Login
Section Engineering

Lean Six Sigma Reduces Defects and Improves Animal Feed Handling Efficiency

Vol. 11 No. 1 (2026): June :

Yani Nur Rachmawati (1), Enny Aryanny (2)

(1) Industrial Engineering Study Program, National Development University “Veteran” East Java, Indonesia
(2) Industrial Engineering Study Program, National Development University “Veteran” East Java, Indonesia
Fulltext View | Download

Abstract:

General Background: Warehouse material handling is critical for maintaining product quality, distribution continuity, and operational performance in the animal feed industry. Specific Background: PT XYZ experienced defects in animal feed material handling, including torn sacks, loose stitches, and contamination, which reduced process performance and caused operational losses. Knowledge Gap: Previous studies rarely focus on defect reduction in animal feed material handling, especially sack-based packaging, and the integration of Lean Six Sigma with Fuzzy FMEA in this context remains limited. Aims: This study aimed to identify waste levels, analyze defect causes, and propose priority improvements using Lean Six Sigma with the DMAIC approach, Process Cycle Efficiency, Pareto analysis, fishbone diagrams, and Fuzzy FMEA. Results: Defect waste ranked first with a weight of 3.25, followed by transportation, motion, overproduction, inventory, overprocessing, and waiting. The average defect rate was 0.58%, with DPMO of 1,943 and a sigma level of 4.4. Improvements reduced activities from 43 to 36 and lead time from 418 to 314 minutes, while PCE increased from 26.65% to 35.35%, producing a 24.88% efficiency improvement. Novelty: The study integrates waste identification and Fuzzy FMEA-based priority setting in animal feed material handling. Implications: The proposed actions support pallet standardization, stack height adjustment, forklift SOPs, operator training, 5S implementation, FIFO control, and defect reduction.


Highlights:



  • Defect waste ranked first with a 3.25 score.

  • Process steps decreased from 43 to 36.

  • PCE rose from 26.65% to 35.35%.


Keywords: DMAIC, F-FMEA, Lean Six Sigma

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Lean Six Sigma Reduces Defects and Improves Animal Feed Handling Efficiency

Yani N. Rachmawati 1) , Enny Aryanny *,2)

1) Industrial Engineering Study Program, National Development University “Veteran” East Java, Indonesia

2) Industrial Engineering Study Program, National Development University “Veteran” East Java, Indonesia

*Corresponding Author Email: 22032010094@student.upnjatim.ac.id

Abstract : PT XYZ is a company engaged in the animal feed industry that plays a crucial role in maintaining product quality and distribution. However, defects in the material handling process still occur, reducing operational performance and causing losses. Previous studies rarely focus on reducing product defects in animal feed material handling, indicating a research gap. This study aims to identify waste levels and propose improvements using Lean Six Sigma with the DMAIC approach and Fuzzy FMEA to determine risk priorities. Cause analysis used Pareto and fishbone diagrams. The results show an average defect rate of 0.58%, with a DPMO value of 1,943 and a sigma level of 4.4. Process improvements reduced activities from 43 to 36 and time from 418 to 314 minutes, increasing PCE from 26.56% to 35.35% with an efficiency improvement of 24.88%. This study combines Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA to reduce defects and improve efficiency .

Keywords - DMAIC, F-FMEA, Lean Six Sigma

I. Pendahuluan

The feed industry is a strategic sector that plays an important role in supporting the country's economic development, particularly in the livestock sector 1. The availability of high-quality and affordable feed is crucial for the sustainability of livestock businesses, whether small, medium, or large scale 2. In supporting the smooth distribution of these feed products, logistics and storage systems play a crucial role. The warehouse storage process includes various aspects that contribute to the efficiency and safety of the storage process 3. Therefore, companies must maintain products in the warehouse area from receipt, storage, to delivery of goods to customers so that they have guaranteed quality 4. PT XYZ is a leading entity involved in the largest and most integrated agri-food industry in Indonesia. This company is engaged in the production of animal feed (poultry, ruminants, and birds), pet food , and fish feed. One of its products is animal feed with sack packaging. In the animal feed storage area at PT XYZ, waste is still found which impacts the quality and efficiency of the process.

Based on field observations, there are several types of waste in the material handling process, where the dominant waste is defects with a defect rate of 0.58% which includes torn sacks, loose stitches, and contamination. In addition, motion waste was found due to repeated operator and forklift movements and transportation in the form of delays during the picking process . Other waste includes waiting due to the rework process , inventory due to stock buildup, overproduction due to production planning errors, and overprocessing that occurs due to the re-repair of defective products. Disability rate the is in the range of 0.39% to 0.97%. The highest value occurred in February 2026, where increase in production volume followed by an increase amount product defects . This indicates that the handling capacity in the warehouse is not optimal in keeping up with the increasing workload, especially in the material handling process. This condition shows that the increase in production volume has not been balanced by the effectiveness of quality control in the warehouse area. Therefore, continuous improvement is needed to achieve zero defects through the implementation of Lean Six Sigma with a DMAIC to identify waste and reduce the defect 5.

  1. One method widely applied in this effort is Lean Six Sigma , a data-driven management approach focused on reducing waste and process variation using five main stages: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control 6. This method has been proven to increase operational efficiency, reduce defect rates, and improve material handling in the warehouse area 7. Several previous studies have shown the success of Lean Six Sigma in increasing productivity in the production and distribution processes 5. However, its application to material handling activities in the animal feed industry still faces obstacles in material flow patterns and standardization of work procedures. Lean Six Sigma has been proven effective in reducing waste and dead stock in the warehouse through the DMAIC approach 8. However, previous studies generally emphasize production processes or overall warehouse performance, while discussions on defect reduction in material handling activities within the animal feed industry, particularly in sack-based packaging, are still limited. Furthermore, the application of Lean Six Sigma combined with Fuzzy FMEA in this specific context has not been widely explored. This condition highlights a research gap in analyzing and prioritizing defect-related waste in material handling processes. Therefore, this study aims to identify defect-related waste, analyze its root causes using the DMAIC approach, and develop improvement recommendations based on Fuzzy FMEA to enhance operational efficiency and reduce defect rates. This study applies Lean Six Sigma through the DMAIC stages combined with Value Stream Mapping (VSM) to map material flow and identify non-value-added activities in the storage process 6 9. In addition, Process Activity Mapping (PAM) is used to classify value-added and non-value-added activities according to the characteristics of the storage process 10. Risk priority determination is carried out using the Fuzzy FMEA approach as a development of conventional FMEA so that the results of the severity, occurrence, and detection assessments are more objective. This approach is used to ensure that the proposed solution focuses on the main causes of the problem. The integration of Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA is expected to be able to reduce packaging defects and increase the effectiveness of the storage process in the finished goods warehouse of PT XYZ.

