Yamazumi Blog

•

Yamazumi.io

The Yamazumi Chart Guide: A Practical, Engineer-Level Primer for Line Balancing and Production Optimization

Who this guide is for

Manufacturing engineers with roughly 2–5 years of experience who want a practical, detailed, and immediately usable “yamazumi chart guide.” You’ll get a precise definition and origin, a step-by-step creation process, automotive examples, measurable ROI benefits, common pitfalls, and how Yamazumi integrates across lean manufacturing.

Target keyword: yamazumi chart guide

Related keywords: line balancing, takt time, lean manufacturing, production optimization

What is a Yamazumi Chart?

Technical definition

A Yamazumi chart is a stacked bar chart that visualizes all work elements required in a process, grouped by station (or operator), ordered by sequence, and compared against takt time. Each stacked bar represents one station’s standardized work content (value-added and non-value-added tasks), and the horizontal reference line shows the takt time—the maximum allowable cycle time to meet customer demand.

Purpose:

  • Line balancing: redistribute tasks so every station’s total cycle time is ≤ takt time.
  • Bottleneck identification: quickly see which station exceeds takt.
  • Waste exposure: highlight non-value-added time (walk, wait, reach, search, excess motion).
  • Standard work creation: document and stabilize the best known method.

Japanese origins

“Yamazumi” (山積み) literally means “to stack up” or “pile up.” The chart emerged in Toyota Production System (TPS) practices as a visual tool during kaizen (continuous improvement) events to stack elemental tasks and compare them to takt (タクト)—a term borrowed from music (“baton/time”) that TPS adopted to pace production to demand. The Yamazumi method became a staple in lean manufacturing because it merges work analysis, line balancing, and standard work into one highly visual artifact.

Core Concepts You Must Know

Takt time (customer-driven pace)

  • Net Available Production Time = Total shift time − planned downtime (breaks, meetings, preventive maintenance).
  • Expressed as seconds or minutes per unit.

Cycle time vs. work content

  • Work content = sum of elemental task times at a station under standard conditions.
  • Cycle time = actual time to complete one unit at that station. (With stable standard work, cycle time ≈ work content.)

Value-added (VA) vs. non-value-added (NVA)

  • VA: transforms the product in a way the customer is willing to pay for.
  • NVA but necessary: inspections, compliance steps.
  • Pure waste: search, reach, walk, waits, re-handling.

Standard work elements

Break the job into small, observable elements (5–30 seconds each is common in assembly). Each element has:

  • Clear method (motion path, tool, orientation)
  • Measured time (repeatable)
  • Quality checkpoints

Step-by-Step: How to Create a Yamazumi Chart

1) Define scope and goal

  • Process/line: e.g., front door sub-assembly for an automotive OEM.
  • Goal: initial balance to takt time; reduce bottleneck overflow by 30%; cut NVA by 20%.

2) Calculate takt time

  1. Net available time per shift: 8 hours = 28,800 s
  2. Planned breaks/meetings/PM: 3,600 s
  3. Net = 25,200 s
  4. Customer demand: 280 units/shift
  5. Takt: 25,200 ÷ 280 = 90 s/unit

Draw a horizontal line at 90 s on every Yamazumi chart. That’s your non-negotiable pacing constraint.

3) Conduct time studies and element breakdown

  • Observe several cycles per station (≥10 is better for stability).
  • Elementize tasks with a stopwatch or video analysis (5–30 s granularity).
  • Record: element name, VA/NVA flag, average time, standard deviation, notes on method/tooling, ergonomics.

Tip: Normalize times to standard conditions (standard work sequence, standard WIP, consistent tool setup). Exclude abnormal delays (machine breakdowns) but capture systemic waste (chronic walking distance).

4) Classify and color-code

  • VA: one color (e.g., dark).
  • NVA—necessary: second color.
  • NVA—waste: third color. This color discipline makes waste pop visually on the chart.

5) Build the stacked bars

  • X-axis: stations/operators in process sequence.
  • Y-axis: seconds.
  • For each station, stack elements in the exact order executed. Sum of the stack = station cycle time.
  • Draw the takt time line across all bars.

6) Highlight problems and opportunities

  • Stations above takt = bottlenecks; immediate candidates for re-balance, method improvement, or capacity addition.
  • Tall NVA segments = targets for layout redesign, point-of-use tooling, kitting, or visual management.
  • Unevenness (mura): large variation between bars indicates balancing opportunities.

7) Rebalance tasks

  • Move elements from overloaded to underloaded stations (respecting sequence, tooling, and ergonomics).
  • Check precedence constraints (what must happen before/after).
  • Explore work combination: hands + machine + walk time overlapping where safe and allowed.
  • Consider SMED (quick changeover), 5S, and layout changes to shrink NVA.

