industrial excellence lecture 2 production system design...
TRANSCRIPT
Industrial ExcellenceKPP319 – Product and Process Development
Mats Jackson, [email protected] Wiktorsson, [email protected]
Individual literature study
An individual reflection on future development regarding simulation as a tool within production and logistics management. In a brief PM (max 5 p), reflect and discuss upon following key topics for the future of discrete event simulation:
1. Model size and complexity1. Model size and complexity
2. Verification and validation techniques
3. Optimization
4. Parallel and distributed simulation
5. Internet based simulation
6. Human behavior and uncertainty modeling
7. Integration with ERP, PLM etc.
Search and refer to sources by your self!
PM – physical hand in and presentation 2011-10-04
Max 5 pages reflections and discussion.
Project
The participants perform in a group of 3-4 persons a project. A simulation-based study of an industrial production process, complemented by advanced production system analysis methods.
● A production system analysis focusing an aspect of industrial excellence
● Logic model as well as visualized model of the object that is analyzed● Logic model as well as visualized model of the object that is analyzed
● Simulation in Extend and Visual Components
● Valid and relevant modeling and analysis to the objective of study.
Expected results:
● Simulation model – present at presentation
● Project report – hand in 2011-12-06
● Group presentation 2011-12-06 and 2011-12-13 (backup 2011-12-20)
Projects
Topics linked to the build-up of the Virtual lab at MDH.
Examples on possible studies are:
● Hardening plant at Volvo CE
● 3D animation of hardening plant VCE (Visual Components). ● 3D animation of hardening plant VCE (Visual Components). Internal flow / External flow
● Discrete event simulation of hardening plant (Extend). Internalmaterial flow / External material flow.
● Robot cell within a assembly flow at Haldex – animation as well as simulation.
● Build upon previous RTT (Robot Till Tusen) studies
Will be further presented and decided in lecture 2011-09-13.
CurriculumW Date Time Lecturer Room Moment
35 2011-08-30 13:15-16:00 Magnus L3115 Course intro. Start literature study
36 2011-09-06 13:15-16:00 Magnus L249 Lecture. Production System Design
37 2011-09-13 13:15-16:00 Mats L249 Lecture, Discrete event simulation
38 2011-09-20 13:15-16:00 Mats H118Lecture. Simulation and modeling of a production system
39 2011-09-27 13:15-16:00 Magnus L3115 Guest
40 2011-10-04 13:15-17:00Mats / Magnus
L249 / L3117
Literature study presentation
41 2011-10-10 9-12 + 13-16 Johan Ernlund Simulation lab – Visual Components
41 2011-10-11 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L249 Project review 1 – objective and plan
41 2011-10-13 9-12 + 13-16 Johan Ernlund Simulation lab – Visual Components
41 2011-10-14 9-12 + 13-16 Johan Ernlund Simulation lab – Visual Components
5 O
PTIO
NS
41 2011-10-14 9-12 + 13-16 Johan Ernlund Simulation lab – Visual Components
42 2011-10-18 9-12 + 13-16 Johan Ernlund Simulation lab – Visual Components
42 2011-10-19 9-12 + 13-16 Johan Ernlund Simulation lab – Visual Components
43 2011-10-25 13:15-16:00 Raspen Guest
44 2011-11-01 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L249 Project review 2 - draft model and indata
45 2011-11-08 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L3115 Guest
46 2011-11-15 13:15-16:00 L3115 Project review 3 - validation of model
47 2011-11-22 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L3115 Project support
48 2011-11-29 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L3115 Project support
49 2011-12-06 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L3115 Final presentation of project
50 2011-12-13 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L249 Final presentation of project
51 2011-12-20 13:15-16:00 Mats /Magnus L249 Backup: Final presentation of project
5 O
PTIO
NS
To-dos
● Fill in project team and project / company (if any)
● Fill in date to participate in Lab
6
Lecture 2 – 2011-09-06
● Industrial Excellence - resumé
● The production system
● Production system design
●Design process●Design process
●Req´s – Alt’s – Eval
Production decisions haveimpact on the overall performance of the company
”.. what appears to be routine manufacturing decisions frequently come to limit the corporation’s strategic
options, binding it with facilities, equipment, personnel, basic controls and policies to a non-
competitive posture, which may take years to turn around.”
