special
relevance. After the weighting of solution elements, if
necessary, a final selection step has to be executed that
specifies the previous, mainly impact based ranking.
Starting with the highest ranked element, a detailed analysis
is executed, utilizing methodologies like TCO and cross
impact analysis between the several Solution Elements.
Additionally, a detailed evaluation of applicability by
manually interpreting the text based properties (see Section
3.1) by the user is executed.
3.9. Implementation of Methodology
The methodology was implemented in a prototype
software tool in C# utilizing classes provided by the .NET
Framework. Solution elements and design parameters are
stored in a SQL Database that can be accessed from the C#
main program. Graphical user interfaces were designed to
edit and browse the elements in the database as well as to
guide the user through the solution elements selection
process and the factory- as well as the solution elements
modeling process. The program further contains the
required algorithms in order to calculate e.g. the value
stream KPIs and the energy drivers.
4. Case Study in the railway industry
4.1. Use case description
The introduced approach was applied at a rail plant of
the Siemens AG. The focus was laid on a part of a value
stream in a factory building where car bodies of metros are
assembled. Core characteristics of the process chain are e.g.
a non linear material flow between workplaces, long
process times of up to several days, large workstations and
complex handling and transport processes mainly caused by
the large product size and weight. Processes that are
executed are mainly welding, grinding and milling
operations as well as quality checks. The machine types,
that are being utilized, range from highly automated
machining centers to manually applied, mobile tools like
welding guns and angle grinders. Mainly pneumatic and
electric energy is used that is centrally distributed. In order
to maintain working conditions in the building, numerous
technical building services are deployed like heating,
ventilation and lighting next to other centralized functions
like chip removal.
138
4.2. Application of Solution Finder and Results
For the building investigated the methodology was
applied as specified in the previous chapters. The data for
the hierarchic factory model was derived in several shop-
floor visits using simple data collection techniques like one
time measurements or already available production data.
Due to the main scope of the funding research project, the
focus was laid on the derivation of the energy perspective
(i.e. the energy drivers). The main results, based on the
extended energy value stream, indicate especially a high
consumption of peripheral systems like lighting, ventilation
and heating. Furthermore, the idle consumption especially
of the machining centers was large, thus leading to high
energy drivers for Idle- and Off-Time.
Level, Dsgn.Par.) better
100
Relevance (Criteria: Factory
Ambient Light
Autonomation
75
Green control
strategies
50
Load Management
Smart Valve
Kanban
25
Shielding Gas
Saving System
0 Local Exhaust in Welding Gun
0 25
worse Relevance (Criteria: Task, OperationalGoal)
Fig. 4. Extraction of a two dimensionally weighted set of solution elements
for the Use-Case
Based on these results, multiple iterations deriving
weighted sets of solution elements were conducted.
Iterations differ from one another mainly by different user
preferences, indicating the current perspective for
application (e.g. the current problem solving step).
Exemplarily the results for the considered part of the value
stream are depicted in Fig. 4 containing in total six value
stream processes. Since the focus was initially set on the
analysis- and data-gathering-phase, mainly solution
elements with that specific ability are highly ranked and
were conducted accordingly. Those are for instance an
energy management system that allows the continuous
monitoring of a buildings pneumatic- and electric flows. In
further iterations, targeting the application/solution side of
the problem solving cycle, Efficient Lighting
Technologies, a Software tool for Shop-Floor
Scheduling and Alternative Welding Technologies could
be derived.
5. Conclusion, Outlook
In this paper a holistic approach for selecting structured
solution elements for optimizing value streams in specific
factories was introduced. The methodology incorporates
subsequent steps of selecting, weighting and filtering of
possible solution elements and criteria. The approach was
successfully tested in a Siemens AG factory.
The development of the methodology is ongoing. Future
research will focus on areas like the software
implementation and specification of the last selection step
as well as the improvement of the softwares usability. As
the approach implies a nearly constant correlation between
J. Fischer et al. / Procedia CIRP 26 (2015) 133 138
drivers, DPs and Solution Elements which sometimes only
hardly approximates the actual correlation, ways may have
to be found to describe these correlations in a factory
specific form.