8) Validate with trials

  • Pilot the new balance for a fixed window (e.g., 1–2 shifts).
  • Measure station cycles, WIP, defects, and andon calls.
  • Gather operator feedback, refine standard work and work instructions.

9) Lock standard work and sustain

  • Publish standard work sheets: sequence, time, tools, checkpoints, WIP limits.
  • Train, certify, and audit (layered process audits, LPAs).
  • Keep a living Yamazumi: update after engineering changes, volume changes, or kaizen.

Real Factory Examples (Automotive)

Example A: Door Trim Sub-Assembly (Tier-1 supplier)

Context

  • Target: 90 s takt (same as above).
  • Stations S1–S5.
  • Problem: S3 at 112 s (bottleneck); frequent overtime and WIP pile-ups upstream.

Measured elements (excerpt)

  • S3 elements:
    1. Fetch harness kit (walk 5 m) – 12 s (NVA waste)
    2. Locate clip points – 8 s (NVA necessary)
    3. Route harness – 35 s (VA)
    4. Plug connectors – 20 s (VA)
    5. Scan label – 5 s (NVA necessary)
    6. Search torque gun – 7 s (NVA waste)
    7. Torque 2 fasteners – 25 s (VA)

Interventions from the Yamazumi chart

  • Kitting + point-of-use (POU) storage: Move harness kits to a gravity rack at elbow height next to S3. 12 s → 4 s.
  • Shadow board + tethered torque gun: Search 7 s → 0 s.
  • Pre-locate clips at S2 (precedence feasible): Move “locate clip points” upstream where there is 12 s slack; S3 loses 8 s, S2 gains 8 s but stays ≤ takt.
  • Reallocate torque of 1 fastener to S4 (add second torque gun); S4 had 18 s slack.

Resulting S3

  • New S3 time: (4 + 35 + 20 + 5 + 25) = 89 s (under takt).
  • S4 time increases by ~12 s (still under takt).
  • Overtime eliminated; upstream WIP cut by 40%.
  • First-pass yield improved by 0.8% due to calmer flow and fewer rushed errors.

Example B: Front Bumper Assembly (OEM plant)

Context

  • Takt: 60 s for a high-volume line.
  • Before: Stations generally clustered around 50–62 s, but S7 hit 74 s on mix with parking sensors.
  • Issue: High mix-induced variation (multiple trim levels).

Yamazumi-driven countermeasures

  • Heijunka (level loading): Sequence vehicles to avoid back-to-back high-content variants; Yamazumi showed S7 spikes only on specific mix.
  • Parallelization: Add a small satellite station for sensor routing on high-content builds only; operators flex based on heijunka box.
  • Poka-yoke fixtures: Reduce alignment fiddling (NVA necessary → near zero).

Outcome

  • S7 average: 74 s → 58 s on mixed model schedule.
  • Line throughput stabilized; small buffer before end-of-line test shrank from 8 units to 3.
  • Andon calls related to sensor mis-routes decreased by 60%.

ROI Benefits (With Specific Metrics)

1) Throughput and OEE uplift

  • Balancing to takt typically yields 5–20% throughput increase without capex.
  • Example: Removing a 10 s over-takt at the bottleneck on a 90 s takt increases line capacity by ~11% (from 90 s to 80 s effective cycle at the choke point).

2) Labor productivity

  • Reassigning elements to eliminate idle/wait time can reduce required headcount on a line by 1 operator per 6–10 stations (context-dependent), or unlock 10–15% more output with the same crew.

3) WIP and lead time

  • Post-Yamazumi, it’s common to cut in-process WIP by 20–40%, shrinking lead time (Little’s Law) and freeing floor space.

4) Quality and rework

  • Stabilized standard work and reduced over-burden (muri) lower defects by 0.5–2.0 percentage points in the first 60–90 days.
  • Visual balance reduces firefighting that drives quality escapes.

5) Ergonomics and safety

  • Eliminating awkward reaches/walks reduces micro-injuries and OSHA recordables (often 10–30% declines in musculoskeletal incident rates over 6–12 months).

6) Tangible example ROI calculation

  • Line produces 280 units/shift. After Yamazumi, +10% throughput = 308 units/shift.
  • Contribution margin = €35/unit → incremental €980/shift, ~€20,580/month (21 shifts).
  • Add scrap reduction: from 2.5% to 1.7% on 308 units = ~2.5 fewer scrap units/shift → €500/shift saved if €200 per scrap.
  • Total monthly impact: ≈ €31–35k without capex, typical for Tier-1 lines.