Skinner (1969)
PRODUCTION SYSTEM
The production system
Transformation of ”input” to products, from supplier to customer
PRODUCTION SYSTEM
Manufacturing
AssemblyParts
ManufacturingSuppliers
System supplier
HardwareSoftwareService
Industrial excellence
Decisions, plans, guidelines
Productionsystem design
Productionsystem
operations
Experience, knowledge, data
Competences, Tools
MethodsProcesses
Competences, ToolsMethodsProcesses
Olorgesailie
Ponte e Torri Arsenale di Venezia nel XVI secolo. Canaletto (1697-1768)
Putting out system (Tonya in Japan)
1913 Highland Park: T-Ford
Ford Rouge 1931
Toyota Nagoya 1952
Globally increasingmanufacturing activity
Economic activity within Manufacturing 1998 – 2008, at constant 1990 prices in US dollars. Source: UN Stats
A world wide 42% increase in
manufacturing activity (at constant prices)
1998-2008. 36% increase in GDP world wide 1998-2008
By Edward Burtynsky. Deda Chicken Processing Plant, Dehui City, Jilin Province, 2005.
Design: David Benqué, Royal College of Arts
● Industrial Excellence - resumé
● The production system
● Production system design
●Design process●Design process
●Req´s – Alt’s – Eval
Process and layout types
High
Low High
Project
Jobbing
Batch
Volume Manufacturingprocess types
Basic layouttypes
Projectprocesses
Jobbingprocesses
Fixed-positionlayout
Process
Low
Variety
Mass
Continous
processes
Batchprocesses
Massprocesses
Continousprocesses
Processlayout
Celllayout
Productlayout
Slack et al. (1998)
Typical cost functions
Fixed position Functional layout / process layout
Cell layout / Flow group
Product layout
Continous flow
Cost
Volume
But, big uncertanties in the cost functions! –What else influenceschoice of principle?
Typical manufacturing site
Parts manufacturingSurface treatment /
hardeningAssembly
Par
ts
Sup
plie
r
Mat
eria
l S
uppl
ier
Par
ts
Sup
plie
r
Mat
eria
l S
uppl
ier
Mat
eria
l S
uppl
ier
Typical manufacturing site
Parts manufacturingSurface treatment /
hardeningAssembly
Challenges, e.g.• Lot sizes• Materials handling• Order principles
2 3P
arts
S
uppl
ier
Mat
eria
l S
uppl
ier
Par
ts
Sup
plie
r
Mat
eria
l S
uppl
ier
Mat
eria
l S
uppl
ier
Solutions, e.g• Supply sequencing• Manufacturing process development• Manufacturing control
1 4
Variant flora in production systems…System Characteristic
Example
Flow pattern * Single straight line* Parallel lines* U-shaped cells * Dendritic flow
Cycle time * Parallel operations leading to long cycle times* Single line leading to short cycle times
Product movement device
* Belt* Roller conveyor* Overhead crane* Overhead crane* AGV
Pacing * Manual* Mechanical
Product mix * One product* Multiple products (in separate batches)* Mixed products (simultaneously)
Banking * Various removability of productsWork-station equipment
* Manual* Mechanical* Automatic
Work-station characteristics
* Workers may sit, stand, walk with a line or ride a line * Size/Length of station/line: Few or many workers* Worker density: Number of workers working at the same object
● Industrial Excellence - resumé
● The production system
● Production system design
●Design process●Design process
●Req´s – Alt’s – Eval
What is a production system?
