Hubbry Logo
Production levelingProduction levelingMain
Open search
Production leveling
Community hub
Production leveling
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Production leveling
Production leveling
Production leveling
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Uneven production process in simulation inside production simulation game in Ford's Museum

Production leveling, also known as production smoothing or – by its Japanese original term – heijunka (平準化),[1] is a technique for reducing the mura (unevenness) which in turn reduces muda (waste). It was vital to the development of production efficiency in the Toyota Production System and lean manufacturing. The goal is to produce intermediate goods at a constant rate so that further processing may also be carried out at a constant and predictable rate.

Where demand is constant, production leveling is easy, but where customer demand fluctuates, two approaches have been adopted: 1) demand leveling and 2) production leveling through flexible production.

To prevent fluctuations in production, even in outside affiliates, it is important to minimize fluctuation in the final assembly line. Toyota's final assembly line never assembles the same automobile model in a batch. Instead, they level production by assembling a mix of models in each batch[2] and the batches are made as small as possible.

Production leveling by volume or by product type or mix

[edit]

Production leveling can refer to leveling by volume, or leveling by product type or mix, although the two are closely related.

Leveling by volume

[edit]

If for a family of products that use the same production process there is a demand that varies between 800 and 1,200 units then it might seem a good idea to produce the amount ordered. Toyota's view is that production systems that vary in the required output suffer from mura and muri with capacity being 'forced' in some periods. So their approach is to manufacture at the long-term average demand and carry an inventory proportional to the variability of demand, stability of the production process and the frequency of shipments. So for our case of 800–1,200 units, if the production process were 100% reliable and the shipments once a week, then the production would be with minimum standard inventory of 200 at the start of the week and 1,200 at the point of shipment. The advantage of carrying this inventory is that it can smooth production throughout the plant and therefore reduce process inventories and simplify operations which reduces costs.

Leveling by product

[edit]

Most value streams produce a mix of products and therefore face a choice of production mix and sequence. It is here that the discussions on economic order quantities take place and have been dominated by changeover times and the inventory this requires. Toyota's approach resulted in a different discussion where it reduced the time and cost of changeovers so that smaller and smaller batches were not prohibitive and lost production time and quality costs were not significant. This meant that the demand for components could be leveled for the upstream sub-processes and therefore lead time and total inventories reduced along the entire value stream. To simplify leveling of products with different demand levels a related visual scheduling board known as a heijunka box is often used in achieving these heijunka style efficiencies. Other production leveling techniques based on this thinking have also been developed. Once leveling by product is achieved then there is one more leveling phase, that of "Just in Sequence" where leveling occurs at the lowest level of product production.

The use of production leveling as well as broader lean production techniques helped Toyota massively reduce vehicle production times as well as inventory levels during the 1980s.

Implementation

[edit]

Even Toyota hasn't reached the final stage in this journey, single-piece flows, across all of their processes; indeed they recommend following their journey rather than trying to jump into an intermediate stage. The reason Toyota advocates this is that each production stage is accompanied by adjustments and adaptations to support services to production; if those services are not given these adaptation steps then major issues can arise.

  1. Implement green stream/red stream or fixed sequence, fixed volume to establish the entry and exit criteria for products from these streams and establish the supporting disciplines in the support services. The cycle established will produce Every Product Every Cycle (EPEC). This is a specific form of Fixed Repeating Schedule. Green stream products are those with predictable demand, Red stream products are high value unpredictable demand products.
  2. Faster fixed sequence with fixed volume keep the streams the same but use the now established familiarity with the streams to maximise learning and improve speed of production (economies of repetition). This will allow the shortening of the EPEC cycle so that the plant is now producing every product every 2 weeks instead of month and then later on repeating every week. This may require support services to speed up as well.
  3. Fixed sequence with unfixed volume keep the stream sequences the same but now phase in allowing actual sales to influence volumes within those sequences. This affects inbound componentry as well as support services. This is a more generalised form of Fixed Repeating Schedule.
  4. Unfixed sequence with fixed volume the stream sequences, and EPEC, can now be gradually flexed but move to small fixed batch sizes to make this more manageable.
  5. Unfixed sequence with unfixed volume finally move to true single piece flow and pull by reducing batch sizes until they reach one.

Demand leveling

[edit]

Demand leveling is the deliberate influencing of demand itself or the demand processes to deliver a more predictable pattern of customer demand. Some of this influencing is by manipulating the product offering, some by influencing the ordering process and some by revealing the demand amplification induced variability of ordering patterns. Demand levelling does not include influencing activities designed to clear existing stock.

