general enquiries on this form should be made...

General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,Telephone No. 020 7238 1612E-mail: [email protected]

SID 5 Research Project Final Report

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code TT39

2. Project title

Sustainability and Competitiveness in the Food Industry

3. Contractororganisation(s)

University of Cambridge

54. Total Defra project costs £ 248,730(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................ 1 June 2006

end date................. 31 May 2008

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so...................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They

should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the

intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.

Executive Summary

This report covers a 2 year research project led by the Institute for Manufacturing (IfM) at the University of Cambridge, assisted by the University of Lincoln Holbeach Campus. The project aimed to improve the competitiveness and environmental sustainability of the food industry through a mixture of education and research.Specific objectives were

o To identify key measures of environmental performanceo To review current best practice from UK and international food manufacturerso To identify strategies that could be pursued to reduce the environmental impact of food

manufacture, identify barriers to change and provide guidance on implementationo To identify a set of Lean Manufacturing techniques specifically tailored to the food industryo To develop and test teaching materials to help companies adopt improved practice

The study employed the use of qualitative research method in its entire investigation. The research was conducted with 20 food companies, all of which were visited for an initial interview to identify practices and concerns. Five of these companies provided the basis for more detailed case studies. Fifteen participated in one-day training courses. A project steering group consisting of 12 senior food industry representatives provided further input. The companies represented a mixture of large and small manufacturers of drink, frozen, chilled and ambient foods.

The one- day courses were developed for three different levels of seniority, from senior managers to supervisors. The workshop elements of these courses provided a particularly rich source of information about employee perceptions and awareness of issues; current practices and capabilities; and barriers to more competitive and environmentally sustainable manufacturing.

Some related studies by the IfM were also used to provide complementary information to the research conducted directly by the project.The initial review of the sector showed a wide diversity in practices and performance. Smaller companies and conglomerates that exerted little influence over their production sites had less ability to support performance improvement. Among the smaller companies there was little capacity for pursuing

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

environmental improvements that were not obviously cost or legislation driven. There was a generally low level of deployment of lean manufacturing techniques and other business improvement tools. In addition to shortfalls in technical capability and lack of process engineering skills there is a problem with blindness to some of the waste being generated. Much of the process waste was just viewed as ‘cost of doing business’. Many of the performance problems related to people and management issues. Employee empowerment was not well developed, possibly due to the rapid turnover of temporary labour and to language barriers.

There was no evidence of supply chain collaboration in order to understand the waste caused by the increasingly frequent product changes necessitated by retailers’ responses to perceived demand for more consumer choice.

Strategies to improve environmental performance have been proposed, focusing on creating a more supportive organisational culture; improving internal communication; better supply chain communication to ensure customers understand the implications of their requests; improved skills; better understanding of cost benefit analysis; and improved management of temporary labour to cope with complexities in production.

Lean manufacturing techniques fulfilling the needs of the food industry have been considered and five particularly useful techniques recommended for adoption

o Production management tools (Takt-time and Kanban) are recommended for appropriate parts of the processes, although some adaptation will be needed to cope with frequent change-over and long cycle/short cycle that are characteristic of many food manufacturing operations (R&D need)

o Reducing plant down time through fast change over (SMED) is another useful technique which can often be implemented at low cost. However, wider deployment of this technique requires improved methods for demonstrating the costs of line stoppage (R&D need).

o Value-Stream Mapping (VSM) is a widely deployed management technique for determining waste, particularly across organisational boundaries. To gain experience of this technique companies could usefully apply it initially within the factory operation itself, and in light of experience extend it to the supply chain.

o Good Housekeeping (5S) is a five step technique that is readily applicable

Areas identified for more research and support are:o R&D into improved tools for lean production management (as indicated above) o R&D into improved production planning tools to match the frequent changeover-long cycle/short

cycle production problems (5.2.2) o Developing costing techniques to demonstrate the costs of line stoppage (5.2.2)o Setting up retailer/manufacturer groups to drive sustainability metrics through the supply chaino Promoting improved technology capability to reduce waste and improve material recovery

Teaching materials developed in this project will be used to run further training courses, covering topics such as change management; lean manufacturing tools-their relevance to the food sector, benefits and limitations; sustainable manufacturing concepts-potential benefits and barriers to implementation; using performance measures to aid productivity improvement. The material gathered will also be used in a workbook that companies can use to carry out their own sustainability audit and to design their own improvement programme. An on-line sustainability audit tool is also being developed.

A conference is planned to launch the workbook. The project findings are being disseminated through articles in the trade press and academic journals. The IfM will also investigate the possibility of working with other organisations such as the Manufacturing Advisory Service through whom the workbook and tools can be promoted throughout the food industry.

Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with

details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include:

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

the scientific objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

RESEARCH AND EDUCATION TO SUPPORT COMPETITIVE FOOD MANUFACTURING

1. Background of the projectThe food industry is viewed as the lifeblood of nations because of its essential involvement in the provision of nutritional requirements to the general populace, and its contributory roles in employment and the gross domestic product (GDP). However, with the current opening up of the most world economies and emerging technologies, the competition between food manufacturers is becoming more intense as new providers attempt to seek global market-share. This, coupled with volatile customer requirements for a more varied product range, and the current emphasis to adopt environmentally friendly practices, means that the UK food industry is facing a more than ever challenging phase. The key question is; how can they improve their competitive position?

This report aims to address the above question by providing a set of tools that can help food manufacturers to;

(a) Adopt environmentally sustainable techniques.(b) Identify appropriate competitive manufacturing practice. (c) Disseminate best practice by educating their staff.

Since starting this research, food production has come under greater scrutiny as prices have increased dramatically. Surveys have given publicity to the high amount of wastage in the food supply chain. Environmental campaigners promoting biofuels have been blamed for contributing to food price rises and deforestation, as areas of tropical rain forests are cut down for biofuel plantations (Crooks and Harvey, 2008). So with the current position of food shortages and high perceived wastage, the approaches and finding of this report are very timely.

This report, which provides findings of a 2-year research project was sponsored by a collaborative effort of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and food manufacturers, was carried out by researchers from Cambridge and Lincoln Universities. The initiative included over twenty food companies located in the UK, and involved a mixture of large and small companies and the drink, frozen, chilled and ambient sectors.

The research proposal identified 5 key objectives as listed below.

o To identify the key measures of environmental performance that defines the ‘sustainability’ agenda for food manufacturers.

o To review and categorize current best practice from UK and international food manufacturers.

o To classify the full range of strategies that could be pursued now or in the future to improve the environmental impact of food manufacture, identify for each the barriers to change and providing guidance on implementation.

o To identify a set of Lean Manufacturing principles specifically tailored to the food industry.

o To develop and test teaching materials to help companies adopt improved practice.