II. Methods

The data collection technique to identify waste due to product defects in the material handling process of PT XYZ uses a quantitative approach, the data used consists of primary and secondary data. Primary data collection was carried out through direct observation, interviews, and distribution of Likert scale questionnaires to respondents who understand the process. Secondary data obtained include production data, defect data, types of waste, and material handling process flow. The method used is Lean Six Sigma with the DMAIC approach and Process Cycle Efficiency (PCE) measurement to determine the comparison of value-added and non-value-added activities. In addition, problem cause analysis was carried out using fishbone and supported by Fuzzy FMEA as a basis for preparing improvement proposals. The steps that need to be taken to solve the problems in this study can be seen in the following explanation:

This stage aims to observe and determine the company's condition. This involves creating a production process map that includes an information flow map and a physical flow map using Big Picture Mapping tools , so that Process Cycle Efficiency (PCE) is obtained. This PCE will later become the basis for identifying waste in the process 11.

(1)

Identifying the most dominant types of waste and prioritizing them for improvement. The analysis was conducted by processing observation and questionnaire data, which had been classified into seven types of waste .

Determining the most appropriate analysis tools for identifying critical waste . The analysis is carried out by mapping waste types into the VALSAT matrix, then assigning weights to each tool based on their level of relevance 12. The tool with the highest value is selected as the primary analysis tool.

Waste Weight X Correlation Value (H, L, M) (2)

Information:

Waste weight = Based on the waste weight value in the questionnaire summary calculation

Correlation Value =H: multiplier factor (9)

M: multiplier (3)

L: multiplier factor (1)

In the Define stage , data analysis focuses on identifying initial problems in the form of types of packaging defects that appear during the material handling process 13. Defect data is collected based on a certain period.

  1. Initial Big Picture Mapping Depiction
  2. Determination of Critical Waste
  3. VALSAT Analysis
  4. Define
  5. Measure

This stage measures and processes the data that has been obtained, focusing on calculating defects per million opportunities (DPMO), sigma values 14.

( 3)

( 4)

  1. Calculate the proportion of damage using the formula:
  2. DPMO
  3. Sigma Level

This calculation converts the sigma value from defects per million (DPMO) to a sigma value using Microsoft Excel with the formula:

( 5)

This stage involves analyzing and identifying waste and determining the potential causes of the problem using Pareto diagrams and cause and effect diagrams ( fishbone ) to design improvement solutions 15 16.

  1. Analyze
  2. Improve

The improvement method used is Fuzzy FMEA. The creation of Value Stream Mapping (VSM) for future conditions ( future state ) will be carried out at this stage as a follow-up to the results of the improvement proposals that have been implemented. The Fuzzy RPN calculation method is as follows 17:

( 6)

III. Results and Discussion

  1. Data collection
  • The types and number of defects that occurred during the material handling process of animal feed products at PT XYZ can be seen in Table 1.:
  • Table 1. Types and Number of Defects in Animal Feed Products
Month Production Quantity(Unit) Torn Sack (Unit) Loose Stitches (Unit) Contaminated(Unit) Number of Defects (Units)
Mar 2025 1,074,834 3,802 2,409 448 6,659
Apr 2025 875,793 2,352 1,557 264 4.173
Mei 2025 915.808 2.171 1.405 509 4.085
Jun 2025 971.342 2.099 1.333 385 3.817
Jul 2025 964.186 2.621 1.657 505 4.783
Agt 2025 913.713 2.708 1.799 547 5.054
Sep 2025 1.012.025 2.930 1.790 506 5.226
Oct 2025 1,086,359 3.147 2,035 800 5,982
Nov 2025 930,625 2,911 1,842 821 5,574
Dec 2025 1,007,392 3,700 2.106 912 6,718
Jan 2026 1,106,491 4,447 2,365 1,002 7,814
Feb 2026 1,030,387 5,610 2,950 1,435 9,995
Total 11,888,955 38,498 23,248 8,134 69,880

Big Picture Mapping is a tool used to visualize an entire system and its value streams within a company 18. The value stream mapping of the material handling process at its initial state can be seen in Figure 2.

Based on big picture mapping, the total lead time is obtained. The total lead time for animal feed material handling was 418 minutes with a total value-added time of 111 minutes, a total non-value-added time of 104 minutes, and a total necessary non-value-added time of 203 minutes. Therefore, the problem that occurred in the animal feed material handling process can be determined, namely the total lead time is too long at 418 minutes, equivalent to 6.96 hours or 6 hours 58 minutes, so the Process Cycle Efficiency (PCE) value is calculated as follows:

  1. Data processing
    • Initial Big Picture Mapping Depiction
    • Determination of Critical Waste

Critical waste was determined based on the results of a distributed questionnaire to determine which waste occurs frequently and which are the main priorities for improvement, as shown in Table 2.

  • Table 2. Summary of Waste Questionnaire Results According to Ranking
No Waste Respondents Weight Ranking
1 2 3 4
1 Transportation 2 2 4 4 3 2
2 Inventory 3 3 2 1 2.25 5
3 Motion 2 3 4 2 2,75 3
4 Waiting 2 2 2 1 1,75 7
5 Overproduction 3 3 3 1 2,5 4
6 Overprocessing 3 2 1 2 2 6
7 Defect 2 2 4 5 3,25 1
Figure 2. Big Picture Mapping of the Initial Material Handling Process for Animal Feed Products

Based on the table, the weighting results are obtained with the order of Ranking 1 to 7. Waste with Ranking 1 is defect with a weight of 3.25; Ranking 2 is transportation with a weight of 3; Ranking 3 is motion with a weight of 2.75; Ranking 4 is overproduction with a weight of 2.5; Ranking 5 is inventory with a weight of 2.25; Ranking 6 is overprocessing with a weight of 2; and Ranking 7 is waiting with a weight of 1.75.