Common Implementation Mistakes (and How to Avoid Them)

1) Skipping proper element breakdown

  • Symptom: Bars built from lump sums (e.g., “assemble module—70 s”).
  • Fix: Break into micro-elements (5–30 s). Without granularity you can’t rebalance.

2) Ignoring precedence constraints

  • Symptom: You “move” an element upstream that actually requires a downstream precondition (e.g., torque before alignment).
  • Fix: Map a precedence diagram. Annotate each element with prerequisites.

3) Mixing abnormal delays into standard times

  • Symptom: Cycle times inflated by rare jams; Yamazumi looks worse than reality.
  • Fix: Time under standard conditions, note special causes separately. Use element STDs (mean + allowance).

4) No color-coding of VA vs. NVA

  • Symptom: You rebalance but leave waste intact.
  • Fix: Use three-color logic. Target high-contrast wastes for kaizen.

5) Balancing once and forgetting

  • Symptom: New model year, new options, or staffing changes break the balance.
  • Fix: Treat Yamazumi as living standard work. Review after ECNs, demand shifts, or changeovers.

6) Not validating with operators

  • Symptom: The “new balance” looks great on paper but is awkward or unsafe.
  • Fix: Gemba validation, pilot runs, ergonomic checks, and operator input.

7) Over-optimizing one metric

  • Symptom: Chasing takt conformance creates excess walk or awkward postures.
  • Fix: Use balanced KPIs: cycle time, quality, ergonomics, WIP, OEE.

8) Overlooking layout and material presentation

  • Symptom: You move elements but keep poor material flow; NVA persists.
  • Fix: Pair Yamazumi with 5S, point-of-use storage, kitting, kanban.

Integration with Lean Manufacturing Principles

Standard work

Yamazumi builds standard work by explicitly sequencing and timing each element. Once balanced:

  • Publish Standard Work Combination Sheets (operator, machine, walk times).
  • Define Standard WIP (containers/fixtures between steps).
  • Audit regularly.

Heijunka (leveling)

Your Yamazumi chart guide should call out mix complexity. If certain variants spike a station’s load:

  • Use heijunka boxes to level sequence.
  • Pre-kit variant-specific components to flatten work content spikes.

JIT / Kanban

Balancing is fragile without stable material flow. Pair Yamazumi with:

  • Kanban to control WIP and trigger replenishment.
  • Point-of-use bins at the ergonomic “golden zone” (shoulders to knees).

Jidoka (built-in quality)

Stabilized cycle times and clearer workloads reduce false andon pulls and quality escapes. Add:

  • Poka-yoke fixtures to reduce alignment/search time (NVA → near zero).
  • Autonomation so operators can stop the line to fix root causes without cascading delays.

SMED (quick changeover)

If takt pressure rises, frequent changeovers can dominate your Yamazumi stacks. Use SMED to:

  • Externalize setup (prep off-line).
  • Standardize clamps/locators.
  • Slash changeover from, say, 12 minutes to 4 minutes—dramatically reducing NVA.

5S and Visual Management

A Yamazumi chart without 5S will drift. Sustain by:

  • Shadow boards for tools (eliminate “search” blocks).
  • Floor tape, labels, and visual bins to cut walk/reach.
  • Andon and cell dashboards to make imbalance visible daily.

Practical Tips & Patterns from the Field

Element granularity sweet spot

  • Aim for 5–30 s elements in manual assembly. Finer than 5 s gets noisy; larger than 30 s hides opportunities.

Treat walking like a defect

  • Every step shows up as NVA. Attack with layout, kitting, turntables, slide chutes, POU racks.

Build a precedence map first

  • Use a simple node-and-arrow diagram. It will prevent illegal task moves and speed your balancing iterations.

Try time “buckets” for flexible balancing

  • Pre-group highly related micro-elements (e.g., “wire routing bundle”) into 10–20 s buckets you can move as units without breaking ergonomics.

Don’t neglect ergonomics and safety

  • Validate that a rebalance does not increase reach distances, lift frequencies, or twist angles beyond ergonomic limits.

Iterate quickly with digital tools

  • Start with whiteboard/Post-its during kaizen. For sustainment, keep a digital Yamazumi linked to standard work docs so updates propagate.

Worked Example: Building a Yamazumi from Scratch

Scenario: Seat rail sub-assembly, takt 75 s.

