Detailed Design of Product Oriented Manufacturing Systems
1
Detailed Design of Product Oriented Manufacturing
Systems
Anabela Carvalho Alves*, Sílvio do Carmo-Silva**,
University of Minho, Department of Production and Systems
* Corresponding author: Campus of Azurém, 4800-058 Guimarães, Tel.: (351) 253 510344 (7363)
Fax: (351) 253 510343; E-mail: [email protected]
** Campus of Gualtar, 4700-057 Braga , Tel.: (351) 253 604745; Fax: (351) 253 604741;
E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
This paper presents a procedure for the detailed design and redesign of manufacturing systems within a
framework of constantly fitting production system configuration to the varying production needs of products.
With such an approach is achieved the design of Product Oriented Manufacturing Systems – POMS. This
approach is in opposition to the fitting, before hand, of a production system to all products within a company. In
this case is usual to adopt a Function Oriented Manufacturing System - FOMS, which, rarely require
reconfiguration and apparently can deal with such a variety. The detailed design depart from conceptual
manufacturing cell configurations and develops from there, through conceptual cell instantiation, the required
detailed manufacturing system configuration needed for efficiently and effectively manufacture a product or a
family of similar products. Therefore manufacturing requirements of products, based on available or accessible
human resources and technology, i.e. manufacturing resources and know-how, as well as production demand
are essential inputs to the design of suitable manufacturing configurations for the range of products to
manufacture in a given period.
1. INTRODUCTION
Traditionally a manufacturing cell has been identified as a
system dedicated to the manufacture of a family of
identical parts. The manufacture based on a setting of
such cells is usually referred to as Cellular
Manufacturing.
A more comprehensive definition of a manufacturing
cell points to a manufacturing system that groups and
organizes the manufacturing resources, such as people,
machines, tools, buffers, and handling devices, dedicated
to the manufacture of a part family, or the assembly of a
family of products, with identical or very similar
manufacturing requirements. Therefore important
economies of scale can be obtained producing for
economies of scope, i.e. for a variety of products.
This approach of identical or very similar processing
of similar objects is known as Group Technology (GT)
(Gallagher, 1973). It is for this reason that manufacturing
systems based on cells are frequently associated with GT.
Burbidge (1989) referred also that the GT objective is:
“to form small organizational units which complete all
the set (or family) of products or components which they
make, through one or a few major processing stages, such
as metal founding, machining and assembly, and are
equipped with all the machines and other processing
equipment they need to do so.”
Although Cellular Manufacturing System (CMS) can
have a beneficial impact on manufacturing operations of
an enterprise, the full benefits of such product-oriented
approach to production can only be realized when overall
production is considered, as Burbigde (1989) defines
above. This means that, good production of parts or the
assembly of products alone does not mean necessarily
effective advantages for a company as a whole. It is
important that customer full orders are quickly satisfied
under high quality and good use of manufacturing
resources.
Moreover, CMS are rarely designed having in
consideration the need for parts production coordination
for making complete products or meeting customer orders
of end items. Thus, the need for quick response to
customer requirements, which is recognized as an
important strategic objective, is not taken explicitly in full
account. This limitation however has been addressed in
recent years through a variety of systems interlinking a
number of cells that are called here as Product Oriented
Manufacturing System (POMS). Paradigmatic examples
of POMS are what Black (1991) calls a linked-cell
manufacturing
system
and
Quick
Response
Manufacturing system as referred by Suri (1998).
Then to effectively answer these challenges CMS must
evolve to Product Oriented Manufacturing System
(POMS). This approach is in opposition to the production
system that in theory produces all products within a
Detailed Design of Product Oriented Manufacturing Systems
company: a Function Oriented Manufacturing System FOMS, which, rarely require reconfiguration and
apparently can deal with such a variety. However, it is
well known that systems of this kind are not efficient
neither effective to manufacture any particular product of
the range that might appear. The main reason is because
this type of systems is not efficiently adapted to the
production requirements of each product individually. In
fact they are addressed to the manufacture of the whole
range of products within a factory, requiring that, at the
same time, a large variety of product share all
manufacturing resources available. This creates
conflicting interests in the use of resources that are bound
to make the system inefficient and non effective. The
required fitting of the system to each product in particular
is not achieved and, therefore, production and service to
customer inefficiencies tend to arise.