Hubka & Eder, 1996
Porter, 1985
Reasons for design of production systemsInternal reasons
Product developmentIdea / need of renewalCost cutStructural rationalisation
External reasons
Market footprintCustomer preferencesVolume increaseAvaliable technologyStructural rationalisation
Change of principle…
Avaliable technologyChanging offeringSupply chain structureRegulation / legislation…
Hubka & Eder, 1996
Focusing on productiondevelopment, we are moving from a sequentialscheme to a parallel one Design and
Planning
Designing
Realising
Running-inOperation/
Maintaining
Retiring/Re-use
parallel one Design andRealisation
Running-in
Operation/Maintaining
Retiring/Re-use
Operation/Refining
Designing
Operation/Refining
Wiktorsson, 2000
Principal productrealization process
Manufacturing
operations
Product
design
Principal
product
Detail
product
Productidea
/
design task
Manufacturing
operations
design
spec
product
concept
product
design
Production
system
concept
Production
system
spec
Detail
production
design
Production
installation
Production
procure-
ment
However, the problem occurs if the productionsystem can’t cope with the new product
Manufacturing
operations
Product
design
Principal
product
Detail
product
Productidea
/
design task
Manufacturing
operations
design
spec
product
concept
product
design
Production
system
concept
Production
system
spec
Detail
production
design
Production
installation
Production
procure-
ment
Tied-up cost in production development project
Cost
100%Freedomof action
Tied-up share50%
Studyphase
Projectphase
Detaileddesign
Imple-mentation
Runningphase
Time
Tied-up shareof the total cost Actual
cash-flow
Concurrent engineering of productand production system
Productconcept
Systemdefinition
Traditional product and
production system development
Detaildesign
Productionsystem design
Productionsystem install.
Production
Concurrent engineering of
product and production system
Time reduction
Productconcept
Systemdefinition
Detaildesign
Productionsystem design
Productionsystem install.
Production
However, ConcurrentEngineering poses a number of challenges as well
Product development
Production systemdevelopment
Product development
Production systemdevelopment
A complex task to develop
Uncertainty
No losses
Cost
100%
50%
Studyphase
Projectphase
Detaileddesign
Imple-mentation
Runningphase
Time
Freedomof action
Tied-up shareof the total cost Actual
cash-flow
Productconcept System
definition
Traditional product andproduction system development
Concurrent engineering of
product and production system
Time reduction
Detaildesign Production
system designProduction
system install.
Production
Productconcept
Systemdefinition
Detaildesign
Productionsystem design
Productionsystem install.
Production
to developproduction systems!
Time is money
Early decisions
To sum up: Today is ”production system design”…
An investment project
Netz and Wiktorsson, 2009
A layout project
Muther, 1974
Part of a product development project Development of production principles
Ohno, 1988
● Industrial Excellence - resumé
● The production system
● Production system design
●Design process●Design process
●Req´s – Alt’s – Eval
The design paradox
”How can you decide the whole,
without knowing the parts? The parts without knowing the parts? The parts
depend in turn on the whole.”
Developments of the general model of the design process
synthesis(problem)analysis
(problem)analysis
(problem)analysis
(solution)synthesis
(solution)evaluation
(solution)synthesis
(solution)evaluation
(solution)synthesis
(solution)evaluation
Rosell, 1990
Design as a reduction process
Choice and evaluationscreens
Concept Large number ofdesign options
Uncertaintyregardingthe finaldesign
One design
Time
Certaintyregarding
the finaldesign
Final designspecification Slack et al., 1998
The hierarchy of systems
EnergyMaterials
Signals
Energy’Materials’
Signals’
Overallfunction
Sub-function
Complexity
Pahl and Beitz, 1996
Steps of the planning and design process
Task: Market, Company, Economy
Plan and clarify the task:Analyse the market and the company situation
Find and select product ideasFormulate a product proposal
Clarify the taskElaborate a requirements list
Requirements list (Design spec)
Develop the principle solution:Identify the essential problemsEstablish function structures
Search for working principles and working structuresCombine and firm up into concept variants