Historically demand leveling evolved as subset of production levelling and has been approached in a variety of ways:

  • The first approach to demand levelling involves careful management of the sales pipeline. For this method of demand management it is instructive to look at Toyota in its home market, Japan. Toyota sales teams sell cars door-to-door whereby they build customer profiles and relationships. The sales process is low intensity but includes test drives, financing, insurance and trade-in deals.[3] The sale itself is by special order placed with their representative. This means that orders can be predicted reasonably accurately in terms of vehicle numbers some way in advance. Finer specific vehicle details may only become known with the order. However, the order is often for delivery in the future so these details can usually be planned before build. Because the customer is getting the exact car they want there is less negotiation around price as indeed the fact that the build is to order removes the incentive of the manufacturer, or their agent, to discount existing stock. The aim of this system is to maximise the revenue from the customer in the long term. This leads to the sales team handling after-sales issues of diverse kinds for an extended period to keep customer loyalty and the relationship which will sell the next car. Between purchases the sales team remain in touch for all aspects of customer satisfaction with their cars including feedback for product design on changing customer preferences in the market. The Japanese market does not have the seasonal, promotional or other demand surges that are a characteristic of Western automotive markets. It is debated, for both markets, whether this is caused by manufacturers' behaviour or whether manufacturers' behaviour is a logical response to it.
  • A second approach to demand levelling is by deep understanding of the systems used to order products by retailers and other sellers from manufacturers. Even where this supply chain is very simple, customer-retailer-manufacturer, it is usually the case that orders are based on some form of economic order quantity (EOQ) calculation that aggregates actual customer demand over a certain period. This aggregation, and the other clever calculations that may be involved, often obscure the fact that actual demand for a product is close to flat, and for high volume products very close to flat. The demand pulsing effect is created by the ordering process and the more complex it is the greater this effect. The use of EPOS actual sales data can reveal this effect very clearly.
  • A third approach to demand management is to keep finished goods or nearly finished goods in stock to act as a buffer and thus isolate the production facility from actual demand. This approach is widely used today but its weakness is becoming more and more evident as a growing variety of products is demanded. The cost of making, storing, managing and protecting finished goods stock can grow to be prohibitive depending upon product range and demand variability levels. This usually means that actually whilst stocks are kept they are insufficient to meet the stated aims and so customer dissatisfaction ensues along with distressed sales (reduced price) to eliminate stock levels seen as too high.

Implementation

[edit]

If it is accepted that a large part of demand variability in high volume products can be substantially caused by sales and ordering process artifacts then analysis and leveling can be attempted.

The use of long delay supply chains to reduce manufacturing costs often means that production orders are placed long before customer demand can be realistically estimated. The much later arrival of forecast product demand volumes makes demand leveling irrelevant since the issue has now switched to disposal at best price possible products that are already created and possibly paid for. Demand leveling has only proven possible where build times have been made relatively low and production has been made relatively reliable and flexible. Examples of these are fast airborne supply chains (e.g. Apple iPod) or direct to customer selling through web sites allowing late customisation (e.g. NIKEiD custom shoes) or local manufacture (e.g. Timbuk2 custom courier bags).

Where actual build-delivery times can be brought within the same scale as customer time horizons then effort to modify impulse buying and make it somewhat planned can be successful. Reliable, flexible manufacturing will then mean that low stock levels (if any) do not interfere with customer satisfaction and that incentives to sell what has been produced eliminated.

Where demand follows a predictable pattern, e.g. flat, then regular deliveries of constant amounts can be agreed with variances in actual demand ignored unless it exceeds some agreed trigger level. Where this cannot be agreed then it can be simulated and the benefits gained through frequent deliveries and a market location.

The predictable pattern does not have to be flat and may, for example, be an annual pattern with higher volumes at particular periods. Here again the deliveries can be agreed to follow a simplified but similar pattern, perhaps one delivery volume for six months of the year and another for the other six months.