So, it is the objective of this paper to present POMS
concept and the detailed phase of the Generic, Conceptual
and Detailed (GCD) methodology for design Product
Oriented Manufacturing System (POMS) summarized in
Silva and Alves (2002). In the detailed design is realized
the conceptual configurations instantiation selected in the
Conceptual design. In this way the production system
detailed specification is realized, clearly defining the
production cells to implant, their layout and the
management and operation mode that are described in the
following sections. The section 3 presents an academic
study showing the application of different activities (if we
have space…). The final section presents the conclusions.
2. PRODUCT ORIENTED MANUFACTURING
SYSTEM (POMS)
A POM system is defined as a set of interconnected
manufacturing resources and cells that in a coordinated
and synchronized manner address the manufacture of a
product or a range of similar products, including the
necessary assembly work (Figure 1). A product may be
simple, like a part, or complex, having a product structure
with several levels. When the product is simple, POMS
may simply take a form of a cell. Otherwise it configures
a coordinated set of interlinked cells. This coordination of
work among manufacturing resources or cells is one of
the most distinguishing aspects of POMS. A set of cells
that does not work under coordination towards
synchronized production of end items, does not form a
POM System.
At a local scale a POMS can be seen as a network of
balanced flow lines or manufacturing cells. This
balancing explores flexibility of machines and enlarged
skills of operators. These factors are considered by design
methods as inputs to arrive to physical and operational
systems configurations which are effective in achieving
company
objectives
dependent
on
available
manufacturing resources. The resources can be distributed
in space and may be put together, in a localized site, or,
alternatively, organized into virtual POMS. This approach
to the virtual configuration of manufacturing systems was
initially introduced in 1982, by McLean et al. (1982), and
2
studied by several authors afterwards such as McLean and
Brown (1987), Drolet et al. (1996) and Ratchev (2001).
Spl.
Mnf. cell
Mnf. cell
µ
Mnf.
cell
µ
Inside
company Y
Mnf. cell
Spl.
Inside
company Z
Sbasb. cell
Sbasb. cell
Sbasb. cell
Asb. cell
Inside
company X
End product
Legend:
Production workflows
Mnf. cell: manufacturing cell
Sbasb. cell: subassembly cell
Asb. cell: assembly cell
µ: workstation
Spl.: Suplliers
Figure 1: Representation of a POM System
The enlarged view of the POMS concept includes
logistic operations, mainly when production resources are
distributed in space. Today, these can benefit from
intranet and internet based technologies, a prerequisite of
the widely discussed Virtual Enterprise concept
(Camarinha-Matos, 1999). Truly, to be successful,
production under this concept must be able to fully and
dynamically consider and involve resources available to a
company, over a time period, locally or globally, either
belonging to its own or to potential production partners.
Eventually, autonomous cooperating cells or agents,
offering services, available in the market, could be
selected for configuring large POM systems.
Dynamic reconfiguration of POMS, under changing
market requirements is, most probably, necessary. This
necessity is also justified due to the dedicated nature of
POMS to specific mix of products which, changing over
time, calls for new arrangements to ensure high levels of
operational performance.
Although POMS lends itself to large quantities and
small variety product environments we are particularly
aiming at viable POMS for the “Make to Order” (MTO)
and “Engineering to Order” (ETO) environments, where
frequent system reconfiguration is required. This viability
is ensured by exploring the organizational philosophies,
techniques and tools associated with Lean Manufacturing
(LM) (Womack, 1990), Agile Manufacturing (AM)
(Kidd, 1994) and Quick Response Manufacturing (QRM)
(Suri, 1998). Both LM and QRM favour production
systems organization in multifunction autonomous units
or cells working under integrated coordination for
achieving production objectives. AM emphasizes the
importance of rapidly changing system configuration for
matching processing requirements from product demand
changes. Product Oriented Manufacturing (POM) can also
be associated with concepts such as focused factory,
advanced by Skinner (1974), and systems OPIM (OneProduct-Integrated-Manufacturing) put forward by Putnik
and Silva (1995).
Detailed Design of Product Oriented Manufacturing Systems
3
3. DETAILED DESIGN OF POMS
The proposed methodology for POMS design,
identified as the GCD methodology, was structured in
three design phases or functions, namely the Generic, the
Conceptual and the Detailed one. It was presented with
the support of the IDEF0 modeling technique
(FIPSPUBS, 1993) in Silva and Alves (2002).
Design of POM systems is a dynamic activity at all
levels. However, it is at this Detailed design level that
frequency of design is large. In fact, in theory, this system
reconfiguration should be done every time a new product
order needs to be released for production, or, in the least,
be done by short planned periods of undisturbed
production. This may aggregate a few customer orders of
the same product or of similar products.