Evaluate against technical and economic criteria
Concept (Principle solution)
Develop the construction structure:Preliminary form design, materials selection and calculation
Select best preliminary layouts
Upg
rade
and
Im
prov
e
Info
rmat
ion:
Ada
pt t
he r
equi
rem
ents
list
Pla
n &
cla
rify
the
task
Con
cept
ual d
esig
nE
mbo
dim
ent
desi
gnSelect best preliminary layoutsEvaluate against technical and economic criteria
Preliminary layout
Define the construction layout:Eliminate weak spots
Check for errors, disturbing influences and minimum costsPrepare the preliminary parts list andproduction and assembly document
Definitive layout
Prepare production and operating documents:Elaborate detail drawings and parts lists
Complete production, assembly, transportand operation instuctions
Check all documents
Product documentation
Solution
Upg
rade
and
Im
prov
e
Info
rmat
ion:
Ada
pt t
he r
equi
rem
ents
list
Em
bodi
men
t de
sign
Det
ail d
esig
n
Pahl and Beitz, 1996
Task: Market, Company, Economy
Plan and clarify the task:Analyse the market and the company situation
Find and select product ideas
Formulate a product proposalClarify the task
Elaborate a requirements list
Requirements list (Design spec)
Develop the principle solution:Identify the essential problems
Establish function structuresSearch for working principles and working structures
Combine and firm up into concept variants
Evaluate against technical and economic criteria
Concept (Principle solution)
Develop the construction structure:Preliminary form design, materials selection and calculation
Select best preliminary layoutsEvaluate against technical and economic criteria
Upg
rade
and
Im
prov
e
Info
rmat
ion:
Ada
pt t
he r
equi
rem
ents
list
Pla
n &
cla
rify
the
task
Con
cept
ual d
esig
nE
mbo
dim
ent
desi
gn
Problem statement
Visions / Objective
Requirements
Pre-conditions
PropositionsPreliminary layout
Define the construction layout:Eliminate weak spots
Check for errors, disturbing influences and minimum costsPrepare the preliminary parts list andproduction and assembly document
Definitive layout
Prepare production and operating documents:Elaborate detail drawings and parts lists
Complete production, assembly, transport
and operation instuctionsCheck all documents
Product documentation
Solution
Upg
rade
and
Im
prov
e
Info
rmat
ion:
Ada
pt t
he r
equi
rem
ents
list
Em
bodi
men
t de
sign
Det
ail d
esig
n
Pahl and Beitz, 1996
Hubka & Eder, 1996
Rosell, 1990
Propositions
Evaluation
One example on design process for production systems
Problem
Analysis of situation Setting of objectives
Conceptual modelling
1.Identifying the required manufacturing functions needed.
2.Make vs. buy decisions.3.Input/output-diagrams
Evaluation of concepts
Decision
Detailed design
Evaluation of concepts
Decision
Solution
3.Input/output-diagrams (IOD) of a number of Business System Options (BSOs) fulfilling the requirements of the desired, physical system.
4.Convert the physical IOD to including control models.
5.Refine control specificaspects within the different BSOs
(Wu, 1994)
Method for planning the assembly system
Design Process Management
ProjectPlanning
Preparation ofinvestment
data
Preparatory design
Backgroundstudy
Prestudy
Requirements specificationfor the assembly system
The productdesign
process
AX BX
A B
C
system design process
Design specification
Evaluation of assemblysystem alternatives
Creation of conceptualassembly system alternatives
Detailed design of selectedassembly systems
Decision:Selection ofassembly system
Result:Description of theassembly system
D
E
F
Bellgran, 1998
● Industrial Excellence - resumé
● The production system
● Production system design
●Design process●Design process
●Req´s – Alt’s – Eval
What to evaluate?
Basically: • Time, • Cost and • Quality.
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
• Quality, • Speed, • Dependability, • Flexibility and • Cost
…links the operation strategy to the performance of the production system. of the production system.
Slack et al. (1998)
• Cost, • Quality, • Time, • Efficiency, • Flexibility, • Risk and• Environmental effects
… the seven ”universal virtues” of DFX
Olesen (1992)
• Cost,
• Delivery reliability,
• Delivery speed,
• Quality,
• Flexibility,
• Environmental friendliness and
• Employee relationships
… parameters as defining the manufacturing strategy (based on a review by Öhrström,1997)
Attributes to evaluate?