See also

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Production leveling

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Production leveling, also known as heijunka, is a core principle of that involves smoothing the production schedule by balancing both the volume and variety of output over a fixed period, such as a day or week, to align closely with actual customer demand and minimize waste. Originating from the (TPS) in , where it translates to "levelization," production leveling emerged as a response to the inefficiencies of , enabling manufacturers to avoid overproduction and irregular workloads. By sequencing production to alternate between different product types and maintaining consistent quantities—such as producing 100 units daily to fulfill a weekly demand of 500—this technique reduces variability, or mura, in the workflow. Mura is one of the three types of waste in lean philosophy—the others being muda (non-value-adding activities) and muri (overburden)— Key benefits include shorter lead times, lower inventory levels, improved quality control, and enhanced worker morale through more predictable schedules, ultimately contributing to greater operational efficiency across industries. Implementation typically relies on tools like the heijunka box, a visual scheduling grid that divides time into slots to sequence jobs evenly, often combined with quick changeover methods (SMED) to facilitate frequent switches between product variants without downtime. In practice, production leveling integrates with other lean elements, such as just-in-time (JIT) production and systems, to create a pull-based flow that responds dynamically to demand fluctuations while eliminating non-value-adding activities.

Overview and Principles

Definition and Core Concepts

Production leveling, known as heijunka in Japanese, is a technique that involves smoothing out production rates and quantities to closely match the average customer demand over a specified period, thereby reducing variability, waste, and inefficiencies in the production process. This approach aims to create a more predictable and stable manufacturing environment by avoiding the extremes of and underutilization, which can lead to excess inventory and resource strain. At its core, production leveling seeks to eliminate mura—the Japanese term for unevenness in production flows—by balancing workloads across machines, workers, and other resources to achieve consistent output. A foundational element is the concept of , which represents the rate at which a finished product must be completed to satisfy customer demand, serving as the rhythmic "heartbeat" of lean production. Takt time is calculated using the formula: Takt time=Total available production timeCustomer demand rate\text{Takt time} = \frac{\text{Total available production time}}{\text{Customer demand rate}} This metric guides leveling decisions by providing a benchmark for aligning production pace with demand, ensuring that operations neither rush nor lag behind market needs. Production leveling integrates with the pillars of lean manufacturing, particularly just-in-time (JIT) production, by preventing overproduction and the resulting buildup of inventory, which is one of the primary forms of waste in lean systems. By fostering a demand-driven workflow, it supports overall efficiency and responsiveness without compromising quality or capacity utilization.

Historical Origins and Evolution

Production leveling, known as heijunka in Japanese, originated in post-World War II as a core component of the (TPS), developed primarily by industrial engineer during the 1950s. Facing resource constraints and irregular production schedules in 's automotive operations, Ohno sought to eliminate waste and achieve smoother workflows by balancing production volumes and product mixes against fluctuating demand. This approach was influenced by the need to compete with larger Western automakers like Ford, whose methods were inefficient for Toyota's smaller scale. The 1950 Toyota labor strike highlighted workforce tensions amid financial difficulties, contributing to the broader context of challenges that drove the development of TPS principles, including JIT and production leveling. Key milestones in the included the introduction of heijunka boxes—visual scheduling tools that sequenced production orders to maintain even flow—integrating with the system, which was expanding across plants in the early 1960s. The oil crisis further propelled heijunka's development, as global economic turmoil and fuel shortages highlighted TPS's resilience; while competitors slashed output, Toyota maintained steady production through leveled scheduling, gaining amid . This period solidified heijunka as essential for adapting to demand volatility. In the 1980s and 1990s, production leveling spread beyond through the global dissemination of principles, catalyzed by influential works like The Machine That Changed the World (1990) by , Daniel T. Jones, and Daniel Roos, which detailed TPS's superiority based on MIT's International Motor Vehicle Program study. Western industries, particularly automotive, adopted heijunka to reduce inventory and improve responsiveness, marking a shift from to flow-oriented systems. Modern evolutions since the 2000s have extended heijunka to , such as healthcare, where it balances patient flows and reduces wait times— for instance, applied leveling techniques to cut lab processing delays by 85%. Digital tools, including software platforms like KanbanBOX for dynamic sequencing, have automated traditional heijunka boxes post-2000, enabling real-time adjustments. In the 2020s, Industry 4.0 integrations incorporate AI-driven forecasting to enhance leveling precision, supporting adaptive production in process industries and beyond. As of 2025, advancements include AI-enhanced heijunka in Industry 4.0 for predictive leveling in volatile markets, as seen in process industries.