2. Discussion of LiteratureFood and drink manufacturing is one of the fundamental activities contributing to the economic sustenance of most European Union (EU) member states (Blackman, 2005). The sector generates over €600 billion of production with a €145 billion of value-add. In the UK, food and drink industry is a leading manufacturing sector with an annual turnover of £69 billion that equates to 15 percent of the total manufacturing sector and employs approximately 500,000 people (Derkx-Mullan, 2005). Hence, an extensive literature survey exercise was conducted for the research. This encompassed the areas of food manufacturing, lean concepts and other best practices within manufacturing industry as a whole. Other related work in the area of environmental sustainability was also investigated.

2.1 Lean ManufacturingDefinition of Lean ManufacturingLean Manufacturing is a productivity improvement paradigm based on the Henry Ford’s continuous flow assembly line and updated by researchers and industrialists such as Ohno (1988), Womack et al. (1990) and Bicheno (2000). The essence of the lean concept is to aid organisations in customizing their products in a qualitative manner, whilst also reducing wastes in the process, hence minimizing the eventual cost of production. The goal of

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

lean manufacturing is the reduction of waste in human effort, inventory, time to market and manufacturing space. To become highly responsive to customer demand while producing world-class quality products in the most efficient and economical manner (Phillips, 2000).

Companies adopting Lean Manufacturing techniques can directly benefit from a number of cost-cutting exercises including.

o The identification of manufacturing wastes through the entire production cycle. Lean toolsets such as Value Stream Mapping are capable of achieving this.

o Reduction of the ‘Seven’ manufacturing wastes (overproduction, waiting, transportation, inventory, motion, reworking and defects).

o Continuous improvement within the production process in order to achieve total quality.

o Optimisation of manufacturing processes so as to attain higher overall equipment effectiveness (OEE).

o Improving corporate cultures to promote effective communication and job enlargement.

o Increasing productivity through proper planning and balancing the flow of production.

o Improving product quality by working closely with all stakeholders within the supply chain

o Achieving customer satisfaction by delivering the required products on-time, meeting customer requirements, and at the right price.

o Reducing the cost of manufacture by eliminating all the non value-add activities.

The full range of Lean techniques was discussed with the Food Steering Group Committee who identified a shortlist of those most suitable for investigation in the project. These are outlined in more detail below.

2.1.1 Minimising Process Inventory (KANBAN )The first identified lean technique is popularly referred to as the KANBAN Production System. It is a technique for minimising process inventory and achieving Just-In Time (JIT) production. Kanban is a Japanese word meaning card or visible, the Kanban system dictates that the production process should flow from one point to the next, only when there is available space to accommodate it. This is achieved by a signal that is generated by the consumption of the product downstream of the production process.

The use of Kanban sets the following production rules.

o only begin work when triggered,

o only produce quantity triggered,

o move completed work to next workstation,

o do not produce faulty work,

o report faulty work, process problem immediately

o operate first-in, first-out from queue.

2.1.2 Achieving faster changeovers (SMED) The second technique identified within the lean toolset for applicability in food production is the Single Minute Exchange of Dies (SMED). This is one of the approaches that help the reduction of output and quality losses due to changeovers. The method was developed in Japan by Shigeo Shingo (1981). Shigeo's reaction when he witnessed changeover times of more than 1 hour was that "The flow must go on" and he developed SMED technique that provided operators with the ability to find out themselves why the changeovers take so long and how this time can be reduced. In the original study of Toyota press tools changeover was reduced from 8/10 hours to one minute hence the name “Single Minute Exchange of Dies".

The food industry has had a variant of this initiative called ‘Clean in Place’ (CIP). Implementation of both of these initiatives takes place at two levels. The lower level looks at keeping tools and equipment close to the machines, maximizes the amount of changeover work done before and after the machine stoppage and modifies machines to have fixed rather than variable settings. All of these ideas can be implemented at low cost. The more strategic level investigation may lead to investment in additional tools and minor or major modifications to machinery. This can only be justified where the cost of line downtime is clearly understood.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

2.1.3 Process Balancing (Takt-Time)The third lean technique selected for the food industry is the Takt-Time. This is a tool used for process balancing, to achieve desired throughput times, and by regulating the process flow. Lean production uses Takt-Time as the rate or time that a completed product is finished. All of the production operations are designed to take the same (or multiples of) cycle-time, resulting in synchronous flow. This prevents the build up of stock between processes and thus minimizes wastage when changing from one product to another.

A balance flow can be achieved by the following planning mechanisms.

o Calculating scheduled demand,

o Calculating the available time to achieve the scheduled demand,

o Comparing the current operator time against the process balance (takt time),

o Identifying steps to rebalance available work and

o Recalculating the process balancing (takt time) regularly.

2.1.4 Improvement of Good Housekeeping (5S)The fourth lean technique suitable for the food industry is 5S. This is a method for organizing, standardizing and improving the whole of a manufacturing process. The sole objective of the technique is to ensure total eradication of unwanted items within the working environment of an organization and systematizing the organization of the wanted items. The improvement methodology works with a 5 Step plan with the following rules.

o Always keep the work place tidy,

o Make signs visual,

o When you remove something, put it back to its origin,

o Switch off all electrical appliance & water taps when not in use and

o Keep all your work materials next to your work station.

2.2 Sustainability A literature survey exercise highlighted that the subject of environmental sustainability contains diverse concepts many of which impact on business performance. Examples of these views include ethical, resource based, political/legislative, supply chains and economic.

For example the ethical view takes into consideration the perspectives that humankind may be able to use the available limited resources in less harmful ways. The ethical definition of sustainability was defined by the Bruntland Commission as “Providing for the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs”.

The political/ legislative view on environmental sustainability maintains that it is an issue now recognized internationally as being crucially important. Hence, any serious implementation of sustainable policies beyond market forces will require trans-national governmental action for example; the Earth summits, Kyoto agreement, WEE in Europe yet critics from the developing economies suggest these agreements are hidden protectionism.

Discussions on current measures involving environmental sustainability, tend to be underpinned by how to reduce the consumption of resources such as; energy, water and materials. For example, it is believed direct energy use and emission from business that includes electricity generation and transportation accounts for over 40 percent of the UK greenhouse gas emissions (Adams and Barlow, 2001). The use of energy in manufacturing activities is associated with the generation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides and chlorofluorocarbons. Increases in the concentration of these gases, result in increased warming of the earth surface, since they act as an insulation preventing heat from entering the atmosphere or escaping back into space (Russell, 2006).