Goldratt and Fox (1986) defines three global economic measures: • net profit, • return on investment and • cash flow. Translated into three parameters to be used in operations, • Throughput: the rate at which the
Troxler and Blank (1989) defines a manufacturing system value (MSV) as a combination of: • Suitability, based on factors such as:
investment, growth, technology and market position, employee relations, workforce
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
• Throughput: the rate at which the system generates money through sales.
• Inventory: all the money the system invests in purchasing things the system intends to sell.
• Operating expense: all the money the system spends in turning inventory into throughput.
position, employee relations, workforce composition, organisation structure and operations management.
• Capability, based on factors such as: design, function, reliability, availability, flexibility, human factors and technical feasibility.
• Performance based on factors such as: throughput, quality, inventory, information, and capital utilisation.
• Productivity, based on factors such as: economic infrastructure, customer response and environmental influence.
Line performance as a function of line parameters
Repair times
Number of workstationsNumber of repairmenDispatching rule
Interfailure times
Preventive maintenenceEngineering changesCalibration / setupPersonal fatigue / delayLunch / break
Waiting time
Reliability
AvailabilityScheduleddowntime
Unscheduleddowntime
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
Lunch / break
Workstation layoutJob complexity
ToolsSkill level / discipline
Parts QualityEnvironment
Assembly process
Operationprocess time Capacity
Yieldcapacity
Yield
SchedulingJob dispatchingParts availabilityLayout / processMaterial handling
Lineperformance
(Chow 1990)
Three cases: Conditions
Case A Case B Case C
Line of business Truck industry Truck industry Car industry
Replacement or New? Replacement Replacement Replacement
Incentive for change New product Volume shift Space needed and work
rationalisation
Assembly capacity Tens Tens Hundreds
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
Assembly capacity
(thousands / year)
Tens Tens Hundreds
Total no. handled
components
Thousands Thousands Thousands
Components / product Hundreds Hundreds Some fifty to hundred
Data collection
technique
Interview and archival
Participant-observ. and archival
Direct observation and interview
Wiktorsson, 2000
Case A. Requirements (R) and Aims (A)
(R1) Decrease of assembly cost with 10% due to product improvements(R2) Decrease of assembly cost with 20% due to production improvements(R3) Two parallel product programmes during 1,5 year(R4) Verified quality on product/process before start of production(R5) A technical capacity of X products/day (work during day time)
+ Y assembly-kits/day(R6) Production design in accordance to a company-specific pre-defined
production philosophy
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
production philosophy (A1) Minimal losses in flow and no constraints in product mix. To be solved by:
- balancing on group level- new assembly sequence- flexible production layout
(A2) Fixed works done in the main flow (A3) Optimisation of spaces(A4) In the best way utilise the knowledge of production personnel and their
management in order to avoid known problems concerning:- quality- ergonomic issues- assembly sequence
Wiktorsson, 2000
Objectives (O1 - O4) and fundamental aspects (FA1 and FA2) in case B
(O1) A capacity of X products / day on two shifts (16 hours)(O2) Y percent on a company-specific productivity measure(O3) Z percent decrease in assembly time compared to today’s assembly system,
on today’s products and mix(O4) All pre-assembly should, where economically justifiable, be done by
suppliers in order to have as little material handling as possible in the
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
suppliers in order to have as little material handling as possible in the assembly system.
(FA1) Minimise the material handling. As complete components as possible should be delivered into the position at the line.
(FA2) Create a visual process. It should be seen and signalled, wherever and whenever the process is not working according to plan.