  1. VALSAT Analysis

The VALSAT analysis was carried out based on the results of the weight calculations obtained from interviews in determining critical waste in Table 2. The results of the Value Stream Analysis Tools (VALSAT) analysis can be seen in Table 3.

  • Table 3. Calculation of VALSAT Score
Waste/ Structure Weight VALSAT
PAM SCRM PVF QFM DAM DPA PS
Transportation 3 27 - - - - - 3
Inventory 2.25 6.75 6.75 6.75 - 6.75 6.75 2.25
Motion 2,75 24,75 2,75 - - - - -
Waiting 1,75 15,75 5,25 1,75 - 5,25 5,25 -
Overproduction 2,5 2,5 7,5 - 2,5 7,5 7,5 -
Overprocessing 2 18 - 6 2 - 2 -
Defect 3.25 3.25 - - 29.25 - - -

Based on the data in Table 3, the tool with the highest ranking is Process Activity Mapping (PAM), so PAM was chosen as the tool to be used in the calculation process. Process Activity Mapping is used to identify activities that do not provide added value in the material handling process, as can be seen in Table 4.

Table4 .Initial Process Activity Mapping

No Process Description Activity Type Processing Time (Minutes) Activity Type
O T I S D
Product Acceptance
1 Product retrieval from the production packing area P 5 NNVA
2 Checking the condition of the sack before moving it P 5 VA
3 forklift operator records the bagging results report for entry into the warehouse to be submitted to the warehouse. P 10 NNVA
Total Time 20
Product Placement
4 Placement of animal feed products based on empty plots P 4 NNVA
5 Arrange the position of the sacks according to the capacity of the plot P 6 NNVA
6 The report on the results of bagging into the warehouse is given to the warehouse officer. P 2 NNVA
7 Checking the conformity of the physical stock of animal feed products received from production P 10 NNVA
8 Recording of plot data and number of feed products in the production report book P 50 NNVA
9 Warehouse officer submits production report book to WMS admin P 2 NVA
10 Input physical stock from production report book to WMS system P 30 VA
Total Time 104
Product Storage
11 Warehouse officers check the physical stock of animal feed P 40 NNVA
12 Manual recording of stock information P 40 NVA
13 Stack stability check P 25 NVA
14 Marking of defective sacks and repacking of animal feed products P 20 NNVA
15 Minor rearrangements if needed P 10 NVA
16 Cleaning the storage area from dust and leftover feed P 12 VA
17 Temperature & humidity monitoring P 5 VA
18 Warehouse fumigation to prevent pest attacks P 15 VA
Total Time 167
Quality Inspection
19 QC determines batch status via WMS P 5 VA
20 Warehouse operator checks batch status (UU) via WMS as a requirement before Prep DO P 3 NNVA
21 QC performs MBE ( Material Body Examination ) to check physical stock P 30 VA
Total Time 38
Truck Arrival
22 The truck enters post 6 and the post officer verifies the identity of the driver and vehicle. P 3 NNVA
23 The officer handed over the KIM (Entry Permit Card) to the truck driver . P 1 NNVA
24 The driver takes the Delivery Order (DO) at the Sales department. P 3 NNVA
25 Sales provide RFID tap cards to drivers for scale/ loading access P 1 VA
26 The driver is directed to the weighing area by the officer. P 5 NVA
27 Trucks queue to go to Weighing Room 1 (empty weighing) P 2 NNVA
28 Empty weighing process (Weigh 1) using RFID card P 2 VA
Total Time 17
Picking Process
29 Receive Delivery Order (DO) from sales P 1 NNVA
30 Batch verification according to DO in WMS system P 2 NNVA
31 Operator searches for batch location according to plot in WMS P 3 NNVA
32 Waiting for the forklift to be used for other activities P 10 NVA
33 Repeated transfer of sacks due to DO batches not being in easily accessible positions P 12 NVA
34 Pick up of goods according to DO P 3 NNVA
35 Placement of goods in loading dock before the loading process onto the truck. P 1 NNVA
Total Time 32
Load Product
36 Truck heading to loading animal feed warehouse dock P 2 NNVA
37 Queue loading dock for feed loading process P 10 NNVA
38 The process of loading sacks onto a truck P 15 NNVA
39 Truck heading to Weigh 2 (weigh contents) P 3 NNVA
40 Weighing process (using RFID card) P 2 VA
41 Admin creates travel documents based on weighing results P 4 VA
42 Driver takes validated waybill & DO P 2 NNVA
43 Trucks do Gate Out leaving the company area P 2 NNVA
Total Time 40
Total 13 10 14 3 3 418
  1. Define
No Types of Disabilities Number of Defects (Units) Production Quantity (Units) Product Defect Percentage (%)
1 Torn Sack 38,498 11,888,955 0.3238%
2 Loose Stitches 23,248 11,888,955 0.1955%
3 Contaminated 8,134 11,888,955 0.0684%
Table 5. Percentage of Defects in Animal Feed Products

Based on Figure 3. the histogram above, it can be seen that the highest number of defects is torn sacks amounting to 38,498 units with a percentage of 0.3238%, then followed by loose stitching defects amounting to 23,248 units with a percentage of 0.1955%, and contaminated amounting to 8,134 units with a percentage of 0.0684%. Therefore, reducing the percentage of defects to approach zero defects for animal feed products must be done and suggestions for improvement will be given.