In order to reach a viable POMS solution is necessary
develop some interrelated activities that constitute the
Detailed design phase. This vision of design is partially
shared by Arvindh and Irani (1994) that argue that such
activities or problems are closely interrelated and must be
solved integrated and iteratively. They identified four
classes of problems to be solved in the design of cellular
manufacturing cells, namely: machine group and part
family formation, machine duplication, intra-cell layout
and inter-cell layout. They go on proposing a method for
cell design based on this integrated approach.
In addition to the design problems pointed out by
Arvindh and Irani (1994), operation problems must also
be solved. These have to do mainly with production
control including scheduling. With this in mind the
detailed design of the GCD methodology include five
activities: parts selection and/or families of parts
formation, (A31); conceptual cells instantiation (A32);
workstations instantiation (A33); intracellular and
organizational layout of each cell, including the control
process definition and the productive activity coordination
and the equipment and software selection for workflow
control, manipulation, transport and storage (A34) and,
the last one, intercellular and organizational layout of the
global POMS and coordination constituted by the cells
(A35), figure 2. This figure does not show all the entries
(inputs and restrictions) necessary for or that restrains the
activities. In generally all the activities are realized
iteratively and interrelated. Each one of these activities
could be divided in tasks presented in each section.
In the operative process definition and in the cell
management, the objectives equationed include: good use
of the means, good workgroup balancing, reduced work in
process and lead times. In this way, several studies have
to be realized for the correct specification of the cells and
of the system completely, as well as their operation and
management in the manner of obtain these objectives. In
this process, a typical aspect is determine the parts mix to
launch simultaneous or sequentially in each cell and in
each production period.
...
...
Part
Family
Formation
Machine group
complexity
constraints
Part families
...
A31
Conceptual
cells
instantiation
...
A32
Machine utilization,
availability and cost of duplication
Machines
...
group
...
Workstations
instantiation
A33
...
Number of cells
Number of exception operations
Nature of shared machine types
...
Organization
and
Intracellular
layout A34
Optimal location of shared machines
Incompatible machines / processes
Product Mix / demand distributions
Cell size
...
Workstations
Flows between cells
Cell size
Cell shape ...
Integration and
coordenation of
POMS and
intercellular flow
control A35
POMS
CAPP Analysis,...
Aproches to cells formation
Balancing methods Layout methods (CRAFT,...)
Diagrams
...
Figure 2: Detailed design of POMS
3.1. PARTS SELECTION AND/OR FAMILIES OF PARTS
FORMATION
The activity A31 - Parts selection and/or families of
parts formation has to do with work to be carried out in
the short time. It must deal with an in depth analysis of
processing requirements based on actual production
orders and existing sources of manufacturing capacity or
services, in doors or outside the company. This activity is
simplified due to first level clustering analysis of
production done before at conceptual design. This first
level clustering could guide to the product families for the
formation of cells.
A product family is a set of product that shares the
same processing requirements or some other features.
Sometimes forming families it isn’t the principal
objective or the single way to embrace the cellular
manufacturing. The shop floor has, more often, problems
and poor performance that could indicate a different
approach to production. Problems like the difficult in
achieve the deadlines or frequent high WIP of some parts;
the high effort of reconfiguration or the poor involvement
of operators are strong reasons to adopt cellular
manufacturing. The minimization of the set-up problems,
quality defects and reconfigurable efforts are only a few
operational objectives achieved by the cellular
manufacturing (Wemmerlöv and Johnson, 2000).
Families’ formation literature is abundant. Since the
work of Burbigde (1963) the development of methods,
techniques or algorithms had never stopped. Some
references of books and reviews include Kusiak and
Chow (1988), Shafer and Meredith (1990), Offodile,
Mehrez and Grznar (1994), Heragu (1994), Moussa and
Kamel (1995), Chu (1995), Moodie, Uzsoy and Yih
(1995), Kamrani, Parsaei and Liles (1995), Hassan
(1995), Singh and Rajamani (1996), Suresh and Kay
(1998), Venugopal (1998, 1999), Kamrani and Logendran
(1998), Shafer (1998), Selim, Askin and Vakharia (1998)
and Irani (1999).