Types of Production Leveling

Volume-Based Leveling

Volume-based leveling adjusts production rates to align with the average volume over a specified horizon, ensuring a consistent output that mitigates fluctuations such as during and underutilization during lulls. This approach focuses on stabilizing the total quantity produced, independent of specific product variations, by maintaining operations at a steady pace—typically calculated as a of that matches long-term averages, such as operating at 80% capacity continuously rather than alternating between 120% and 40%. By doing so, it reduces variability in , minimizes overtime or idle time, and supports smoother across labor, equipment, and materials. Key methods for implementing volume-based leveling include the use of pitch cycles or fixed intervals to release work orders, where production is paced at regular intervals based on —the available production time divided by customer demand rate—to ensure steady flow without batching. The level volume is determined by calculating the average daily demand and extending it across the planning horizon; for example, if total demand over a month is forecasted, the daily production target is set as that total divided by the number of working days, allowing for controlled inventory buffers to absorb short-term demand variations. This method, rooted in the , promotes process stability by decoupling immediate customer orders from daily production schedules. The core equation for determining the level production quantity is: Q=DnQ = \frac{D}{n} where QQ is the level production quantity per period, DD is the total over the planning horizon, and nn is the number of periods (e.g., days or shifts) in that horizon. To derive this, first aggregate the forecasted DD across the entire period to capture the long-term average, avoiding the influence of daily spikes or dips. Then, divide by nn to obtain QQ, which represents the constant output rate. This stabilizes because production consistently matches the average inflow of : in periods of high exceeding QQ, draws down but remains positive if buffered appropriately; in low- periods, builds up to replenish the buffer. Over the full horizon, the cumulative production equals total (n×Q=Dn \times Q = D), resulting in net-zero change and bounded fluctuations that prevent stockouts or excess buildup, thereby enhancing overall system efficiency. In practice, automotive assembly lines exemplify volume-based leveling by producing a fixed number of vehicles per shift, such as 100 units daily regardless of daily order variations, which allows just-in-time supplier coordination and reduces line stoppages. Similarly, in , firms smooth circuit board output to a consistent rate—e.g., 500 boards per day over a week—based on average component , enabling steady progression through and testing processes while maintaining minimal work-in-process . These applications demonstrate how volume leveling fosters predictable operations in high-volume environments.

Product Mix-Based Leveling

Product mix-based leveling is a key aspect of production leveling that focuses on arranging the sequence of different product varieties to distribute them evenly over a specified time period, thereby reflecting overall demand proportions and avoiding large batches of similar items. This approach minimizes mura (unevenness) in the production process by ensuring that the mix of products produced closely matches customer requirements without excessive stockpiling or setup disruptions. One primary method for implementing product mix-based leveling is the use of a Heijunka box, a visual scheduling tool that organizes production orders into slots representing fixed time intervals, such as shifts or days. The box typically features columns for time periods and rows for product types, with cards or markers placed to indicate the sequence and frequency of production runs. This allows operators to pull and execute orders in a balanced manner, promoting small-lot production and reducing times. For instance, if demand requires producing multiple variants in varying quantities, the box ensures their interleaving rather than sequential batching. Another method involves categorizing products using the runner, repeater, stranger (RRS) framework to prioritize sequencing and within the mix. Runners are high-volume, frequently produced items that form the bulk of output (often around 80% of volume from 20% of types), scheduled with just-in-time pulls for ; repeaters are medium-volume items (about 15% of volume), handled with periodic buffering; and strangers are low-volume, infrequent items (5% of volume), produced on-demand to avoid overcommitment. This classification guides the production sequence by dedicating stable slots to runners while flexibly inserting repeaters and strangers, ensuring the overall mix remains balanced. To determine the appropriate sequence frequency, the mix ratio for each product ii is calculated as demand for product itotal demand\frac{\text{demand for product } i}{\text{total demand}}, which dictates how often each variant appears in the repeating cycle. For example, with a demand mix of products A:B:C at 2:1:1 (total 4 units), the sequence might repeat as A-B-C-A every four units, scaling up for larger volumes while maintaining proportionality. This mathematical approach ensures the production rhythm aligns with , with the cycle length often set to the of ratios for even distribution. In a toy , product mix-based leveling might involve alternating production of different doll types—such as action figures, stuffed animals, and educational toys—according to sales proportions, producing one of each in sequence rather than batching all action figures first. Similarly, in , a plant could vary flavors of snacks (e.g., cheese, , and plain chips) throughout a shift to match regional sales data, interleaving runs to keep fresh and utilization steady. These practices build on stable leveling to achieve mix stability.