  • Based on the control of animal feed products obtained from Table 1. The percentage of results for each product defect can be seen in the Table 5. and the Pareto diagram can be seen in Figure 3:
  1. Measure
Month Production Quantity Defect CTQ DPO DPMO Sigma Level
March 2025 1,074,834 6,659 3 0.002065 2,065 4.37
April 2025 875,793 4.173 3 0.001588 1.588 4.45
May 2025 915,808 4.085 3 0.001487 1.487 4.47
June 2025 971,342 3.817 3 0.001310 1.310 4.51
July 2025 964,186 4.783 3 0.001654 1.654 4.44
August 2025 913,713 5.054 3 0,001844 1.844 4,40
September 2025 1.012.025 5.226 3 0,001721 1.721 4,43
Oktober 2025 1.086.359 5.982 3 0,001835 1.835 4,41
November 2025 930.625 5.574 3 0,001997 1.997 4,38
Desember 2025 1.007.392 6.718 3 0,002223 2.223 4.34
January 2026 1.106.491 7.814 3 0.002354 2.354 4.33
February 2026 1.030.387 9.995 3 0.003233 3.233 4.22
Total 11,888,955 69.880 36 0.023311 23.311 52.74
Rata-Rata 990.746 5.823 3 0.001943 1.943 4.4
Figure 3. Histogram of Defect Types March 2025 - February 2026

The results above indicate that PT XYZ is at a sigma level of 4.4, or 4 sigma, with an average DPMO of 1,943 per 1,000,000 units. While this score is quite good compared to the Indonesian industry average, it still falls short of the US industry average. In this context, further evaluation is needed to understand the differences and potential improvements to achieve higher standards.

  • In the measurement stage, the sigma value of animal feed product quality at PT XYZ is calculated to identify the defect level, while the calculation of DPO, DPMO, and sigma level in each period is carried out to analyze the probability of defects occurring in one million opportunities 14, which can be seen in Table 6 and refers to formulas (3), (4), and (5), as well as to evaluate process capability in accordance with Lean Six Sigma principles and identify opportunities for improvement.
  • Table 6. DPO, DPMO, and Sigma Level Values of Animal Feed Products March 2025 - February 2026

The CTQ that has been determined in the data in Table 1., then a defect analysis is carried out to determine the cause of the highest defects which can be seen in Table 7.

No Types of Disabilities Number of Defects (Units) Cumulative Total Percentage Cumulative Percentage
1 Torn Sack (Unit) 38,498 38,498 55.09% 55.09%
2 Loose Stitches (Unit) 23,248 61,746 33.27% 88.36%
3 Contaminated (Unit) 8,134 69,880 11.64% 100.00%
Total 69,880 100.00%
Table 7. Defect Analysis Results

Based on the calculation results in Table 7 that have been carried out, a Pareto diagram of livestock feed product defects is depicted in Figure 4.

From the Pareto diagram, it can be seen that the highest order of defect types is torn sacks at 55.09%, loose stitching at 33.27%, and contamination at 11.64%.

An analysis was carried out using a fishbone diagram to analyze the cause and effect of the type of torn sack defect which can be seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5. FishboneTorn Sack

The causes of torn sacks in animal feed products are influenced by several factors, namely human, material, and method. From the human aspect, operators are less careful when operating forklifts due to rushing and improper fork height adjustment. From the material aspect, substandard sack quality makes the packaging more susceptible to tearing when subjected to friction or impact. Meanwhile, from the method aspect, the transfer process does not comply with standard operating procedures (SOPs) and improper product arrangement, such as contact with damaged pallets or those with sharp edges, also increase the risk of packaging damage.

This study used Fuzzy Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (F-FMEA) with the aid of Pareto diagrams and cause-and-effect diagrams to identify problem priorities. The analysis using the Lean Six Sigma approach showed that defects were the most dominant source of waste 17.

The first stage is to identify severity, occurrence, and detection in the material handling process, which can be seen in Table 8.