Detailed Design of Product Oriented Manufacturing Systems
Table 1: Schematic representation of the Basic and Non-basic
conceptual cell configurations
Pure Flow Cell
(PFC)
General Flow Cell
(GFC)
General Cell (GC)
NON BASIC CELLS (NBC)
BASIC CELLS (BC)
Conceptual cell configurations
Single
Shared Single
Workstation cell
Workstation cell (SSWC)
(SWC)
Shared Pure Flow Cell
(SPFC)
Shared General Flow
Cell (SGFC)
Shared General Cell
(SGC)
The identified conceptual configurations embrace quite
a few instances that have to do with resource combination
and flexibility of workstations. Thus the nature and
quantity of manufacturing resources let them be main
resources, such as machines, or auxiliary resources, such
as operators and tools involved in each workstation,
originate different instance types of each conceptual
configuration and puts different problems to be solved at
both design and operation of CMS. These instance types
are called operational configurations. Examples of
operational cells are: JIT cells (JITC); quick response
cells (QRC); flexible cells (FC); virtual cells (VC) and
agile cells (Silva and Alves, 2001). The table 2 matches
the conceptual cells with the operational cells.
Under the title of JIT cells there are various
configurations such as Toyota sewing system (TSS)
(Reece Corporation, 1990, Kalta et al., 1998); modular
Table 2. Matching conceptual cells with operational cells
BASIC
With the part families it can be possible obtain also the
machines groups, e.g. applying one method like the Rank
Order Clustering (ROC) (King, 1980, 1982). If this didn’t
happen this activity must reach to the machines groups.
The instantiation of conceptual cells is also a objective of
this activity. The conceptual cells considered are based on
the workflow namely direct, direct with bypassing,
inverse, inverse with bypassing and repetitive workflow
(Silva e Alves, 2004). The table 1 summarizes these
conceptual cell configurations. These conceptual are
divided in two different groups according to the
independence of processing: the basic cells and the nonbasic cells. The basic cells are self-contained, i.e. the
resources are totally dedicated to its parts family only and
non–basic cells are not self-contained, it means that they
share resources with other cells. It can be said that basic
configurations correspond to independent cells and the
non-basic to dependent cells.
manufacturing system (MMS) (Black and Chen, 1995,
Black and Schroer, 1994, Schonberger, 1996); flexible
work group (FWG) (Chen, 1998); one-piece flow (OPF)
(Sekine, 1993); unit production system (UPS) (Chen
1998); semi-autonomous workgroups (Badham and
Couchman, 1996, Niepce and Molleman, 1996, Van
Hootegen, Huys and Delarue, 2004, Jonsson, Medbo and
Engstron, 2004); linked cell manufacturing system (LCMS) (Black, 1991); and quick response sewing system
(QRSS) (JETRO, 1990). This title was given because
these configurations are projected to attain the objectives
of JIT philosophy, i.e. defects zero; set-up times zero,
stock zero, handling zero, breakdowns zero, production
times zero and one piece flow. What this really means is
elimination of waste in all forms.
NON-BASIC
3.2. CONCEPTUAL CELLS INSTANTIATION
4
SWC
PFC
GFC
GC
SSWC
SPFC
SGFC
JITC
-99
99
-----
QRC
-99
99
9
-99
99
FC
99
99
99
9
99
99
99
VC
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
SGC
-99: preferred; 9: acceptable; --: not acceptable
Basic cells and direct flows are objectives of this
activity so the formed groups must be analysed in order to
reach these objectives. In the Conceptual phase it was
selected the conceptual cell configuration. If these were
basic cells exists four configurations that can be chosen,
as can be seen in table 2, if were the counterparts three
can be chosen. If in this groups exits inverse flows it can
be eliminated from the alternatives, the JITC and QRC
from the basic and the JITC from the non-basic cells. Of
course reviewing the parts sequence it could be possible
reach to basic cells by eliminating the exceptional
elements or duplicating the machines in both cells. The
figure 3 presents a diagram flow for help in taking a
decision for one operational configuration.
If the groups aren’t yet formed it isn’t possible select
the configuration based on the workflows. However
knowing the objectives of the company, the selection can
be made based on that because, additionally to the
difference between the configurations in the table 2, there
are others that suit them for specific situations. This
means that these differences are to be in account when
select one of them. This may be put in a table showing the
different rank for each difference in each configuration,
being 5 the most important (table 3).
Detailed Design of Product Oriented Manufacturing Systems
5
Identify cells
is a clear winner, the decision is easy. If the values are
very close, the evaluation process must continue adding
more factors and re-evaluating or eliminating the obvious
losers and re-evaluating.