Implementation Approaches

Key Steps and Planning

The planning phase for production leveling, also known as heijunka, involves a structured sequence of preparatory activities to transition from uneven production patterns to a stable, demand-aligned flow, ensuring minimal disruption to operations. This process emphasizes assessing existing variability, aligning resources with customer needs, and validating the plan before full rollout. By focusing on these preparatory steps, organizations can mitigate risks associated with or underutilization of capacity. The step-by-step process begins with analyzing current production variability using to visualize material and information flows, identifying bottlenecks, waste, and fluctuations in demand that contribute to uneven output. Next, calculate —the available production time divided by customer demand—to establish the pace required for leveling, alongside assessing line capacity to ensure it matches or exceeds this rate without excess idle time. Then, determine the level schedule horizon, such as a weekly period, to distribute production evenly over time rather than reacting to daily spikes. Finally, create an initial level plan by sequencing products in small, repeating lots that reflect average demand, iterating as needed to balance the . Key planning considerations include balancing line capacity with forecasts to avoid overloads, while incorporating buffers—typically 10% of capacity—for flexibility in handling unforeseen changes. For seasonal variations, planners adjust the level schedule incrementally, such as by building modest buffers during low- periods to maintain steady flow without reverting to batching. These adjustments prioritize long-term stability over short-term responsiveness, ensuring the leveled plan remains feasible across fluctuating conditions. Specific techniques support this planning, such as load leveling charts that plot production requirements against capacity over the schedule horizon to highlight and resolve imbalances visually. Iterative simulation then validates the plan by modeling scenarios, allowing adjustments to takt-based sequences before implementation to confirm smooth execution. Takt time, as the foundational rhythm for these techniques, links directly to customer demand without altering the core leveling logic. For example, in a widget factory transitioning from —where all units of one type are made sequentially—to a leveled approach, planners first mapped variability revealing idle time from setup delays. They calculated a based on average demand, set a one-week horizon, and developed an initial sequencing widgets A, B, and C in a repeating pattern (e.g., A-B-C-A-B-C). Load charts were used to monitor and adjust the plan, reducing variability.

Tools and Techniques

Production leveling relies on a variety of visual and manual tools to facilitate smooth sequencing and workload distribution on the shop floor. The Heijunka box, a key visual aid, consists of a grid-based scheduling board divided into rows representing product types and columns denoting fixed time intervals, where cards or signals are placed to dictate the production sequence. This tool enables operators to visualize and follow a predetermined mix of items, reducing batch sizes and minimizing idle time during changeovers. signals, often integrated directly into the Heijunka box, serve as pull mechanisms by triggering production only when downstream demand is indicated, ensuring that leveling aligns with actual consumption rather than forecasts. Among the core techniques, supermarket systems support pull-based leveling by maintaining a controlled buffer at the end of production lines, from which downstream processes withdraw items as needed, thereby stabilizing upstream production rates. This approach prevents while allowing for consistent flow, particularly in multi-product environments. Pitch-based complements this by establishing fixed time intervals—known as the pitch—for completing a standard container or lot size, which synchronizes changeovers and output across the line to match . In modern implementations, digital tools enhance these manual methods through (ERP) and (MRP) software adapted for Heijunka scheduling. For instance, SAP's production smoothing module enables the even distribution of production orders by sequencing repetitive manufacturing runs based on leveled demand profiles. As of the 2020s, (AI) algorithms have emerged for real-time adjustments, using to analyze demand fluctuations and optimize leveling dynamically, thereby improving responsiveness in volatile markets. A practical example of these tools in action is their application in a setting, where a Heijunka box sequences the hourly production of varieties—such as white, whole wheat, and loaves—to match daily patterns, ensuring small batches are baked in rotation and reducing from uneven runs.