Wiktorsson, 2000
Aims (A), Secondary Aims (SA) and Prerequisites (P) for Case C
(A1) Reduce the used floor area in the assembly shop by a specific space.(A2) Increase productivity by reducing man-hours.(SA1) Simpler planning procedure(SA2) Better ergonomics through job variety
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
(SA2) Better ergonomics through job variety(SA3) Possibility to introduce semi-automated assembly(P1) No design changes on the product(P2) Capacity of N products per year
Wiktorsson, 2000
Generic optimization formula…
Back to mathematics…
Maximise f(x) objective function
Subject to gi(x) = 0 i ∈ I functional constraints: equalities
hj(x) ≥ 0 j ∈ J functional constraints: inequalities
x ∈ S set constraints
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
… applied on production system design
Maximise w(x)
Subject to pi(x) = Ri i ∈ I
qj(x) ≥ Rj j ∈ J
x ∈ C
Where x represents the production system design
w(x) represents the winning abilities
pi(x) = Ri represents the functional requirements: nominal values
qj(x) ≥ Rj represents the functional requirements: threshold values
x ∈ C represents the design constraints
Wiktorsson, 2000
Possible spec´ structure for production system design
QUALIFYING LEVELS
WINNING ABILITIESRequirements on
Function
Constraints on Design solution due to:
internal reasons
external reasons
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
reasons reasonsExamples Examples Examples Examples
• Product description
• Required production volume
• Product variants
• Company guideline
• Existing equipment
• Skills, experience and knowledge
• Component packing
• Quality assurance
• Regulations• Employment laws
• Time to customer• A specific type of
cost • A specific type of
flexibility• A specific type of
productivityRisk / Changes
Risk / Changes
Risk / Changes
Wiktorsson, 2000
Spec´s framework for the three cases
QUALIFYING LEVELS WINNINGFunctional req’s Internal design constraints External design constr’s ABILITIES
CASE
A
Nominal values* 2 product progr. for 1,5 year* Verified quality in product
start * No constraints in product mix
Threshold values* X products/day and Y kits/day* Decrease assembly cost …
…by 20%, due to production improvements
* Production according to a company-specific philosophy
* Work in one shift* Existing building & line for
today’s product * Balancing on group level* New assembly sequence
* Component suppliers and packing
* Assembly-kitting * Product quality-assurance* Regulations * Employment laws
* Availability, ease of operations
* Complexity and size of material handling
* Ease of installation & resetting
* Flexibility for new and existing variants
* Working environment, controllability
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
improvements …by 10%, due to product imprvm.
controllability* Economy: costs for
investments and operations
CASE
B
Nominal values* Today’s product
Threshold values* X products/day * Y on a produc-tivity measure* Z % decrease in assembly-
time compared to today’s situation
* Two shifts * Today’s building* Line solution. Possibly some
parallel sections * A visual process. * Pre-assembly by the
suppliers, if economically justifiable
* Component suppliers and packing
* Assembly-kitting * Product quality-assurance* Regulations * Employment laws
* Simplicity and visuality of the process
* Minimised material handling* Investments and operational
costs
CASE
C
Nominal values* Existing product
Threshold values* Reduce used floor area by a
specific space* Given capacity / variant &
year* Today’s quality
* X hours per year available * Existing building* Line flow with a fixed
sequence* Limitations on new equipment * Installation during operation
* Component suppliers and packing
* Regulations * Employment laws
* Minimise used floor area in the assembly shop
* Maximise productivity by reducing man hours
Guidelines for deploying the production flow
On all levels of abstraction:
1.Should the product be in separate processes due to product differences?2.Should the process be parallelised due to cycle time and capacity? 3.Can the process be modularised based on a modular product structure?
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
When designing a specific part, i.e. defining the attributes on a building block that describes the properties of that specific sub-system:
1.The level of mechanisation and automation2.Production rate = time available / number to be assembled3.Number of stages in a line solution = total work content / cycle time4.Minimise losses by balancing5.The layout of the flow depends on the building and philosophy
Example on Modelling techniques
GRAI (Graphe à Résultats et Activités Interliés) (Doumeingts et al., 1987)
Structured Analysis and Design Technique(SADT) (Ross and Brackett, 1976) / IDEF0 (Integrated computer-aidedmanufacturing DEFinition) /Astrakan
CIM-OSA (1989) for Computer Integrated
A21Manufacturing
functionInputs
Control
Output
A0
A1A2
A3
A2 A22A23
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
CIM-OSA (1989) for Computer Integrated Manufacturing
The Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method (SSADM) presented by for instanceDowns et al. (1992)
MechanismA23
A231A232
Feasibility studyProblem identification
Project identification
Analysis of systems operationand problems
Specification of requirements
Select technical option
Data design
Physical design
Systems analysis
System design
Case: Example on first rough modelling
Assembly system
Supplier CustomerInteriorass.