No Modes of Failure Effect of Failure Cause of Failure Detection Method
1 Torn Sack Product spills occur which cause the product weight to decrease and disrupt the cleanliness of the warehouse area. Forklift was not adjusted correctly by the operator ( fork height , mast tilt ). Direct supervision during the handling process, checklist for checking forklift settings beforeoperational and operator performance evaluation.
The strength of the sack material is not up to standard. Quality checks are carried out according to standards, as well as visual inspections of the physical condition of the sacks before use.
Handling during the transfer of goods does not comply with Standard Operating Procedures. Conduct monitoring during the process of transferring animal feed products.
Product layout is not correct. Conduct monitoring and evaluation of product arrangement with storage standards (SOP) in the warehouse area.
Table 9. Expert Importance Weight
Respondent Code Information Importance Weight(%)
R1 Load Coordinator 35%
R2 Field coordinator 30%
R3 WMS Admin 20%
R4 Repacking Staff 15%
Total 100%
Table 10. Aggregation of. Fuzzy Rating Assessment Against Severity Factor
Type of Defect Reason R S WX FN Total
Rate Fuzzy Number
Torn Sack Forklift is not adjusted properly ( fork height , mast tilt ) R1 VL 3 4 5 1.05 1.4 1.75 4.2 11.55 2.89
R2 MR 2 3 4 0.6 0.9 1.2 2.7
R3 VL 3 4 5 0.6 0.8 1 2.4
R4 L 4 5 6 0.6 0.75 0.9 2.25
The strength of the sack material is not up to standard. R1 VL 3 4 5 1.05 1.4 1.75 4.2 11.55 2.89
R2 MR 2 3 4 0.6 0.9 1.2 2.7
R3 VL 3 4 5 0.6 0.8 1 2.4
R4 L 4 5 6 0.6 0.75 0.9 2.25
Handling during the transfer of goods does not comply with Standard Operating Procedures. R1 VL 3 4 5 1.05 1.4 1.75 4.2 11.55 2.89
R2 MR 2 3 4 0.6 0.9 1,2 2.7
R3 VL 3 4 5 0.6 0.8 1 2.4
R4 L 4 5 6 0.6 0.75 0.9 2.25
Product placement is incorrect. R1 VL 3 4 5 1.05 1.4 1.75 4.2 11.5 2.89
R2 MR 2 3 4 0.6 0.9 1,2 2.7
R3 VL 3 4 5 0.6 0.8 1 2.4
R4 L 4 5 6 0.6 0.75 0.9 2.25
Table 11. Aggregation of. Fuzzy Ranking Assessment Against Occurrence Factors
Type of Defect Reason R S WX FN Total
Rate Fuzzy Number
Torn Sack Forklift is not adjusted properly ( fork height , mast tilt ) R1 M 4 5 6 1.4 1.75 2.1 5.25 12.6 3.15
R2 L 2 3 4 0.6 0.9 1.2 2.7
R3 M 3 4 5 0.6 0.8 1 2.4
R4 M 4 5 6 0.6 0.75 0.9 2.25
The strength of the sack material is not up to standard. R1 M 3 4 5 1.05 1.4 1.75 4.2 12.15 3.04
R2 M 3 4 5 0.9 1.2 1.5 3.6
R3 M 4 5 6 0.8 1 1.2 3
R4 L 2 3 4 0.3 0.45 0.6 1.35
Handling during the transfer of goods does not comply with Standard Operating Procedures. R1 M 5 6 7 1.75 2.1 2.45 6.3 12.6 3.15
R2 M 3 4 5 0.9 1,2 1.5 3.6
R3 M 2 3 4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.8
R4 L 1 2 3 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.9
Product layout is not correct. R1 M 4 5 6 1.4 1.75 2.1 5.25 15.3 3.83
R2 M 5 6 7 1.5 1.8 2.1 5.4
R3 M 3 4 5 0.6 0.8 1 2.4
R4 M 4 5 6 0.6 0.75 0.9 2.25
Table 12. Aggregation of. Fuzzy Ranking Assessment Against Detection Factors
Type of Defect Reason R S WX FN Total
Rate Fuzzy Number
Torn Sack Forklift is not adjusted properly ( fork height , mast tilt ) R1 M 4 5 6 1.4 1.75 2.1 5.25 13.2 3.3
R2 H 2 3 4 0.6 0.9 1,2 2.7
R3 M 4 5 6 0.8 1 1,2 3
R4 M 4 5 6 0.6 0.75 0.9 2.25
The strength of the sack material is not up to standard. R1 VH 1 2 3 0.35 0.7 1.05 2.1 11.4 2.85
R2 M 4 5 6 1.2 1.5 1.8 4.5
R3 M 4 5 6 0.8 1 1.2 3
R4 MH 3 4 5 0.45 0.6 0.75 1.8
Handling during the transfer of goods does not comply with Standard Operating Procedures. R1 MH 3 4 5 1.05 1.4 1.75 4.2 12.45 3.11
R2 M 4 5 6 1.2 1.5 1.8 4.5
R3 MH 3 4 5 0.6 0.8 1 2.4
R4 H 2 3 4 0.3 0.45 0.6 1.35
Product layout is not correct. R1 M 4 5 6 1.4 1.75 2.1 5.25 11.1 2.78
R2 H 2 3 4 0.6 0.9 1.2 2.7
R3 H 2 3 4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.8
R4 H 2 3 4 0.3 0.45 0.6 1.35
Table 13. Importance Weight of Factors S, O, D
R Factor
S O D
R1 H M H
R2 M M M
R3 M M L
R4 L L L
Table 14. Calculation of Aggregation of Importance Weights for Factors S, O, D
Severity (S)
R Rating Fuzzy Weight WX FW Total
R1 H 0.5 0.75 1 0.18 0.26 0.35 0.79 1.65 0.41
R2 M 0,25 0,5 0,75 0,08 0,15 0,23 0,45
R3 M 0,25 0,5 0,75 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,30
R4 L 0 0,25 0,5 0,00 0,04 0,08 0,11
Occurance (O)
R Rating Fuzzy Weight W X FW Total
R1 M 0,25 0,5 0,75 0,09 0,175 0,26 0,525 1,39 0,35
R2 M 0,25 0,5 0,75 0,08 0,15 0,23 0,45
R3 M 0,25 0,5 0,75 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,3
R4 L 0 0,25 0,5 0 0,04 0,08 0,11
Detection (D)
R Rating Fuzzy Weight W X FW Total
R1 H 0,5 0,7 1 0,18 0,26 0,35 0,79 1,5 0,38
R2 M 0,25 0,5 0,75 0,08 0,15 0,23 0,45
R3 L 0 0.25 0.5 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
R4 L 0 0.25 0.5 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.11
  1. Analyze
    • Pareto diagram
    • Fishbone
    • Improve
      • Determining the Fuzzy Risk Priority Number Value
    • Fuzzy Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (F-FMEA)
    • Severity, Occurrence, and Detection Identification

The final stage of Fuzzy FMEA is determining the Fuzzy Risk Priority Number (FRPN) value which can be seen in Table 15.

Table 15. Determination of Fuzzy Risk Priority Number Value

Modes of Failure Cause of Failure FRPN Rank
Torn Sack Forklift was not adjusted correctly by the operator ( fork height , mast tilt ). 2.89 3.15 3.30 0.41 0.35 0.38 5.44 2
The strength of the sack material is not up to standard. 3.04 2.85 4.53 4
Handling during the transfer of goods does not comply with Standard Operating Procedures. 3.15 3.11 5.13 3
Product layout is not correct. 3.83 2.78 5.56 1

After calculating the FRPN in Table 15, to determine repair priorities, repair recommendations are obtained for each damage, as shown in Table 16.