Stations S1–S4 (initial time study averages)

  • S1: 58 s (VA 42, NVA 16)
  • S2: 83 s (VA 54, NVA 29) ← bottleneck
  • S3: 62 s (VA 47, NVA 15)
  • S4: 70 s (VA 51, NVA 19)

Top NVA offenders at S2

  • Walk to pick brackets (6 m) – 12 s waste
  • Search for torque bit – 5 s waste
  • Align jig pins – 7 s necessary NVA (fiddly)
  • Label scan & data entry – 5 s necessary NVA

Countermeasures + Rebalance

  1. POU kitting: Move bracket bins to elbow height at S2: 12 s → 3 s (save 9 s).
  2. Shadow board & bit naming: 5 s → 0 s.
  3. Poka-yoke pins with chamfer: 7 s → 2 s (save 5 s).
  4. Shift label scan to S1 (has 17 s slack) and automate data entry via barcode wedge (keep 3 s there).
  5. Move a 6 s VA tighten step from S2 to S3 (S3 has 13 s slack; install second torque gun).

New station totals

  • S1: 58 + 3 = 61 s
  • S2: 83 − 9 − 5 − 5 − 5 − 6 (moved) = 53 s
  • S3: 62 + 6 = 68 s
  • S4: unchanged 70 s

Outcome

  • All stations ≤ 75 s takt.
  • Bottleneck removed, line capacity +~13% versus S2’s former 83 s constraint.
  • Operators report less rushing and clearer method; FPY improved by 1.1 pp after 4 weeks.

How to Keep the Gains (Sustainment Plan)

  1. Daily review: Team leader glances at the Yamazumi (digital board or laminated print). If any station creeps above takt, trigger root cause analysis.
  2. Layered process audits (LPAs): Weekly checks that standard work sequence and times are followed.
  3. Change control: Engineering change notices (ECNs) must include a Yamazumi impact check.
  4. Training: Cross-train to maintain balance when staffing varies; reflect multi-skill matrices on the line board.
  5. Monthly kaizen: Use the chart to pick the top 2–3 NVA targets; close the loop with before/after bars.

Tooling Options to Build Yamazumi Charts

  • Whiteboard + sticky notes: Fastest for gemba workshops; great for group learning.
  • Spreadsheets (Excel/Sheets): Quick stacked bar charts; easy data entry; scriptable.
  • BI tools (Power BI/Tableau): Useful if you want to connect to MES/time-study datasets.
  • Specialized apps: Provide drag-and-drop elements, precedence checks, takt overlays, and revision control tied to standard work.

Tip for engineers: Whatever you choose, ensure you can:

  • Color-code VA/NVA,
  • Snap to takt line,
  • Export revision-controlled standard work,
  • Attach notes/photos/videos to elements.

Quick Reference: Yamazumi Checklist

  • Takt time calculated from net available time and current demand
  • Elements broken down to 5–30 s with repeatable timing method
  • VA/NVA (necessary/waste) clearly color-coded
  • Precedence diagram validated
  • Bars stacked in sequence per station
  • Takt line drawn and visible
  • Rebalance maintains ergonomics and safety limits
  • Trial run measured (cycle, WIP, FPY, andon)
  • Standard work updated and trained
  • Sustainment cadence (daily review, LPAs, ECN checks) in place

Frequently Asked Engineer-Level Questions

“Should I include machine wait time?”

Yes—if the operator must wait to proceed, include it (NVA). If they can do other value-added work during the wait (work combination), model that overlap separately on a work combination sheet and only count the critical path in the Yamazumi.

“How often should I re-time?”

  • New model/options: immediately.
  • Stable lines: sample quarterly or after noticeable drift (quality, OEE, WIP).
  • After kaizen changes: re-time the affected elements within 1–2 weeks.

“Do I ever exceed takt on purpose?”

You might temporarily during trials, but sustained exceeds mean missed demand. If genuine VA cannot be rebalanced, consider: parallel stations, automation of NVA, or takt relaxation (if demand truly fell).

Conclusion

A Yamazumi chart is more than a picture—it’s a problem-solving engine. By stacking elemental work, holding yourself to takt, and making waste unmistakable, you can unlock double-digit gains in throughput, quality, and ergonomics—often without capex. Use this yamazumi chart guide as your playbook: calculate takt, elementize rigorously, color-code waste, rebalance with precedence and ergonomics in mind, validate in gemba, and sustain with standard work and audits. Integrated with lean manufacturing (heijunka, JIT/kanban, jidoka, SMED, 5S), Yamazumi becomes a living backbone for production optimization and reliable line balancing.

If you’d like, I can convert one of your current lines into a ready-to-present Yamazumi (with a balancing proposal and ROI projection) using your takt, element times, and station list.

Leave a comment