Principles of Leveling

leveling serves as a strategy to buffer irregular by employing mechanisms such as promotions, reservations, or backorders, thereby creating a more steady and predictable input for downstream production processes. This approach focuses on external to mitigate fluctuations originating from market variability, distinct from internal production leveling which smooths schedules. Key principles of demand leveling involve aggregating customer orders over a defined planning horizon and leveraging historical data to forecast and flatten peaks and valleys. For instance, organizations analyze past sales patterns to identify seasonal or cyclical irregularities and implement interventions to encourage off-peak purchases, ensuring a consistent flow that aligns with supply capabilities. These principles emphasize proactive influence on customer behavior to achieve a balanced profile, often through cross-functional collaboration between sales, marketing, and teams. Common methods include timing sales promotions to stimulate during low periods, thereby filling valleys in the ; reservation systems, particularly in service-oriented sectors, to allocate capacity and shift orders evenly; and backorders to defer fulfillment of excess , preventing overloads on the . The core calculation for achieving leveled demand typically follows the formula for average demand across periods: Leveled Demand=Total Demand over Planning HorizonNumber of Periods\text{Leveled Demand} = \frac{\text{Total Demand over Planning Horizon}}{\text{Number of Periods}} This baseline is then adjusted for incentive effects, such as promotional uplift, to refine the smoothed profile. A representative example is a retailer offering mid-week discounts on perishable goods to redistribute daily orders more evenly, reducing weekend peaks and providing the supplying manufacturer with steadier production requirements.

Integration with Production Processes

Demand leveling provides a stabilized input to production processes by smoothing signals, which directly informs the calculation of —the rate at which a finished product must be completed to satisfy . By using leveled , manufacturers can establish a consistent , enabling production teams to pace operations evenly and avoid the or underproduction that arises from fluctuating raw figures. Sales forecasts, refined through demand leveling techniques, are synchronized with Heijunka schedules to create balanced production runs that align with anticipated customer needs. This integration ensures that production sequences, such as those managed via a Heijunka box, distribute evenly across shifts or days, incorporating a mix of product types and volumes based on the smoothed forecast to minimize inventory buildup and setup times. However, misalignment between demand leveling and production processes can propagate variability downstream, leading to uneven , increased , and supplier disruptions if production schedules do not reflect the leveled demand accurately. To address this, organizations implement shared key performance indicators (KPIs) between sales and production teams, such as forecast accuracy and on-time delivery rates, fostering alignment and enabling real-time adjustments to prevent variability from cascading through the . A key aspect of this integration is the closed-loop feedback mechanism, where production metrics like actual output rates and levels are fed back to refine demand leveling strategies iteratively. This ongoing adjustment process ensures that demand signals remain responsive to production realities, such as capacity constraints or issues, creating a dynamic system that sustains leveled flow over time. In a context, such as an operation serving demands, the application of demand leveling integrated with Heijunka stabilized production runs by smoothing order variability, resulting in a 20% reduction in lead times while enhancing responsiveness to fluctuating online sales.

Benefits, Challenges, and Case Studies

Advantages and Outcomes

Production leveling, also known as heijunka in the (TPS), significantly reduces inventory costs by smoothing production schedules and minimizing , with reported reductions of up to 50% in unit labor input and levels compared to traditional methods. In Toyota's implementation during the 1970s and 1980s, holding times dropped dramatically from weeks to just hours, enabling just-in-time delivery and freeing up capital previously tied in excess stock. This approach also shortens lead times, for example, lead times reduced from weeks to hours through leveled scheduling and pull systems. Improved quality emerges from consistent pacing, which allows for better defect detection and process stability; TPS adopters achieved defect rates 50% lower than U.S. and European competitors by the late 1980s. Outcomes include enhanced flexibility to respond to demand fluctuations, as leveled production maintains steady output without batch-induced disruptions, and substantial waste reduction by eliminating muda (non-value-adding activities) through the mitigation of mura (unevenness). Modern applications, such as at Rockwell International, have demonstrated 23% increases in output per person and 99% inventory reductions, contributing to overall efficiency gains of 15-30% in labor and resource utilization. A notable case is Toyota's engine production at its Kamigo plant in the 1980s, where heijunka combined with JIT reduced inventory levels by over 90% and improved throughput by balancing mix and volume. Employee benefits from predictable workloads, reducing stress from erratic rushes and , while the avoidance of peak-period surges correlates with lower needs—stabilizing schedules and preventing declines often seen in overtime-heavy operations. These outcomes foster a more engaged and support long-term operational resilience.

Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

One major challenge in applying production leveling, particularly mix-based approaches, is the extended setup time required for frequent changeovers, which can delay the transition to smaller, more varied production runs and undermine schedule adherence. Resistance from organizations accustomed to batch-oriented production cultures further complicates adoption, as workers and managers may view leveled scheduling as inefficient compared to large-lot runs that prioritize short-term throughput. Additionally, disruptions, such as inconsistent supplier deliveries or fluctuating material availability, can destabilize forecasts, making it difficult to maintain consistent production volumes. To mitigate setup time issues, organizations often employ (SMED) techniques, which systematically reduce changeover durations by separating internal and external activities and converting internal ones to external where possible, enabling more frequent mix leveling without excessive downtime. Addressing cultural resistance requires targeted training programs that educate teams on the long-term benefits of leveling, foster buy-in through hands-on workshops, and gradually shift mindsets from batch efficiency to flow-based operations. For variability, temporary buffer stocks serve as safeguards, absorbing short-term fluctuations while leveled schedules are established, though these are minimized over time to align with lean principles. During 1990s Western adoptions of production leveling as part of broader lean transformations, many firms experienced initial dips due to the disruptive nature of frequent changeovers and cultural adjustments, but these were resolved through phased rollouts that started with longer cycles (e.g., weekly) before advancing to daily or one-piece flow. In one illustrative example, an supplier to overcame supplier variability by implementing (VMI) linked to leveled production schedules, allowing the vendor to monitor and replenish components in real-time to support consistent assembly flows.

References

  1. https://www.lean.org/lexicon-terms/heijunka/
  2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3259414/
  3. https://sixsigmadsi.com/what-is-heijunka/
  4. https://www.lean.org/lexicon-terms/takt-time/
  5. https://www.lean.org/explore-lean/a-brief-history-of-lean/
  6. https://www.qad.com/blog/2018/03/taiichi-ohno-toyota-production-system
  7. https://people.brunel.ac.uk/~mastjjb/jeb/or/jit.html
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/toyota-production-system
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3678835/
  10. https://www.kanbanbox.com/heijunka-and-sequencer/
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354267463_Heijunka_40_-_Key_Enabling_Technologies_for_Production_Levelling_in_the_Process_Industry
  12. https://aiiem.org/how-industrial-engineers-use-heijunka-production-leveling/
  13. https://www.isixsigma.com/lean-methodology/heijunka-the-art-of-leveling-production/
  14. https://www.6sigma.us/manufacturing/level-loading/
  15. https://www.lean.org/lexicon-terms/heijunka-box/
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322636591_Runners_Repeaters_Strangers_A_Contingent_Approach_to_Lean_Thinking
  17. http://leanmanufacturingtools.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Runners-Repeaters-and-Strangers.pdf
  18. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/esd-60-lean-six-sigma-processes-summer-2004/f2afc247105b552c727a4214e5101b76_9_3product_level.pdf
  19. https://txm.com/managing-your-factorys-workload-with-level-production/
  20. https://www.6sigma.us/lean-six-sigma-articles/kanban-in-lean-manufacturing/
  21. https://www.dmaic.com/what-is-a-supermarket-concept-in-lean-manufacturing/
  22. https://www.dmaic.com/what-is-pitch-in-lean-manufacturing/
  23. https://help.sap.com/docs/SAP_ERP/59aac49ab624425aa17de39792e0df41/a068b6531de6b64ce10000000a174cb4.html
  24. https://www.augmentir.com/lean-manufacturing/heijunka-lean-manufacturing
  25. https://orbit.dtu.dk/files/151670019/Product_wheels_for_scheduling_in_the_baking_industry_Orbit_.pdf
  26. https://www.cips.org/intelligence-hub/operations-management/demand-management
  27. https://csbapp.uncw.edu/janickit/ops370/modules/Module10.pdf
  28. https://www.relexsolutions.com/resources/demand-shaping/
  29. https://www.lean.org/the-lean-post/articles/the-real-lean-challenge-levelling-production/
  30. https://flevy.com/topic/heijunka/case-heijunka-process-enhancement-electronics-manufacturing
  31. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/713611468741628075/pdf/multi0page.pdf
  32. https://mag.toyota.co.uk/muda-muri-mura-toyota-production-system/
  33. https://www.lean.org/the-lean-post/articles/heijunka-visual-scheduling-to-fit-production-to-demand/
  34. https://lean-manufacturing-junction.com/levelized-production-heijunka/
  35. https://www.advancedtech.com/blog/heijunka-production-leveling/
  36. https://praxie.com/heijunka-implementation-challenges/
  37. https://flevy.com/topic/heijunka/question/integrating-heijunka-challenges-global-supply-chain-management
  38. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-limits-of-lean/
  39. https://www.lma-consultinggroup.com/vmi-case-study-to-drive-win-win-customer-supplier-results/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.