Table 16. Repair Recommendations Based on FRPN Sequence

Rank Modes of Failure Cause of Failure FRPN Recommendation
1 Torn Sack Product layout is not correct. 5.56 Standardize product arrangement and pallet use by adding pallets made of good quality iron to minimize the risk of damage to sacks due to rough surfaces, and also carry out regular inspections of pallet conditions.
2 Torn Sack Forklift not adjusted properly (fork height, mast tilt) 5.44 Perform forklift checks and settings before operation, as well as daily checklists for operators.
3 Torn Sack Handling during the transfer of goods does not comply with Standard Operating Procedures. 5.13 Optimizing handling procedures by prohibiting the dragging of sacks, using appropriate tools, and monitoring activities based on operational checklists.
4 Torn Sack The strength of the sack material is not up to standard. 4.53 Conducting regular inspections of incoming materials, as well as evaluating sack suppliers who are able to meet the established quality standards.
Table 17. Improvements to Causes of Waste
Rank Priority Types of Waste Recommendation
1 Defect Improvements focused on preventing packaging damage, standardizing pallet use, and limiting the height of sack stacks to avoid friction. Inspections and environmental controls were also implemented to minimize contamination.
2 Transportation Control of moving activities is required by setting SOPs for forklift speed limits , as well as providing operator training so that the risk of collisions and falling products can be minimized.
3 Motion Implementing 5S to create a neater and more organized work area and using tools to reduce excess manual activity and increase movement efficiency.
4 Overproduction Production control is carried out by adjusting production quantities based on demand and monitoring stock to prevent stockpiling.
5 Inventory Inventory management is carried out by consistently applying FIFO, labeling each product, and setting stock limits to prevent stockpiling of goods.
6 Overprocessing Minimize additional processing due to damage through increased control over product handling and storage.
7 Waiting Reducing waiting times is done through workforce optimization, creating forklift usage schedules and improving coordination between processes to ensure smoother workflow.
    1. Future Big Picture Mapping
    • The future big picture mapping is developed in line with Lean principles that emphasize the elimination of non-value added (NVA) activities 19, by simplifying process activity mapping in the material handling process, as shown in Table 18.

    Table 18. Future Process Activity Mapping

    No Process Description Activity Type Processing Time (Minutes) Activity Type
    O T I S D
    Product Acceptance
    1 Product retrieval from the production packing area P 5 NNVA
    2 Checking the condition of the sack before moving it P 5 VA
    3 forklift operator records the bagging results report for entry into the warehouse to be submitted to the warehouse. P 10 NNVA
    Total Time 20
    Product Placement
    4 Placement of animal feed products based on empty plots P 4 NNVA
    5 Arrange the position of the sacks according to the capacity of the plot P 6 NNVA
    6 The report on the results of bagging into the warehouse is given to the warehouse officer. P 2 NNVA
    7 Checking the conformity of the physical stock of animal feed products received from production P 10 NNVA
    8 Recording of plot data and number of feed products in the production report book P 50 NNVA
    9 Input physical stock from production report book to WMS system P 30 VA
    Total Time 102
    Product Storage
    10 Warehouse officers check the physical stock of animal feed P 40 NNVA
    11 Marking of defective sacks and repacking of animal feed products P 20 NNVA
    12 Cleaning the storage area from dust and leftover feed P 12 VA
    13 Temperature & humidity monitoring P 5 VA
    14 Warehouse fumigation to prevent pest attacks P 15 VA
    Total Time 92
    Quality Inspection
    15 QC determines batch status via WMS P 5 VA
    16 Warehouse operator checks batch status (UU) via WMS as a requirement before Prep DO P 3 NNVA
    17 QC performs MBE ( Material Body Examination ) to check physical stock P 30 VA
    Total Time 38
    Truck Arrival
    18 The truck enters post 6 and the post officer verifies the identity of the driver and vehicle. P 3 NNVA
    19 The officer handed over the KIM (Entry Permit Card) to the truck driver . P 1 NNVA
    20 The driver takes the Delivery Order (DO) at the Sales department. P 3 NNVA
    21 Sales provide RFID tap cards to drivers for scale/ loading access P 1 VA
    22 Trucks queue to go to Weighing Room 1 (empty weighing) P 2 NNVA
    23 Empty weighing process (Weigh 1) using RFID card P 2 VA
    Total Time 12
    Picking Process
    24 Receive Delivery Order (DO) from sales P 1 NNVA
    25 Batch verification according to DO in WMS system P 2 NNVA
    26 Operator searches for batch location according to plot in WMS P 3 NNVA
    27 Pick up of goods according to DO P 3 NNVA
    28 Placement of goods in loading dock before the loading process onto the truck. P 1 NNVA
    Total Time 8
    Load Product
    29 Truck heading to loading animal feed warehouse dock P 2 NNVA
    30 Queue loading dock for feed loading process P 10 NNVA
    31 The process of loading sacks onto a truck P 15 NNVA
    32 Truck heading to Weigh 2 (weigh contents) P 3 NNVA
    33 Weighing process (using RFID card) P 2 VA
    34 Admin creates travel documents based on weighing results P 4 VA
    35 Driver takes validated waybill & DO P 2 NNVA
    36 Trucks do Gate Out leaving the company area P 2 NNVA
    Total Time 40
    Total 11 7 13 3 2 314

    Based on the future process activity mapping shown in Table 17, the material handling process can then be described with the future big picture mapping in Figure 8, where this improvement is aligned with the concept of Process Cycle Efficiency (PCE) in Lean, which emphasizes increasing the proportion of value-added activities in a process 11.

    Figure 8. Big Picture Mapping ProposalAnimal Feed Product Material Handling Process

    Based on the time calculation after the improvement, namely by eliminating NVA from the material handling process of animal feed products, the lead time obtained was 314 minutes or equivalent to 5 hours 14 minutes with a total value-added time of 111 minutes, the necessary non-value-added time of 203 minutes. This indicates that there is a reduction in lead time so that the material handling process of animal feed can be more efficient. Therefore, the value for the percentage increase in efficiency in the material handling process of animal feed can be described as follows:

    Process Cycle Efficiency (PCE) value can be determined using the following formula:

    From the calculation results of the proposed Process Cycle Efficiency (PCE) value, the result obtained was 35.35%, which means that the animal feed material handling process has improved.

    1. Control

    control phase aims to monitor the sustainability of improvements to waste occurring in the material handling process , so that the proposed improvements can be implemented consistently over a longer period of time. However, in this study, the control phase could not be implemented directly because the decision regarding the implementation of the proposed improvements rests entirely with PT XYZ. Therefore, the process of controlling the results of the improvements could not be carried out in this study.