2.2.1. Sustainability in the food industryWithin the food industry, the discussion of sustainable production has expanded to include issues related to organic farming, genetically modified (GM) crops, food miles and carbon footprints. The industries reaction to environmental pressures embraces a number of perspectives. There are companies with a proactive stance which can be as a result of the ethical view of sustainability or, more commonly, cost driven.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

The elimination of waste should not only reduce the impact of the company on the planet’s resources but also in many cases reduces costs and improves margin. Other companies have reactive strategies which respond to governmental/ regulatory pressures such as the landfill tax. Customer pressure also dictates reactive strategies and can be direct from the consumer or from the retailer trying to gain competitive advantage with particular groups of consumers – i.e. competing to be green or “greenwash”.

A key issue for the food industry is that media and governmental pressure on the supermarkets will push ‘environmental’ issues back onto the suppliers/manufacturers whether they like it or not. For example, carbon footprint labelling of individual products where Wal-Mart in the United States of America has stated their intention to mandate it on all products and then use it in supplier selection (Bircham, 2007). Tesco is working with the Carbon Trust to test putting "carbon labels" on its own-brand products in a move to enable consumers to choose products which are less damaging to the environment.

3. Method3.1 Research MethodologyTwo types of research methods, quantitative and qualitative research, were analyzed to determine how each one could be best used in this study.

o Although quantitative results can be replicated and verifiable, its response to environmental forces is complicated. While quantitative research design provides control and precision, it lacks flexibility and does not take into consideration real-life experiences.

o Qualitative research design on the contrary, reacts and reverberates real-world issues. It has provision to accommodate unique accounts. Moreover, qualitative research design engages participants and conducts a thorough examination of objects in minute detail. The downside of qualitative research design is that it is time consuming and creates problems when it comes to the point of verifying the authenticity of the research results.

Based on the comparative analysis presented above, this research investigation decided to follow the qualitative research approach. This decision was arrived at based on a number of factors, but most importantly, because qualitative research design offers flexibility, engages real-life issues and encompasses participants.

3.2 Research ActivitiesThe research was conducted through the following sets of activities:

Prior to starting the DEFRA funded elements of the research two studies were carried out which determined the starting point for this work:

o Initial scoping study to determine the current industry sectors and improvement activities,o A background study on the willingness of SME’s to adopt Lean manufacturing methods,

This was followed by:

o Meeting with the project sponsor to identify current areas of interest,o Visits to companies to identify their practices and concerns,o Results presented to the steering committee to determine priorities to be investigated,o Case Study visits to probe the priority areas in more detail, ando A range of courses were developed and used to sample attitudes and opinion across a range of

companies and managerial/supervisory levels.

3.2.1 Initial Scoping StudyThe first study was part of 1-year Master of Philosophy Programme run at the Institute for Manufacturing (IfM), University of Cambridge (see Derx-Mullan, 2005). The Masters dissertation explored the possibility of setting up a Lean Food Initiative (LFI) in order to increase awareness within food manufacturers.

3.2.2. Lean Manufacturing Background StudyInput from a second study was obtained from the results of a Doctorate Research Programme that developed an impact assessment framework for lean manufacturing application within small-to-medium sized manufacturers (SMEs). This was a 3-year research study sponsored by the collaborative effort of (BERR), the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, (formerly the DTI), in association with one of its initiatives known as

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

the Manufacturing Advisory Service (MAS). The study was based at Cranfield University, but the main researcher eventually joined the current DEFRA Project at the IfM (see Achanga, 2007).

3.2.3 Sponsor Meeting.An early activity was to identify the significant issues based on a consultative meeting with the main sponsor’s representative, held in August 2006. The meeting highlighted a number of interests within food manufacturing, these were prioritized and suggested the exploration of four major issues for investigation, including:

o A deeper understanding of the supply-chain in food industry;

o Investigating the supply-chain relationship between small and bigger food manufacturers and analyzing the possibility of enhancing collaboration;

o Energy efficiency, good water consumption and physical waste were also pointed out as the three most desirable issues to be investigated in the project;

o Recommendations to be made on the technology deployment in the food industry.

The meeting also decided to form a working committee to oversee, guide and direct the project. It was envisaged, a 12-member steering group would be adequate for this purpose.

3.2.4 Initial Company VisitsThe initial priorities were tested by a series of visits to over 20 companies including; Premier Foods (Campbells), Bakkavor (formerly Geest), British Sugar, Burtons, Walkers Key Country Foods, Aimia Foods (formerly Nichols), Heinz, Frupack, Jack Buck, Belvoir, Freshtime, Emmett, Gees, Greenvale, IFP, Kerry, Britvic, Histon Produce and James White Drinks. These visits identified current and best practices and priority areas for the project. The knowledge from this was compared and validated against collaborative engagements involving a number of food manufacturing firms by the IfM SME Engagement Team. These explored their operational activities to determine their lean manufacturing status. Company engagement was initiated as a route of identifying industry need versus tool applicability.

3.2.5 Steering Committee Presentation to Determine Priorities,To provide a sounding board a Food Steering Group Committee (FSGC) was formed in November 2006. The members of the FSGC included a number of operational or strategic managers at senior levels. They were scheduled to meet four times within the project lifecycle, and held various brainstorming sessions discussing generic issues within food manufacturing including:

o Investigating process waste, energy efficiency, skills improvement and retailer relations.;

o Understanding process capability to promote a competitive food manufacturing;

o Promoting partnerships in process engineering so that original equipment manufacturers (OEM), could advise customers who had limited knowledge of technology requirements;

o Reviewing and agreeing the critical issues identified from interviews with food manufacturing companies;

o Reviewing and agreeing the existing tools needed to address the priorities identified in the interviews;

o Identifying where new or modified tools might be needed;

o Providing more definition of the priority areas; and

o Identifying training needs and priorities for competitive sustainable food manufacturing.

3.2.6 Priority Validation through case studiesA number of mini-case studies were carried out with carefully selected companies and practitioners to cover the range of organisational structures in the food industry including a best practice exemplar, a facility that was part of a centrally controlled group, one that was part of a decentralised group and two that had grown out of farm businesses at different stages of maturity. The case study approach, a technique used in qualitative research, was deemed useful as a powerful tool to evaluate the best practice ideas obtained from the study. This idea is backed by Yin (1993), who maintained that case study approach can be used in qualitative research to assess and evaluate the authenticity of the research study. His view is supported by others such as; Robson (2002), Gill and Johnson (1997), who stated that case study approach, is a necessary technique in a research scenario where empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon is within a real-life context.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

3.3 To develop and test teaching materials to help companies adopt improved practice

3.3.1 Course RationaleA number of educational training courses were used as a measure of idea validation, in addition to testing the research outcomes. The relevance of this is justified by Easterby-Smith et al. (2002), who summarized the criteria for validity, reliability and generizability from a constructivist viewpoint as;

o for validity to be achieved, the study should clearly gain access to the experiences of those in the research setting,

o to prove transparency in research outcome, it should be demonstrated how sense was made from the raw data,

o and the concepts and constructs derived from the study should have relevance to other settings in order to be able to draw generalizable conclusions.