Buffer Exteriorass.
Buffer
Pre-assembly
KittingBuffer
Autom. lineAutom./
manual line
AGV
Manualass. type A
Manualass. type X
AGVBuffer
Cycle timePersonsNo comp.AreaCostetc.
Autom. line
Attributes
ResponstimeCapacityAreaCostetc.
Autom./manual line
Buffer
rough modellingof assemblyplant
Ass. ofguidepins
Marking
Ass. ofcrankshaft
& shellsAss. of
crankshaftsealing
Ass. ofpiston Ass. of
flywheel/driveplate
Ass. ofclutch
Handlingof large pallets
Handlingof small pallets
Buffer Buffer
Buffer
Buffer
Materialshandling
AG
V
Buffer
Materialshandling
pers
on
Assembly ofpiston
Justification approaches for analysis of production systems
Justification Methodologies
Strategic Approaches Analytic Approaches Economic Approaches
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
MathematicalAnalysis
ExperimentalAnalysis
Scorecards
Linearadditivemodels
AHP Models
”Back-of-the-envelope”calculations
Queingnetworks
Spreadsheets
Payback
Net PresentValue
Internal Rateof Return
OtherDiscountedCash Flowmethods
Non DCFmethods
SensitivityAnalysis
Technicalbenefits
BusinessAdvantage
Competetivefactors
FutureExpansion
ValueAnalysis
Optimisationtechniques
Trace-drivensimulations
Monte Carlosimulations
Wiktorsson, 2000
Value analysis models
Criterion A
Criterion B
Criterion C
Criterion XHighLow
Profile charts, checklists and symbolic scorecards
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
HighLow
Weight Alt. 1 ... Alt. MCriterion A 4 3 ... 1Criterion B 2 7 ... 5Criterion C 1 4 ... 7... ... ... ...Criterion X 2 1 ... 3Σ Weighted scores: 105 ... 77
Strategic attributes
A B C X...Level 1Categories
Level 2Attributes
Level 3Alternatives 1 M...
...
Linear additive models Analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
Wiktorsson, 2000
10 years ago: DE and geom. simulation and theirvendors
Software Company
Arena Systems Modeling Company
AutoMod AutoSimulationsDE3 BYG Systems Ltd.
Discrete Extend Imagine That, Inc.Event Factor/Aim Pritsker Corporation
Req´s - Alt´s - Eval.
Simulation Micro Saint Micro Analysis and Design, Inc.Software ProModel Production Modeling Corp. of Utah
Quest Deneb Robotics
Simple++ AesopTaylor F&H Simulations Inc.
Witness Lanner GroupCimStation SILMA
Geometry GRASP BYG Systems Ltd.Simulation IGrip Deneb Robotics
Software Robcad Tecnomatics Technologies Inc.Workspace 4 Robot Simulations Ltd.
Klingstam and Gullander, 1997
Case: from CAD to instruction
Konstruktör
ManufacturingEngineer
ProposedchangesPII with
CAD-drawingwith articles
DesignEngineer
PlatformConstraints
Operationsengineering
OPERATION PII
T Op R K Operation description Stn Variant TMU M 5 D Pull tape from page, … XYZ 755 10 AB Place the strip at the … 320 15 Take tool A and pull … 150 505 Pull tape from … XYZ 755
STRUCTURE R No Art.No Name Moment Variant T/U week A 2 311487 Strip xx XYZ T 9943 B 1 862144 Strip xy XYZ, XY T 9943 PICTURE 3-9943 TOOL Tool no T Tool name Operation 15424 Tool A 10, 510 28734 Tool B 15, 515 TEXT … notes and comments …
CHANGES Week UF No Des No Proj. Cause
OperationsSequencing
ProductionEngineer
Modifiedlayout
Layout
in productdesign
PII withTMU
Assemblyinstruction
Layout
Balanceengineering
AssemblySequence
Packing
Week UF No Des No Proj. Cause 9943 GN C39422-9 465534 XXY Structure updated
Name
Person Date Introduction No:C16-9
Sequence list 99-XX-XX Plant: X Project: 452 PII St W/ID Name Max B1 B2 BX C16-7 10 215 Ass’y X 335 315 315 335 C16-2 10 215 Ass’y Y 625 625 - 600 C27-1 10 215 Cut Z … 90 - - -
Balance instruction
No Type Name Total Time 156432 <type of balance> Ass’y X 2547 Adress Date Length Made by Takt 18725-87 9935 1 N. P-son XX #/hrs Time Activity PII+S+B Op F Variant PII S+B