Moreover, cell efficiency and effectiveness, being
highly dependent on cell operation, is also influenced by
the configurations of each workstation in a cell.
Workstations may be configured in different ways
according to manufacturing requirements and objectives.
They may be simple, provided with a single machine to
carry out a single manufacturing function or be more
complex involving three other situations which may be
combined, namely having a) parallel processors, b)
multiple resources or processors and c) multifunction
processors (Figure 2).
Identify workflows
Intercellular
flows?
No
Intracellular
inverse flows?
Number
and type of
machines
Yes
Compare machines types
needs with available
Review parts sequences
(exceptional elements
The exceptional
parts can be
done in other
machines?
No
Available
machines?
Yes
Compare machines types
needs to form dummy
sequence with available
Available
machines?
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Calcule duplication cost
shared machines
Form basic cells
Machines
cost
Compare duplication cost
with available budget
Available
budget?
Budget
available
for
machines
Yes
Buy machines
Compare duplication cost
with available budget
Available
budget?
Yes
Buy machines
No
No
Form non basic
cells
Workstation
type
No
Calcule duplication cost
machines
Select other
configuration
(CQR, FC, VC)
Form non basic
cells with
inverse flows
Form basic cells
with direct flows
Single processor, single
resource and single
function workstation
Workstations with
Multiresource Processors
Workstation
Workstation
Multifunction
processors
Multiresource
processors
Select FC, VC
Select CQR
M
Select JITC
M
...
µ
µ
Figure 3. Diagram flow to select the operational configuration
Table 3. Differences between operational configurations
Evaluation
JITC(1) UPS
QRC FC
VC
factors
(Predominantly)
5
5
3
2
2
direct flows
(Higher)
4
5
4
5
3
production rate
(Higher) product
4
1
5
2
5
variety
(Minimize)
1
5
2
5
4
manual handling
(Minimize) wait
4
5
4
5
1
times
(Minimize) set2
1
4
1
1
up times
JIT influence
5
2
4
1
1
Operators
5
2
5
1
1
involvement
Polyvalence
5
2
5
2
1
Cultural
and
organizational
5
1
4
1
1
investment
Reconfiguration
5
1
3
2
5
easiness
One piece flow
5
2
2
3
2
Total automation
1
4
2
5
5
preference
(1) Includes TSS, OPF, FWG, MMS, L-CMS configurations
This table can also be used for the application of
Weighted Factor Analysis (WFA) (Nyman, 1992), being
the differences the evaluation factors. One configuration
can be selected after weighting each factor on a scale of 1
to 10 (10 being the most important), by multiplying
weight and the rank, and, finally total the values obtained
for each configuration, arriving at an overall numerical
value comparison between alternatives. If one alternative
Workstations with
Multifunction Processors
Workstations with
Parallel Processors
Workstation
µ
M
...
M
M
Workstation
M
µ
Figure 2: Nature of workstations
In the figure 3 it can be seen the relevance of the
nature of workstations in the selection of the operational
configuration, particulary between the QRC, FC and VC.
This nature of workstations selected or identifyied in the
company came from the previous phase, the Conceptual
phase.
The results from this activity are the machines groups,
the cells number, the operational elements, the shared
machines type and the selected operational configuration.
3.3. WORKSTATIONS INSTANTIATION
The number of workstations and of their
manufacturing resources together with detailed
arrangement of each is done by activity A33. This
involves a detailed knowledge of the available, main and
auxiliary, pieces of equipment for choice, not only for
processing but also for handling, transport and storage.
Operators should also be selected, based on skills and on
cell operating modes. Activity A33 makes, therefore, the
necessary adjustments to the workstations selected at the
conceptual level, having in consideration existing
manufacturing resources and results of detailed load
balancing.
The number of operators and the level of replicated
auxiliary equipment, such as tools, together with their
dynamic utilization within cells may substantially affect,
not only the cell capacity and manufacturing flexibility,
but also the manner how cells can be operated. Therefore
Detailed Design of Product Oriented Manufacturing Systems
6
auxiliary resources largely determine the performance
level of manufacturing cells (Silva, 1988, 1997). The
figure 4 presents a diagram flow to help the designer to
calculate the number of machines and operators needed
attending to the operation times of each operation to be
done in the cell.
Share
operators
between cells
Finally the POM system can be reached. This
culminates with the activity A35 dealing with the total
system integration and organization. An important part of
this is the selection of the POM intercellular coordination
and production control system. This should focus on
inter-cells workflow towards the manufacture of each
product order or each family of similar product orders.