3.3.2 Course structure and delivery modeTeaching material was developed from information obtained from the previous activities. The topics designed for the teaching materials covered the following areas.

o Change management - importance of change management and the set of skills to effect it. Hands on; practical tips for change managers

o Lean manufacturing tools-their relevance to food sector, benefits and limitations

o Sustainable manufacturing concepts-potential benefits and barriers to implementation

o Using performance measures to aid productivity improvement

The course, which was tailored for one-day tuition, was specifically designed for those working in the food industry. It also offered a unique programme for food manufacturing practitioners who needed an introduction to the tools for productivity improvement, and an awareness of how to use these tools in order to facilitate the change process within the organisation. Interactive sessions focused on promoting best practices for competitive sustainable food production and identifying new ways to achieve lasting improvement. The course was developed at three different levels.

Senior mangers/directorsThe first level involved senior managers/ directors. The focus at this level aimed at providing course participants with robust insights of how to design strategic initiatives that can enable their identification of future opportunities, risk-assess current ventures and promote better supply-retailer collaboration. Specifically, the change management module attempted to initiate the development of new ideas, particularly how to initiate change, plan the management of its impacts and achieve performance improvements throughout the entire business.

Middle/line managersThe second level involved middle/ line managers and targeted middle managers who often are conditioned to believe in the ‘silver bullet approach’ that implementation of a particular tool brings about lasting competitiveness. However, in reality this is not the case. This layer of management was guided through a set of tools which, together with organisational development activities, can be used to design and run a successful improvement programme.

Supervisors/team leadersThe third level entailed the supervisors/team leaders who were introduced to the basic concepts of lean manufacturing and sustainability. They were shown how to engage in the skill development activities such as; supervisory leadership, project management, and how to stimulate the motivation and behaviour of their subordinates. It was believed combining these two diverse sets of activities positioned them to deliver performance improvements at a faster rate.

The design of the teaching materials delivered above was iterative. The first two courses were rolled-out based on previous public courses and used to provide feedback to position the subsequent courses. This was because the food sector embraces a high variety of practices that render it difficult to have a generic toolset. This may be illustrated by the difference between potatoes packaging that involves simple hand operation in comparison to a highly automated process of food manufacturing.

The course contents and delivery mode was thus refocused to suit the specific need of individual companies. These were run in a number of companies in a maximum two week period in order to achieve fast feedback. As

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

was stipulated in the project proposal, thirteen industrially based training workshops were conducted in addition to the first two public ones held. The course material was delivered by the Principal Research Investigator of the research project and supported by the Research Associate. This was mainly conducted on a workshop format that stimulated the idea of brainstorming with a view of highlighting industrial problems and how to address them.

At the start of the training course, which was run at the premises of the participating company, course delegates were required to provide brief introductions to their roles. This was important as it appeared the definition of management structures within food industry is diverse. What is referred to as a middle manager, with some solid decision making protocols in company (a) for example, may be treated differently in company (b). Therefore, understanding the delegates’ background prior to engagement was helpful in determining how to provide relevant materials on the day.

The Principal Investigator, who was always the lead presenter, would then highlight the project background. This involved the pronouncement of the identified gaps within food manufacturing and why the research project was sponsored. Subsequently, insights were made on the course themes and why the identified tools such as Lean Manufacture were needed. A brainstorming session, on key issues the course participants thought were important, in food manufacturing would then ensue.

This was followed by the engagement of the entire course participants in the use of a Just-in-Time (JIT) Game. This is a very common game in manufacturing education and is normally used to illustrate the advantages of JIT production. It is played in team of up to 7 participants whose task is to deliver three different products through a three stage production process. The customer demand is fixed infrequency and total but randomized in sequence. Used in this context however, rather than just illustrating JIT principles, it appeared to be a factory simulation that had a lot of resonance with the participants. It was therefore used to stimulate a general discussion forum on factory management. Two issues emerged that were important in considering improvements in food processing. The first was that the simulation has a process that requires a long start-up cycletime in the middle of a short cycle process. This is analogous to batch cooking and managing changeovers through this level of process continuity is very difficult and not covered in conventional production control techniques. The second insight was that even with such a simple system of three products and three processes and participants with generally over 100 years combined production experience it was impossible to understand and optimize the system Intuitively.

The use of other Lean tools such as the SMED, TAKT-TIME and 5S were also presented and discussed. A simple 5S game was carried out to illustrate the time savings available from systematic organization. With brief recess in between sessions, the next subject discussed, involved sustainability audit and highlighted the importance of sustainable manufacturing at large.

The final part of the day was the provision of change management module that was tailored to address attitude issues in embracing new ideas within companies. Before departure, delegates were required to complete a course feedback as a means of testing the course relevance and the of the medium of delivery.

4. Discussion of Results4.1 Initial Scoping Study

Figure 1: Timeline of Interests in the food and drinks industry, (Derkx-Mullan, 2005)

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

This study reviewed and categorized some current best practice from UK and international food manufacturers. This was drawn as a timeline showing when initiatives had become frequently identified in the trade press, as highlighted in Figure 1. Five case studies and a survey were then carried out to try and indentify further examples of improvement initiatives..

4.2 Lean Practices Initial StudyThe application of Lean Manufacturing failed in the ‘90s in the UK. This was due to a number of factors such as the misapplication of lean tools hence the concept made limited progress. Realizing that the concept of lean manufacturing works if applied correctly, the UK government revisited lean adoption in the early 2000’s, specifically targeting the small-to-medium size manufacturers (SMEs). However, the initiative, under the guidance of the Manufacturing Advisory Service (MAS), soon reached deadlock since most SMEs appeared resistant to change. Reasons for their rejection were found out to be extensive but the greatest reason for their scepticism was the probable costs of implementation which they believe to be exorbitant. They were also reported to be unsure of the time it takes to implement lean manufacturing and what value they may achieve as return on their investment (see Achanga, 2007; Achanga et al. 2006a; 2006b).

4.3 Initial Company VisitsIn the initial visit interviews companies were asked to identify their sustainability issues these were allocated to categories and Figure 2 shows the relative percentage of each category. There were no clear leaders with packaging (24%) and unsold finished product (20%) being the higher categories but little distinction between material waste (10%), water (11%), energy (14%), process waste (10% and transport (11%). Very few of the companies had measuring systems in place to be able to make any quantified judgments. Their perceptions and ideas of causation, when probed, seemed to be based on reactive strategy to consumer and supply chain issues and on cost reduction. For example, packaging is a popular consumer issue but in many cases has a simple trade off with perishability and meeting regulatory obligations.