    VII. Conclusion

    1. Based on the research objectives, this study successfully identified the dominant type of waste in the material handling process, namely defects with a weight of 3.25, followed by transportation, motion, overproduction, inventory, overprocessing, and waiting. The results show that the initial lead time of 418 minutes with a Process Cycle Efficiency (PCE) of 26.65% can be reduced to 314 minutes with a PCE of 35.35% through the elimination of non-value added (NVA) activities, resulting in an efficiency improvement of 24.88%. The proposed improvements include pallet standardization, stack height adjustment, environmental inspection, implementation of forklift speed SOPs, operator training, 5S implementation, production adjustment based on demand, FIFO application, and workforce optimization. This study contributes to the application of Lean Six Sigma in material handling processes by integrating waste identification with Fuzzy FMEA-based improvement prioritization, as well as providing practical implications for improving warehouse efficiency and reducing defect rates. Furthermore, future research is recommended to evaluate the implementation of the proposed improvements and their impact on efficiency, productivity, and waste reduction, while companies should focus on minimizing time-related waste and defect rates to achieve zero defects and increase the sigma level towards 6.

    Reference

    [2]A. H. H. Slamet, B. H. Purnomo, D. W. Soedibyo, A. Asmunir, and R. Ningtias, “Analisis Pemilihan Pakan Ternak Unggas di PT XYZ Kabupaten Banyuwangi Menggunakan Metode Bayes,” J. Agroteknologi Merdeka Pasuruan, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 1, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.51213/jamp.v7i1.80.

    [3]M. Bahaul and N. Haryuni, “Feed Storage Management at PT Gombekk Boer Indonesia,” Bestindo Anim. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 70–76, 2024, [Online]. Available: https://bestindolestari.id/index.php/bas/article/view/15

    [4]D. M. Rahmawati and D. A. Anggraini, “Analisis Pengendalian Kualitas Produk Pada Gudang PT . DSV Solutions Indonesia ( Semarang Site ) Menggunakan Metode FMEA,” Surya Tek., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 153–160, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.37859/jst.v12i1.8791.

    [5]R. Kusumawardani and A. Widyatmoko, “Enhancing Pharma Manufacturing Efficiency : Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA for Waste Reduction,” Spektrum Ind., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 179–192, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.12928/si.v22i2.199.

    [6]N. Muvida, E. Yunitasari, and Kusmendar, “Pengendalian Kualitas Produk Menggunakan Lean Six Sigma dan Fuzzy FMEA Dalam Upaya Menekan Kecacatan Produk,” J. Engine Energi, Manufaktur, dan Mater., vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 86–95, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.30588/jeemm.v7i2.1617.

    [7]A. F. Amelia and M. T. Safirin, “Penerapan Lean Six Sigma untuk Meningkatkan Efisiensi Proses Inbound dan Outbound di Gudang PT XYZ,” J. Serambi Eng., vol. X, no. 1, 2025, [Online]. Available: https://jse.serambimekkah.id/index.php/jse/article/view/673

    [8]A. Putri and D. Isfianadewi, “Lean Six Sigma to Reduce Dead Stock at PT Globalindo Intimates,” J. Indones. Sos. Teknol., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1806–1813, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.59141/jist.v5i4.1031.

    [9]M. Rosyidah and R. Ismariani, Lean Manufacturing: Langkah Pengurangan Pemborosan dalam Produksi. Deepublish Publisher, 2022.

    [10]M. Ilham, Nofirza, M. Umam, M. Yola, and Anwardi, “EVALUASI AKTIVITAS NON VALUE ADDED DENGAN MENGGUNAKAN METODE VALUE STREAM MAPPING DAN PROCESS ACTIVITY MAPPING,” J. HEURISTC, vol. 21, pp. 1–12, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.30996/heuristic.v21i1.10043.

    [11]A. N. Rasyid, I. A. Hendaryanto, W. Setiawan, and A. Winarno, “Analisis Re-layout Line Machining Oil Separator dengan Metode Value Stream Mapping dalam Meningkatkan Efisiensi Produktivitas di PT. Astra Otoparts Divisi Nusametal,” J. Engine Energi, Manufaktur, dan Mater., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 96–105, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.30588/jeemm.v8i2.1848.

    [12]Marsella, W. Kosasih, and L. Salomon, “ANALISIS PEMBOROSAN PRODUKSI KAIN PANEL MELALUI PENDEKATAN LEAN SUPPLY CHAIN,” pp. 106–117, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.24912/jmti.v4i2.34956.

    [13]S. F. Utami, M. Almatsir, I. Mashabai, and N. Hudaningsih, “Analisis Kualitas Kopi Arabika di Matano Coffee Menggunakan Metode Six Sigma DMAIC,” vol. 4, no. November, pp. 212–226, 2023, doi: https://doi.org/10.37373/jenius.v4i2.570.

    [14]A. Juwito and A. Z. Al-Faritsyi, “Analisis Pengendalian Kualitas untuk Mengurangi Cacat Produk dengan Metode Six Sigma di UMKM Makmur Santosa,” J. Cakrawala Ilm., vol. 1, no. 12, pp. 3295–3315, 2022, [Online]. Available: http://bajangjournal.com/index.php/JCI

    [15]R. I. Liperda, N. R. Fatahayu, E. V. Khairunnisa, M. A. Logika, M. Hibatullah, and R. Fridayanti, “Simulasi Sistem Penggunaan Ruangan di Gedung Griya Legita Universitas Pertamina,” JISI J. Integr. Sist. Ind., vol. 8, no. 2, p. 65, 2021, doi: https://doi.org/10.24853/jisi.8.2.65-75.

    [16]Nurlaela, Implementasi Value Stream Mapping pada Perumahan Sederhana di Indonesia. Deepublish Publisher, 2023.

    [17]A. B. Rizkyllah and E. Aryanny, “Product Defect Level Analysis Bone Plate with The Six Sigma Method and Fuzzy Failure Mode and Effect Analysis ( F-FMEA ) : Analisis Tingkat Kecacatan Produk Bone Plate dengan Metode Six Sigma dan Fuzzy Failure Mode and Effect Analysis ( F-FMEA ),” vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.21070/ijins.v26i4.1477.

    [18]M. Y. Muchsinin and W. Sulistiyowati, “Quality Control Analysis to Reduce Product Defects with the Lean Six Sigma Method and Fault Tree Analysis,” vol. 3, 2022, doi: https://doi.org/10.21070/pels.v3i0.1323.