6. Acknowledgements
The research leading to the presented results has
received funding from the European Communitys Seventh
Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) under the grant
agreement no. 285363 with the title Eco Manufactured
Transportation Means from Clean and Competitive Factory
(EMCFactory). For further information about the project,
visit www.emc2-factory.eu.
7. References
Energy Management
Holistic System
Sensors 5 Why-s model
guideline
Temperature Sensor
[1] IPCC Working Group III Mitigation of Climate Change, IPCC 5th
Green Layout Guide
Network Assessment Report "Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate
Production Planning Tool Change". copy edited version of final draft Report Dec 2013
Efficient Lighting Technologies
terminal [2] Bey N, Hauschild MZ., McAloone TC. Drivers and barriers for
Holistic Rapid Simulation
Perspective Tool implementation of environmental strategies in manufacturing
Alternative Welding
Technologies companies. In CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 2013;62; p.
Decision Making
Tool 4346.
50 75 100 [3] Des CM., Tan KH., Lim M. Green as the new Lean: how to use Lean
better
practices as a catalyst to greening your supply chain. In Journal of
Cleaner Production, 2012; 40; p. 93100.
[4] Rother, M; Shook, J. Learning to See: Value Stream Mapping to Add
Value and Eliminate Muda: Lean Enterprise Institute, 1999.
[5] US EPA. Lean, Energy & Climate Toolkit: Achieving Process
Excellence Through Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas
Reduction, EPA-100-K-07-003, 2007.
[6] Erlach K, Kuhlmann T. Energy Value Stream Design for the
Measurement and Reduction of CO2 Emissions: 10th Global
Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing. Towards Implementing
Sustainable Manufacturing, 2012; S. 519524.
[7] Schillig R, Stock T, Mller E. Energiewertstromanalyse. Eine Methode
zur Optimierung von Wertstrmen in Bezug auf den Zeit- und
Energieeinsatz. In ZWF-Zeitschrift fr den wirtschaftlichen
Fabrikbetrieb, 2013, 108:01-02. p. 2026.
[8] Reinhart G, Karl F, Krebs P, Reinhardt S. Energiewertstrom. Eine
Methode zur ganzheitlichen Erhhung der Energieproduktivitt. In
ZWF-Zeitschrift fr den wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb, 2010, 105; p.
870875.
[9] Schenk M, Wirth S, Mller E. Fabrikplanung und Fabrikbetrieb.
Methoden fr die wandlungsfhige, vernetzte und ressourceneffiziente
Fabrik. Springer Berlin, Berlin, 2013.
[10] Posselt G, Fischer J, Heinemann T, Thiede S, Alvandi S, Weinert N,
Kara S, Herrmann C. Extending Energy Value Stream Models by the
TBS Dimension Applied on a Multi Product Process Chain in the
Railway Industry. 21st CIRP Life Cycle Engineering Conference,
2014, Trondheim.
[11] Bergmann L. Nachhaltigkeit in ganzheitlichen Produktionssystemen.
Vulkan-Verl., Essen, 2010.
[12] Lanza G, Greinacher S, Jondral A, Moser R. Monetary Assessment of
an Integrated Lean-/Green-Concept.. In Seliger G, editor. Proceedings
of the 11th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing.
Innovative Solutions, 2013. p. 548553.
[13] Crespo Otano I. Ganzheitliche Produktionssysteme fr kleine und
mittlere Unternehmen. Shaker, Aachen, 2012.
[14] Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. In Archives of
psychology, 1932.
[15] Weinert N, Fischer J, Posselt G, Herrmann C. Lean and Green
Framework for Energy Efficiency Improvements in Manufacturing. In
(Seliger, G. editor.): Proceedings of the 11th Global Conference on
Sustainable Manufacturing. Innovative Solutions, 2013.