14%

10%

11%

24%

20%

10%11% 0%

Energy

Material Waste

Water

Packaging

Finished Products

Process Waste

Transport

Other

Figure 2: Companies’ Wastes Perspectives

Energy and water were significant costs to the business but many companies felt they had a good understanding of how to reduce costs and were taking action, therefore they did not see this as much of a problem. Finished product rated significantly but this was thought to be a business cost resulting from the perishability of the product and the variability in the supply chain demand. Among most of the respondents, there seemed little interest in reducing waste unless there was a consumer/supply chain demand or a very obvious business cost-benefit.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

4.4 Sector Priority Validation and Project Priority Setting

Process Waste Process Process Not on Not significantSkills/Retail Chain Capability Eng. & Tech. S/C List

People/Change Mngmt Product quality NPD Costs Global comp.

Skills & Knowledge Changeovers Changing Stds Regulatory Policies

Variety change in EnergyProcess Waste packaging

WaterResponsiveness to RecyclingCustomer

PackagingInput variability Perishability

BiofuelsOEE

Breakdowns

Figure 3 – Priorities from Interviews

A brainstorming session was held with the steering committee to identify the area that they thought should be the project focus. These are shown in Figure 3 above grouped into process waste, process capability and process technology issues. Also shown are items thought significant that did not emerge during the brainstorm and items that while important to the industry were not considered significant for this study.

One linking theme was that a major cause of waste resulted from the retailers’ response to the perceived demand for more consumer choice. This, together with very high standards of freshness, was causing a large number of changeovers and packaging changes with significant startup and shut down losses. There was no evidence of supply chain collaboration in order to understand the costs of this trend to the consumer.

The ability to support this trend of reduced batch sizes and greater number of changeovers was handicapped by lack of skills and a fluctuating workforce. Conventionally the higher the level of disruption faced the higher skill level needed in the workforce. The food companies investigated had a mix of skills but with a high degree of casualisation and labour turnover. This together with communication issues with workers, who had limited English, meant that increasing skill levels was difficult.

4.5 Improvement Tool IdentificationHaving identified perceived problem areas, an exercise was carried out to identify existing tools or improvement concepts in general use in manufacturing and where new tools needed to be developed. From the issues identified by the companies and steering committee an assessment was made of which could be addressed in some way by existing tools and business change programmes. These issues are shown in green on figure 4 with the related tools.

4.5.1 Existing Process Improvement ToolsThere are well developed approaches to dealing with the People/Change Management issues including Continuous Improvement (CI) Teams, Empowerment and targeted performance measures. There appeared to be no difference between food and other industries in using these approaches for the permanent staff but the ability to deploy them with temporary staff required more research.

The most common business improvement tool, Value Stream Mapping (VSM), is a very useful method for determining waste particularly across organisational boundaries – the shortfall in the food industry was that it is generally used for business process optimisation rather than process waste reduction; which is often seen as part of the cost of business.

Improving the efficiency of changeovers can be achieved by using simple Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED) techniques, although the title needed to be changed to have any resonance with food industry personnel. There was a difficulty in justifying the cost of the improvements identifiable by this tool because; the companies visited did not have a clear view of the cost benefit of improving line utilization.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

Figure 4: Existing Improvement Tools

Time-to-Market techniques were applicable particularly in some of the areas visited where there seemed to be a high rate of product change but little sophistication in new product introduction management in terms of stage gate processes, the ability to align process optimisation with product optimisation and clarity of communication across the value chain.

There was a variable approach to demand forecasting. The food industry has a challenging combination of short term high responsiveness combined with long term variability brought about by seasonality and changing sources of supply. Conventional forecasting techniques would struggle to cope with this combination but there would seem to be an opportunity for more sophisticated trend analysis which would enable planning within bands and develop a better understanding of the responsiveness trade-offs. Kanban techniques can be very useful in reducing stocks, which in turn reduces inventory costs and losses due to perishability, however they can also reduce responsiveness to customer demand variation.

Original equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is a simple measure widely used in process industries to establish performance and as a driver for improvement programmes.

The identification and adoption of new technology is easy to analyze using technology management tools but in many companies there was limited resource and skill to manage new process technology. There was also limited expertise in areas such as understanding of process tolerances.

For the course development research it was decided to focus on the tools where some adaptation might be required i.e. Change Management, Value Stream Mapping, SMED and Kanban. It was assumed that the other tools could be used without modification, however further research proved this to be a false assumption in the case of demand forecasting.

4.5.2 New Sustainability ToolsNo tools were identified which could provide a simple view of sustainability issues for the food industry. The most common tool is carbon footprint which is very knowledge and labour intensive to carry out and also too static for the food industry with challenges such as changes in seasonal supply. Energy audit tools are fairly common but tools to look at process waste and recycling/reuse are absent.

An audit framework referred to as the Competitive Sustainable Food Manufacturing (CSFM) presented in Figure 5 was developed, which looks at the issues in food manufacturing in three themes (food processors, retailers and distributors and the consumer, in terms of environmental degradation. Of these issues the product waste that results from the production flow is considered the most important. In food production, these wastes include; rejected products that do not conform to the required standards, rejected raw material, trimmings, start up and shut down waste (including non-conforming product produced and packaging used while the system is brought within the operating parameters and optimised) and other process waste which is generally sent to landfill. Other issues include water that is non recyclable, energy consumed to heat food processing, prompting carbon emission into the atmosphere, and packaging wastes.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

Process Waste Process Process Not on Not significantFor projectSkills/Retail Chain Capability Eng. & Tech. S/C List

People/Change Mngmt Product quality NPD Costs Global comp.

Skills & Knowledge Changeovers Changing Stds Regulatory Policies

Variety change in EnergyProcess Waste packaging

WaterResponsiveness to RecyclingCustomer

PackagingInput variability Perishability

Biofuels

OEE

Breakdowns

CIEmpowermentPerf. Measurement

VSM

SMEDTTMForecastingKanban

Figure 5 – Competitive Sustainable Food Manufacturing Framework

4.6 Priority Validation through Case Studies

4.6.1 Case Study CompaniesThe companies descriptions are:.

Company: ACompany A has existed for over 55 years. It buys and processes sugar beet. Its production process is highly automated and involves; washing, boiling, heating and evaporating to make sugar. With an annual turnover over £4.3 billion, this is a global venture that aims to understand its global consumer trends. This is one of the highest performing companies in the food industry with a high level of production sophistication.