    [19]M. Fathan Fadilah and R. Wibero, “Rancangan Lean Manufacturing untuk Mengurangi Pemborosan Pada Proses Pembuatan Sepatu dengan Pendekatan Metode Value Stream Mapping (Vsm) dan Root Cause Analysis (Rca) di Home Industry Sepatu,” J. Greenation Ilmu Tek., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 16–25, 2025, doi: 10.38035/jgit.v2i1.230.

References

I. Purnama et al., “Study Literatur Manajemnent Penyimpanan Bahan Pakan Jagung, Dedak dan Tepung Ikan untuk Ternak Unggas,” Jurnal Peternakan Borneo, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 35–42, 2024, doi: 10.34128/jpb.v3i2.33.

A. H. H. Slamet, B. H. Purnomo, D. W. Soedibyo, A. Asmunir, and R. Ningtias, “Analisis Pemilihan Pakan Ternak Unggas di PT XYZ Kabupaten Banyuwangi Menggunakan Metode Bayes,” Jurnal Agroteknologi Merdeka Pasuruan, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 1, 2023, doi: 10.51213/jamp.v7i1.80.

M. Bahaul and N. Haryuni, “Feed Storage Management at PT Gombekk Boer Indonesia,” Bestindo Animal Science, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 70–76, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://bestindolestari.id/index.php/bas/article/view/15

D. M. Rahmawati and D. A. Anggraini, “Analisis Pengendalian Kualitas Produk Pada Gudang PT. DSV Solutions Indonesia (Semarang Site) Menggunakan Metode FMEA,” Surya Teknika, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 153–160, 2025, doi: 10.37859/jst.v12i1.8791.

R. Kusumawardani and A. Widyatmoko, “Enhancing Pharma Manufacturing Efficiency: Integrating Lean Six Sigma and Fuzzy FMEA for Waste Reduction,” Spektrum Industri, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 179–192, 2024, doi: 10.12928/si.v22i2.199.

N. Muvida, E. Yunitasari, and Kusmendar, “Pengendalian Kualitas Produk Menggunakan Lean Six Sigma dan Fuzzy FMEA Dalam Upaya Menekan Kecacatan Produk,” Jurnal Engine Energi, Manufaktur, dan Material, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 86–95, 2023, doi: 10.30588/jeemm.v7i2.1617.

A. F. Amelia and M. T. Safirin, “Penerapan Lean Six Sigma untuk Meningkatkan Efisiensi Proses Inbound dan Outbound di Gudang PT XYZ,” Jurnal Serambi Engineering, vol. X, no. 1, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://jse.serambimekkah.id/index.php/jse/article/view/673

A. Putri and D. Isfianadewi, “Lean Six Sigma to Reduce Dead Stock at PT Globalindo Intimates,” Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1806–1813, 2024, doi: 10.59141/jist.v5i4.1031.

M. Rosyidah and R. Ismariani, Lean Manufacturing: Langkah Pengurangan Pemborosan dalam Produksi. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Deepublish Publisher, 2022.

M. Ilham, Nofirza, M. Umam, M. Yola, and Anwardi, “Evaluasi Aktivitas Non Value Added dengan Menggunakan Metode Value Stream Mapping dan Process Activity Mapping,” Jurnal Heuristic, vol. 21, pp. 1–12, 2024, doi: 10.30996/heuristic.v21i1.10043.

A. N. Rasyid, I. A. Hendaryanto, W. Setiawan, and A. Winarno, “Analisis Re-layout Line Machining Oil Separator dengan Metode Value Stream Mapping dalam Meningkatkan Efisiensi Produktivitas di PT Astra Otoparts Divisi Nusametal,” Jurnal Engine Energi, Manufaktur, dan Material, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 96–105, 2024, doi: 10.30588/jeemm.v8i2.1848.

Marsella, W. Kosasih, and L. Salomon, “Analisis Pemborosan Produksi Kain Panel Melalui Pendekatan Lean Supply Chain,” 2025, pp. 106–117, doi: 10.24912/jmti.v4i2.34956.

S. F. Utami, M. Almatsir, I. Mashabai, and N. Hudaningsih, “Analisis Kualitas Kopi Arabika di Matano Coffee Menggunakan Metode Six Sigma DMAIC,” vol. 4, no. Nov., pp. 212–226, 2023, doi: 10.37373/jenius.v4i2.570.

A. Juwito and A. Z. Al-Faritsyi, “Analisis Pengendalian Kualitas untuk Mengurangi Cacat Produk dengan Metode Six Sigma di UMKM Makmur Santosa,” Jurnal Cakrawala Ilmiah, vol. 1, no. 12, pp. 3295–3315, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://bajangjournal.com/index.php/JCI

R. I. Liperda, N. R. Fatahayu, E. V. Khairunnisa, M. A. Logika, M. Hibatullah, and R. Fridayanti, “Simulasi Sistem Penggunaan Ruangan di Gedung Griya Legita Universitas Pertamina,” JISI: Jurnal Integrasi Sistem Industri, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 65–75, 2021, doi: 10.24853/jisi.8.2.65-75.

Nurlaela, Implementasi Value Stream Mapping pada Perumahan Sederhana di Indonesia. Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Deepublish Publisher, 2023.

A. B. Rizkyllah and E. Aryanny, “Product Defect Level Analysis Bone Plate with The Six Sigma Method and Fuzzy Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (F-FMEA): Analisis Tingkat Kecacatan Produk Bone Plate dengan Metode Six Sigma dan Fuzzy Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (F-FMEA),” vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2025, doi: 10.21070/ijins.v26i4.1477.

M. Y. Muchsinin and W. Sulistiyowati, “Quality Control Analysis to Reduce Product Defects with the Lean Six Sigma Method and Fault Tree Analysis,” vol. 3, 2022, doi: 10.21070/pels.v3i0.1323.

M. F. Fadilah and R. Wibero, “Rancangan Lean Manufacturing untuk Mengurangi Pemborosan Pada Proses Pembuatan Sepatu dengan Pendekatan Metode Value Stream Mapping (VSM) dan Root Cause Analysis (RCA) di Home Industry Sepatu,” Jurnal Greenation Ilmu Teknik, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 16–25, 2025, doi: 10.38035/jgit.v2i1.230.