This coordination and control system should explore the
push and pull paradigms and novel combinations of them
such as the POLCA (Suri, 1998), the DBR (Goldratt,
1986), the CONWIP (Spearman, 1990) and SYNCROMRP (Hall, 1981) systems, to mention only a few.
No
4. HELPFUL HINTS
Calcule
machine load/
cell
Number
of
available
machines
Compare with
available
machines
Available
operators
Yes
There enough
available
machines
Budget for
machines
Calcule
number of
operators
Compare with
available
operators
Available enough
operators?
No
Subcontract or
localize available
operators in the
market
Calcule
duplication
costs
Yes
Available
budget?
Buy
machines
No
Subcontract or
localize available
machines in the
market
Allow inverse
flows
Go back to the
previous activity
Calcule subcontract
costs or dislocation
costs
Compare with the
budget available
Calcule subcontract
costs or dislocation
costs
Compare with the
budget available
Adopt other
configuration- go
back to activity A21
Available
budget?
Yes
Subcontract or
dislocate
operators
4.1. FIGURES AND TABLES
Budget for
subcontract
No
Available
budget?
3.5. INTERCELLULAR LAYOUT OF THE GLOBAL
POMS AND COORDINATION
4.2. REFERENCES
Yes
Subcontract
or dislocate
Figure 4. Diagram flow for calculate the machines and operators
needs
The results of this activity are the cell size in number
of machines types and operators, the operator’s allocation
to cells and then to the machines, the alternatives
sequences and flows, the optimal location of shared
machines, the identification of incompatible machines or
processes, the product mix in the cells and, finally, the
workstations number obtained through the balancing
exercise using a adequate method (Wild, 1972, Scholl,
1995).
3.4. INTRACELLULAR AND ORGANIZATIONAL
LAYOUT
Although the conceptual configuration chosen restricts
cell arrangements that can be made, there is still a need to
clearly define intracellular detailed organization. This
involves precise location of workstations, machines and
auxiliary devices, including workstation decouplers
(Black and Chen, 1995). A clear definition of how work
and people flow within a cell is also required, being
possible to evaluate several layout configurations
(Arvindh and Irani, 1994), such as the well known U
shaped one, which should fit into the conceptual
configuration chosen. Moreover, operating cell modes
exploring strategies such as teamwork and time-sharing
resources (Suri, 1998), rabbit chase, TSS and working
balance (Black and Chen, 1995), should be considered for
implementation.
4.3. ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Define abbreviations and acronyms the first time they
are used in the text. Do not use abbreviations in the titles
unless they are unavoidable.
4.4. EQUATIONS
5. FULL PAPER SUBMISSION
6. SUMMARY
REFERENCES
Arvindh, B., Irani, S. A. 1994, Cell formation: the need for an
integrated solution of the problems, Int. Journal of
Production Research, vol. 32, nº 5
Badham, R. e Couchman, P. (1996) “Implementing team-based
cells in Australia: a configurational process approach”,
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, vol. 7, n. º 5, pp. 47-59
Black, J. T. e Chen, J. C. (1995) “The role of Decouplers in JITPull Apparel Cells”, International Journal of Clothing
Science and Technology, vol. 7, n. º 1
Black, J. T. e Schroer, B. J. (1994) “Simulation of an Apparel
Assembly Cell with walking workers and decouplers”
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 12, n.º 2
Black, J. T., 1991, The Design of the Factory with a Future,
McGraw-Hill
Chen, F. Frank (1998) “Flexible production systems for the
apparel and metal working industries: a contrast study on
technologies and contributions”, Int. J. of Clothing
Detailed Design of Product Oriented Manufacturing Systems
Science and Technology, vol. 10, n.º 1, pp. 11-20
Chu,
C.-H., 1995, Recent Advances in Mathematical
Programming for Cell Formation” Planning, Design, and
Analysis of Cellular Manufacturing Systems, Eds. A. K.
Kamrani, H. R. Parsaei, D. H. Liles, Elsevier
FIPSPUB183, 1993, Software Standard, Modelling Techniques
– Announcing the Standard for Integration Definition For
Function Modelling (IDEF0), Federal Information
Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUBS),
www.idef.com
Hassan, M. M.D., 1995, Layout design in group technology
manufacturing, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 38, pp. 173-188.