Company: BThe company has existed for 23 years and now has an annual turnover of over £6 million. They grow and process Celeriac and Chicory vegetables for UK consumption.

Company: CThe company produces fresh vegetables (carrots, casserole mixed onions etc) and layered salads. It has existed for approximately 6 years and now employs 203 permanent staff with an annual turnover of between £30-35 million.

Company: DIs a leading UK's producer of various food products with an annual group turnover of over £2.7 billion and employs almost 20,000 people on more than 60 sites throughout the UK. Its major manufacturing issues include; reduction of utility costs and acquisition of new technologies. It admits to throwing away high proportion of its product to landfill. The company has a strategy of buying ailing businesses and turning them around; it maintains that it always seeks improvement initiatives from external providers and has engaged the services of the Envirowise organization to aid a carbon emission reduction programme.

Company: ECompany E is a fast-growing producer of ready made meals. With an annual turnover amounting to £1.3 billion, its main concerns lie in how to remain viable in an intense competitive market. Strategically, the company has developed an in-house manufacturing excellence team that it uses to audit itself against other businesses. It is also the role of the excellence team to provide internal consultancy to its business on a day-to-day basis.

4.6.2 Case Study ResultsThe five mini-case studies highlighted above have identified a number of practices used by the UK food manufacturers to achieve competitive sustainability. One of these exemplar companies was in a class of its own and was a leader in the transformation of all their inputs into sustainable products. For example, a main by-product, is marketed for high energy animal feed; molasses, is used as feedstock by the fermentation industry and the small amount of soil adhering to the raw material is marketed to the landscapers. The lime products made

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

as part of the purification process are sold under the Lime X brand for soil conditioning, The stones delivered along with the raw material are separated, graded and washed and sold to the construction industry, generating extra income for the company. Low grade heat is used for growing tomatoes

Some of the supply chain practices also have direct impact on the environment. For instance, the cultivation of the raw material is believed to reduce the use of pesticides as it plays an important role as break crop in the arable rotation. Additionally, the company provides improvement advice to its suppliers on how to conduct effective sampling of raw materials. Growers are thus able to reduce the use of fertilizers by more than 30 percent. The company’s management prides itself on its ability of using in-depth analysis that resulted in less factory failures. This company is also moving towards high automation.

Table 1: Comparative analysis of 5 food companiesC

ompa

nies

Goo

d em

ploy

ees

skill

leve

ls

Rec

eptiv

enes

s to

cha

nge

Tech

nolo

gy

awar

enes

s

Inve

stm

ent

avai

labi

lity

Goo

d en

viro

nmen

tal

prac

tices

A x x x x xB x

C x x

D x

E x

A summary of the comparative analysis highlighted in Table 1 presents a gap analysis where it is evident that there exists a large disparity between the best companies such as Company A and other players. It is believed, the bigger the company, the higher the chances of it having professional leadership capable of embracing new ideas. Being small in size as is the case with most food manufacturers is a detriment in the deployment of best practice ideas as more often than not, these companies have limited management attention primarily focused on meeting customer demands, leaving almost no options for innovation. Emerging trends, such as developing demands for consumer information in areas like carbon footprints at the organization, or even product level, are rapidly changing priorities.

4.7 Feedback from Training Course

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

VG G F P VP VG G F P VP VG G F P VP VG G F P VP VG G F P VPRelevance 1 2 3 4 5 Level 1 2 3 4 5Delivery 1 2 3 4 5 Pace &

Timing 1 2 3 4 5 Balance

Lecture/Exercise1 2 3 4 5

Grading Scores

Num

ber o

f Res

pond

ents

Figure 6: Representation of Course Feedbacks

Two forms of feedback were gathered from the courses. A course satisfaction survey was carried out with the results shown in figure 6 above. The participants were asked to assess the course for relevance, level, delivery, pace & timing and balance on a five point qualitative scale from very good to poor. The median grade for each of the categories is good with good and very good being very close for relevance.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

The responses concerning factors hindering competitive sustainable food manufacturing were obtained during both the research surveys and training course sessions and were systematically analyzed, see table 2 below. Most of the responses were qualitative and varied in nature, yet identified common themes. The weight of evidence coding criteria demonstrates the balance of opinion in terms of the population of the respondents who expresses a similar idea or insights, represented by the total number of chosen code.

Table 2: Factors hindering competitive sustainable food manufacturingCode Description Balance of

OpinionPeople Soft Issues 8

Lack of skills 4Shortage of engineers 2Language barrier 5Migrant Labour 1

[20]Customers Customer Expectations 5

Consumer power 1[6]

Operations Planning inability 2Mixed priorities 1Complex information flow 1Machine & equipment breakdowns 2Lack of available time space 2Rapid rate of business growth 2Lack of investment opportunities due to tight budgets 3Perish ability (short shelf life) 1Inadequate inventory management 1

[15]Raw Material Unpredictable material availability 1

Poor raw material quality 5Seasonality 2High product variety 3Packaging constraints 1Unreliable suppliers 1

[13]Company Culture Unsupportive culture 2

Poor communication 4Poor management 2Management churn 1Unrealistic management expectations 1Low motivation 1Poor pay and reward & promotion 2

[13]Business Environment Competitive environment 1

Leaner profit margins 2Weak collaborative structures 1High operating costs 1

[5]Regulation Tight Regulation 1

Landfill tax 1Strict labelling requirements 3

[5]It should be noted that information for to these coding exercise were obtained through interviews conducted within food companies and brainstorming session mostly in the training course sessions. The respondents’ answers differed in terminologies, but their answers appear to point toward common themes. These responses were critically analyzed and have been categorized in Table 2. Factors hindering competitive sustainable food manufacturing can be classified under; people, customers, manufacturing strategy, corporate culture, material reliability, regulatory red tapes and competitive markets.

The data suggests the need for more emphasis on human factor in every production or manufacturing facility. According to Mikio Kitano (President of Toyota Motor Manufacturing North America, Kentucky), job satisfaction is key; There is an inverse relation between the efficiency of processes and the frustration level experienced by workers.

4.8 Prioritization Tool

The lean manufacturing and sustainability audit tools are designed to be implemented at junior manager/supervisor level generally either independently or as part of an improvement initiative. However, in order to establish senior management buy-in to dedicate resource to this type of activities it is necessary to examine where these issues fit in the overall strategy of the firm. The IfM has been pioneering this approach to small business improvement for a number of years and it was decided to tailor and trial a special version of the

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

company diagnostic tool for competitive and sustainable food manufacture. This tool consists of two parts:- the first is a prioritisation survey where a range of managers are requested to put the issues of process control, sustainability, lean manufacturing, corporate and social responsibility and strategy in a priority order. These are then averaged for the company. The second part of the tool is a facilitator questionnaire where an experienced facilitator rates the company of their practices in the same area. From these two pieces of data a grid of priority versus practice is drawn so companies can see if they are better at the things they think are important than those they think are unimportant. This grid can then be used to set management priority.