Heragu, S. S., 1994, Group Technology and Cellular
manufacturing, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, Vol. 24, N.º 2, pp. 203-215.
Irani, S. A., 1999, Handbook of Cellular Manufacturing
Systems, John Wiley & Sons
JETRO - Japan External Trade Organization (1990)
“Manufacturing Technology Guide nº 35 – Sewing
(Apparel)”, Three “I” Publications, Ltd.
Jonsson, D., Medbo, L. e Engstron, T.(2004) “Some
considerations relating to the reintroduction of assembly
lines in the Swedish automotive industry”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol.
24, n.º 8, pp. 754-772
Kalta, M., Lowe, T. e Tyler, D. (1998) “A Decision Support
System for Designing Assembly Cells in Apparel
Industry”, in Group technology and Cellular
Manufacturing, eds. N. C. Suresh e J. M. Kay, Kluwer
Academic Publishers
Kamrani, A. K., Logendran, R., 1998, Group Technology and
Cellular Manufacturing: Methodologies and applications,
Overseas Publishers Association, Amsterdam B.V.
Kamrani, A. K., Parsaei, H. R., Liles, D. H., 1995, Planning,
Design, and Analysis of Cellular Manufacturing Systems,
Elsevier Science
Kidd, P. T. (1994). Agile Manufacturing forging new frontiers.
Addison Wesley Publishers
Kusiak, A., Chow, W. S., 1988, Decomposition of Manufacturing
Systems, IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, Vol.
4, N.º 5
McLean, C. R. & Brown, P. F. (1987) The Automated
Manufacturing Research Facility at the National Bureau
of Standards. In H. Yoshikawa & J. L. Burbidge, New
Technologies for Production Management systems, North
– Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
McLean, C. R., Bloom, H.M. & Hopp, T.H. (1982). The Virtual
Manufacturing Cell. In: Proceedings of the 4th IFAC/IFIP
Conference on Information Control Problems in
Manufacturing Technology, (pp. 105-111), USA.
Moodie, C., Uzsoy, R., Yih, Y., 1995, Manufacturing Cells – A
systems Engineering view, Taylor & Francis
7
sociotechnical systems”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, vol. 16, n. º 2, pp.
77-90
Nyman, L.R. (1992) “Making Manufacturing Cells Work”
Ingersoll Engineers, Society of Manufacturing Engineers
e Computer and Automated Systems Association of SME
Offodile, O. F., Mehrez, A., Grznar, J., 1994, Cellular
Manufacturing: a taxonomic review framework, Journal
of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13, N.º 3
Putnik, G. D., Silva, S. C., 1995, One Product Integrated
Manufacturing, Balanced Automation Systems, Eds. L. M.
Camarinha-Matos, H. Afsarmanesh, Chapman & Hall
Ratchev, S. M. (2001). Concurrent process and facility
prototyping for formation of virtual manufacturing cells.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12, 306-315.
Reece Corporation (1990) “World Class Manufacturing for the
Sewn Products Industry” Catálogo
Schonberger, R. J. (1996) “World Class Manufacturing: the
next decade: building power, strength and value” The
Free Press, New York
Sekine, K. (1990) “One – Piece Flow: Cell design for
transforming the production process” Productivity Press
Selim, H. M., Askin, R. G., Vakharia, A. J., 1998, Cell formation
in Group Technology: review, evaluation and directions
for future research, Computers & Industrial Engineering,
vol. 34, n. º 1, pp. 3-20.
Shafer, S. M., 1998, Part machine labour grouping: the problem
and solution methods, Eds. Nallan C. Suresh e John M.
Kay, Group Technology & Cellular Manufacturing:
updated perspectives Kluwer Academic Publishers
Shafer, S. M., Meredith, J. R., 1990, A comparison of selected
manufacturing cell formation techniques, Int. J. Prod.
Res., Vol. 28, N. º 4, 661-673.
Silva, S. C., Alves, A. C., 2002, Design of Product Oriented
Manufacturing Systems, Knowledge and Technology
integration in production and Services, Eds. V. Marik, L.
Camarinha-Matos and H. Afsarmanesh, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, pp. 359-366
Silva, S. C., Alves, A. C., 2004, A framework for understanding
Cellular Manufacturing Systems, e-Manufacturing:
Business Paradigms and Supporting Technologies, Ed. J.
J. P. Ferreira, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 163-172
Singh, N., Rajamani, D., 1996, Cellular Manufacturing Systems:
Design, Planning and Control, Chapman & Hall
Skinner, W., 1974, The focused factory, Harvard Business
Review, May – June, pp. 113-121
Suresh, N. C., Kay, J. M., Group Technology & Cellular
Manufacturing: updated perspectives, Kluwer Academic
Publishers
Suri, Rajan (1998). Quick Response Manufacturing – A
Companywide Approach to Reducing Lead Times.
Productivity Press
Moussa, S. E., Kamel, M. S., 1995, Partitioning techniques for
Cellular Manufacturing, Planning, Design and Analysis of
Cellular Manufacturing Systems, Eds. A. K. Kamrani, H.
R. Parsaei, D. H. Liles, Elsevier Science B. V.
Van Hootegem, G., Huys, R. e Delarue, A. (2004) “The
sustainability of teamwork under changing circumstances
– the case of Volvo-Ghent” International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, vol. 24, n.º 8, pp.
773-786
Niepce, W. e Molleman, E. (1996) “A case study: characteristics
of work organization in lean production and
Venugopal, V., 1998, Artificial neural networks and fuzzy
models: new tools for part- machine grouping” Group
Detailed Design of Product Oriented Manufacturing Systems
Technology & Cellular Manufacturing: updated
perspectives, Eds. Suresh, Nallan C. e Kay, John M.,
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Venugopal, V., 1999, Soft-computing based approaches to the
group technology problem: a state-of- the art, Int. J. Prod.
Res., Vol. 37, N.º 14, pp. 3335-3357.
Wemmerlöv, U., Johnson, D. J., 2000, Empirical findings on
manufacturing cell design, International Journal of
Production Research, vol. 38, N.º 3, pp. 481-507.
Womack, J., Jones, D. T. & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that
changes the world. Rawson Associates
Drolet, J.R.., Montreuil, B., Moodie, C. L., 1996, Empirical
Investigation of Virtual Cellular Manufacturing System,
Proceedings of the Symposium of Industrial Engineering SIE'96,), Belgrade, Serbia, pp.323-326.
Gallagher, C. C., Knight, W. A., 1973, Group Technology,.
Butterworths.
Burbidge, J. L. (1989). Production Flow Analysis for planning
Group Technology. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M. & Afsarmanesh, H. (1999). The Virtual
Enterprise Concept. In L. M. Camarinha-Matos & H.
Afsarmanesh, Infrastructures for Virtual Enterprises:
Networking Industrial Enterprises (pp. 3-14), Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Wild, R. (1972) “Mass-production Management: the Design and
Operation of Production Flow-line Systems”, John Wiley
& Sons
Scholl, A. (1995) “Balancing and sequencing of Assembly
Lines” Physica- Verlag, Heidelberg
King, J. R. (1980) “Machine-Component grouping in production
Flow Analysis: an approach using a rank order clustering
algorithm” em Manufacturing Cells – A systems
Engineering view, Eds. Colin Moodie, Reha Uzsoy e
Yuehwern Yih, Taylor & Francis, 1995 (IJPR, vol. 18,
213-222)
King, J. R. e Nakornchai, V. (1982) “Machine-Component
group formation in Group Technology: review and
extension” International Journal of Production Research,
vol. 20, nº 2
Silva, S. C. e Alves, A. C. (2001) “SPOPs – Sistemas de
Produção Orientados ao Produto”, TeamWork’2001
organizado por Institute for International Research,
Lisboa
Silva, S. C. (1988) “ An Investigation into tooling requirements
and strategies for FMS operation”, PhD Thesis. LUT, UK
Silva, S. C. (1997) “Analytical Assessment of Tooling
Requirements for FMS Design and Operation”, In
Reengineering for Sustainable Industrial Production, Ed.
L.M. Camarinha-Matos, Chapman & Hall
Author One, Author Two, year, Title of Paper, Source, Vol. xx,
No. yy, pp. first page-last page.
Smith, C. S., Wright, P. K., 1996, CyberCut: A World Wide Web
Based
Design-to-Fabrication
Tool,
Journal
of
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 432-442.
Wang, L., Sams, R., Verner, M., Xi, F., 2000, Web-Based and
Sensor-Driven Device Monitoring and Control Using
Java 3D, Proceedings of 1th World Symposium on Group
Technology and Cellular Manufacturing, pp. 772-781,
8
Puerto Rico, USA.
Shah, J. J., Mäntylä, M., Nau, D.S., 1994, Advances in Feature
Based Manufacturing, Elsevier.
http://www.e-manufacturing.com/.