Fig: 7 Sector

Comparisons

The tool was trialled on twelve companies representing farmers/growers, wholesalers, processing and supermarkets. Figure 7 above shows the priorities by sector (higher score meaning greater priority to company). This sample is not statistically significant but is included to illustrate the potential of the approach.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

Fig: 8 Comparison of Practices vs. Performance

Figure 8 above illustrates the prioritisation matrix for one company in the survey. In this case the obvious priority area for improvement is their strategy development. This is rated their highest priority but they have below average practices. They have no lean manufacturing practices but do not believe it is important for their business.

5.0 Discussion & Recommendations5.1 Discussion from the Research Proposal Agenda

5.1.1 Key Measures of Environmental PerformanceThe research identifies some current practices that may be used by the food industry

o EIO: Environmental Input-Output Model is an environmental performance measure for defining a sustainability agenda within food manufacturing (Druckman et al., 2007). Although the EIO aims to measure progress in reducing the emissions attributable to final consumers in the UK, its analytical assessment also provides a useful function of estimating the carbon attributable to other different consumer needs.

o LCA lifecycle analysis techniques are capable of identifying and measuring the input and output quantities of all resources used in the manufacture of its product. Such data can then be used to measure the level each production unit contributes to the environmental degradation.

o Monitoring Systems such as REACT and The Peterborough Environment City Trust (PECT) monitor several inputs and provide analytical data in a real-time medium.

o Environmental Management Systems (EMS) Envirowise has set up an environmental management system (EMS) for the food and drink industry. It aims to assist food and drink companies in identifying, assessing and managing their environmental responsibilities and is an integrated approach that can be used on its own or developed based on company specific needs.

o The BSI PAS2050 provides a guide to carbon footprinting but require a data rich environment to implement and will be very resource intensive for high complexity and variety production systems.

In terms of interest in sustainability there are some beacons of excellence but in general little interest or awareness except where the sustainability initiatives obviously intersect with cost reductions or customer/legislative requirements. There are good sustainability toolsets but they tend to be configured for the larger firms. Energy and water audits are relatively easy to understand, can be administered by third parties, and opportunities are relatively easy to measure in terms of costs and benefits. At the other end of the spectrum carbon footprinting is complex in the food industry. One of the companies investigated sources its products from the UK, Portugal or South Africa depending on the season but this will result in very different carbon footprints and in some cases it is be a major challenge just to collect the data.

5.1.2 Identification of Best PracticeThe initial review of the sector showed a wide diversity in practices with companies varying from world class to those where there were significant opportunities for improvement. There was an obvious correlation with size and ownership structure since large companies and some of the conglomerates had the ability to support overheads devoted to performance improvement. Smaller companies and conglomerates that exerted little influence on their production sites however tended to rely on the interest and skills of a very small management team. A number of companies were successfully deploying the tools outlined in section 5.1.1. Case study company A was an exemplar in creating best practice however among the smaller companies there was little capacity for pursuing environmental improvements that weren’t obviously cost or legislation driven.

5.1.3 Strategies to Improve Environmental Performance and Barriers to Changeo Creating a supportive organizational culture - Although most food manufacturing companies are

conscious of this, regardless of their choice of cultural models or success in using them, most of the small companies, reflect in their culture the personality of the owner/manager and are constrained by this in terms of changes they may be able to undertake.

o Improved internal communication – there was a significant variance in views of the company’s strengths and weaknesses during the training workshops between the different levels – indicating a need to improve internal communication.

o Better supply chain communication. High customer expectation placed food manufacturing firms in difficult circumstances as it appears the customers do not seem to understand the implications of their requests, particularly when demanding changes to packaging formats. Retailers and manufacturers need to work together better to damp down supply change fluctuations caused by poor forecasting.

o Improved skills - Skills shortage in the food industry is viewed as a major constraint. Lack of skills such as those of food technologists are exacerbated by the current trend where students nowadays make career

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

choices after completion of their educational commitments and therefore may lack the basic scientific knowledge to convert to technical roles..

o Better technology adoption – skills shortages in engineering and process technology also lead to a lack of understanding of the benefits of new technology and poor utilization in some of the existing plant

o Better understanding of cost benefit analysis – there was limited identification of the costs of machine downtime which makes justifying improvements very difficult

o Improved temporary labour management – There is a necessary reliance on seasonal and migrant labour there is a need to develop advance management techniques for this form of workforce.

5.1.4 Lean Manufacturing Principles for the Foods IndustryIdentification of a set of Lean Manufacturing principles to be specifically tailored to the food industry was also conducted. All of the shop floor based tools were directly relevant. Some difficulty was experienced in explaining the advantages of value stream mapping to the less sophisticated management teams. Since this, or similar, tools are widely used in industry, services and governmental organizations this seems to point to management capability issues rather than any inherent deficiently in the tool. While there was a good fit with existing toolsets there is still need for minor modification particularly the incorporation of long cycle process such as cooking within short takt-time driven processes.

The recommended Lean toolset includes Kanban, SMED, TAKT time, Value Stream Mapping and 5S.However, it is important to note that Kanban production system may only work in certain circumstances. If there is high product variability and the work in progress has a long life it may not be the best system. Also some types of production processes, such as continuous flow lines, automatically have Kanban principles built into them.

5.1.5 Development of Teaching MaterialsTeaching material was developed from information obtained from the research activities andtopics designed covered the following areas.

o Change management - importance of change management and the set of skills to effect it. Hands on; practical tips for change managers

o Lean manufacturing tools-their relevance to food sector, benefits and limitations

o Sustainable manufacturing concepts-potential benefits and barriers to implementation

o Using performance measures to aid productivity improvement

Insights from the course experience included the difficulty in planning production schedules even with so many years of industrial experience. Many people could not see intuitively, how to optimize a simple three product/three process factory. This needs to be done through a thorough analysis. This applies equally well in real life where on a day to day basis demand can appear random but if analyzed, the patterns can be identified and the odds of abnormal demand calculated. This is a common problem in management where knowledge is frequently tacit and therefore difficult to update.

5.2 General conclusions In the food manufacturing sector there are a number of world class companies but it is also obvious that there are significant areas for improvement particularly within SME’s and conglomerates that are sufficiently decentralized to act as SME’s. To develop a roadmap for improvement it is necessary to consider the business drivers, improvement tools and management capability.

5.2.1 Business DriversCompared with general manufacturing the businesses are all within a tightly controlled and aggressive supply chain. Therefore the predominant business drivers are direct customer pressure and cost reduction there is very limited management attention left over for other initiatives. The consequence of this is that for any sustainability agenda to be effective it will have to be pursued through the supply chain and driven by the retailers.

5.2.2 Business ToolsThere are plenty of general business tools that could be applied to improve the companies studied, however there were areas where adaptations/new tools are required:

o Production planning techniques to match the frequent changeover – long cycle/short cycle production problems

o Supply chain optimization to force collaborative work with the retailers.o Developing costing techniques to demonstrate the costs of line stoppage.o Diagnosis tools for identifying sustainability priorities at the lower management operational level.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

5.2.3 Management CapabilityThere were some shortfalls in technical capability and lack of process engineering skills. Another problem was blindness to some of the waste being generated:- much of the process waste was just viewed as “cost of doing business” and wasn’t seen as a problem until it began incurring significant disposal cost.

There were problems in the areas of communication and change management these came from both capability and capacity, some companies were so lean that they had very limited capacity for improvement initiatives. There is a need for significant management education and for some form of intervention agency to assist in technical and process improvement

To overcome these challenges a simple sustainability audit tool (see Fig 5) is being developed with the objective that it should be no more complex than the lean manufacturing toolset. This will be disseminated through a workbook and the recently launched Venture Navigator business improvement website.

5.3 Future Work

5.3.1 IfM Future Worko The IfM will be disseminating the results of this project through a national conference. The conference

will aim to bring together a range of stakeholders including government bodies, NGO’s, researchers and practitioners. A roadmapping exercise will be carried out to identify needs and gaps in the area of competitive and sustainable food manufacture and opportunities for better integration of the current range of initiatives.

o The research and case material will be incorporated into training programmes for junior and middle managers in the food industry. These will be delivered by the IfM but also including in the portfolio that the IfM is seeking to get disseminated through the Manufacturing Advisory Service. Other strategic partners will be sought for wider licensed dissemination.

o A workbook to will be published to enable companies to carry out their own sustainability audit and design their own improvement programme. This will be marketed through the IfM membership upon launch and also through the IfM ongoing publication marketing programme.

o An on-line sustainability audit tool is being developed and together with the workbook contents will be made available through the Venture Navigator website. It will also be included in the web based tools portfolio marketed as a single package overseas.

5.3.2 Opportunities for further research/supportThe research has identified five areas that could be considered as important in promoting improvements in sustainable food manufacturing:

o Research and development into improved tools, specifically adapted production planning tools for the food industry and performance measurement/cost benefit tool so that the smaller companies can better understand the payback in investing in improvements. The research method of using training courses as a data collection exercise could also be further developed.

o Developing adaptations of standard Lean Manufacturing tools to better fit the food industry. The use of TAKT time and Kanban could be extended with a better understanding of how to manage the interface between long batch processes such as cooking with very short cycle time processes such as packaging.

o Setting up retailer/manufacturer groups to drive sustainability metrics through the supply chain. This would have the benefit of utilising the main business driver of the manufacturers but also identifying to the retailers the hidden costs in some of their demands.

o Promoting improved technology capability. There seems a significant educational gap between general process technicians and food technologists. Other major industrial sectors, such as automotive and aerospace had engineering degrees specifically targeting their process technologies. There is significant opportunity in waste reduction and recovery in the food industry but achieving it is handicapped by the technical knowledge of the producers.

o Promoting improved operational capability. Many of the current smaller companies are too small to afford a team of improvement engineers; one possibility is to consider seed corn funding an organisation to provide a central improvement team. A very successful model for this was developed by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and called the Industry Forum. This was sponsored by the major car manufacturers with the objective of improving their tier 2 and 3 suppliers.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.

ReferencesAchanga, P.C. (2007), Development of an impact assessment framework for lean manufacturing within SMEs, PhD Thesis, Decision Engineering Centre, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University.

Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2006a), Critical success factors for lean implementation within SMEs, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management Vol.17, No.4, pp.460-71.

Achanga, P., Shehab, E., Roy, R. and Nelder, G. (2006b), Returns of investments duration for lean manufacturing within SMEs, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Stimulating Manufacturing Excellence in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SMESME2006), Coventry University, Coventry, ISBN: 1-84600-012-2, pp.27-33.

Adams, J. and Barlow, C. (2001), Reducing energy consumption at Priory Produce, An Industrial Project Report, Department of Engineering, the University of Cambridge, UK.

Bicheno, J. (2000), Cause and effect of lean, Lean Operations, Six Sigma and Supply Chain Essentials, PICSIE Books, Buckingham, ISBN 0 9513 8299 3.

Bircham, J. (2007), Wall-Mart sets green targets in China chain, the Financial Times, Monday April 2008.

Blackman, C., (2005), A Healthy Future for Europe’s Food and Drink Sector? Foresight, Vol.7 No.4 pp 8-23.

Carbon Trust - http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/News/presscentre/2007/111007_Tesco+carbon+footprint.htm – April 2009, (accessed on 15th March 2008)

Crooks, E., and Harvey, F. (2008), Suspend biofuels, say MPs: growing concern at effect on food prices-industry already hit by cheap imports, Financial Times, Friday May 2 2008, pp.3 column 3, London.

Derx-Mullan, S. (2005), Lean manufacturing practice in the food industry, MPhil Dissertation, Wolfson College, the Institute for Manufacturing, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge.

Druckman, P., Bradley, P., Papathanasopolou, E. and Jackson, T. (2007), Measuring Progress towards carbon reduction in the UK, International Ecological Footprint Conference, 8-10 May 2007, Cardiff.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (2002), Management research: An introduction, SAGE Publications, London.

Gill, J., and Johnson, P. (1997), Research methods for managers, SAGE Publishers, London, ISBN 0 76194002 2.

Ohno, T. (1988), The Toyota Production System: beyond large scale production, Productivity Press, Portland, Oregon: OR.

Phillips, T. (2000), The production system design laboratory (PSD). Available at: http://lean2.mitedu (accessed on 01st

October, 2004).

Robson, C. (2002) Real world research, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Publishers, UK.

Russell, S. (2006), The value of localizing production as a strategy for sustainable development, PhD Thesis, Manufacturing and Management Division, University of Cambridge.

Shingo, S. (1981), Study of Toyota Production System, Japan Management Association, Tokyo.

Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., and Roos, D. (1990), The machine that changed the world, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, McMillan, Massachusetts: MA, ISBN 0 89256 350 8.

Yin, R.K (1993), Case study research: design methods, 2nd Edition, Sage Publishers, California: CA.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

http://lean2.mitedu/

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/News/presscentre/2007/111007_Tesco+carbon+footprint.htm

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 25

general enquiries on this form should be made...

Documents