Open xyz 16-6 10 88 110 Go to Y S6 ZX3 90 Ass’y Q 16-6 20 88 15
Wiktorsson, 2000
The tools and methods used in the previous Case
Description Usage in this case
Catia CAD-system describing the product and tools. Engineering design
T IGRIP Detailed simulation/visualisation with OLP-abilities Geometric simulation
O RobCAD Robot simulation program (similar to IGRIP) Geometric simulation
O 4D-Navigator Visualising product and tools Geometric packing
LErgoplan
Visualising assembly and material facades. Work place design
LS
ErgoplanVisualising assembly and material facades. Ergonomic considerations
Work place design
CC-Plant Process description with attributes Process description
Witness Flow simulation program for material and line Flow simulation
ME
FMEA Checklist for failure/consequence analysis
T VCCQ Checklist for quality assurance
H SAM Time analysis of assembly activities
OD
DFA/DFM Analysis of assemblyability and manufactureability
Wiktorsson, 2000
Case: tool usage
4D-Navigator
CC-Plant Witness
IGRIP/RobCAD
Ergoplan
Flow
Process
4D-Navigator
CatiaProduct
Static model:Geometric/Descriptive
Dynamic model:Kinematic/Flow simulation
Note that the tools have capabilities not used in this case, that is, the circles could be placed differently in another case
Wiktorsson, 2000
Referenced litterature
Bellgran M (1998) Systematic Design of Assembly Systems—Preconditions and Design Process Planning. Dissertation. Assembly Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linköping University.
Chow W-M (1990) Assembly Line Design. Methodology and Applications. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.CIM-OSA (1989) Project 688: Open System Architecture for CIM. ESPRIT Consortium AMICE (Eds.). Springer Verlag.Doumeingts G, Vallespir B, Darricau D, Roboam M (1987) ”Design Methodology for Advanced Manufacturing Systems.”
Computers in Industry. 9(4):271-96.Downs E, Clare P, Coe I (1992) Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method: Application and Context. 2nd Edition,
Prentice Hall.Goldratt E, Fox R E (1986) The Race. Croton on the Hudson, NY: North River Press.Hill T (1995) Manufacturing Strategy—Text & Cases. London: Macmillan Press Ltd.Klingstam P, Gullander P (1997) ”Overview of Simulation Tools for Computer-Aided Production Engineering.” Proceedings Klingstam P, Gullander P (1997) ”Overview of Simulation Tools for Computer-Aided Production Engineering.” Proceedings
from ASI'97, Advanced Summer Institute. Budapest, Hungary.Olesen J (1992) Concurrent Development in Manufacturing—based on dispositional mechanisms. Institute for Engineering
Design. Lyngby: The Technical University of Denmark.Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. London: Springer Verlag.Rosell G (1990) Notes on the design process. (In Swedish) Stockholm: Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan, avd. för teknik- och
vetenskapshistoria.Ross D T, Brackett J W (1976) ”An approach to structured analysis.” Computer Decisions. 8(9):40-44.Skinner W (1969) ”Manufacturing—Missing Link in Corporate Strategy.” Harvard Business Review. May-June, 1969.Slack N, Chambers S, Harland C, Harrison A, Johnston R (1998) Operations Management. Second Edition. London: Pitman
Publishing. Wiktorsson M (2000) Performance assessment of assembly systems – Linking strategy to analysis in early stage design of
large assembly systems. Dissertation, KTH, 2000.Wu B (1994) Manufacturing Systems Design and Analysis. Second Edition. London: Chapman & Hall.Öhrström P (1997) Production System Evaluation: A Theoretical Analysis. Licentiate thesis at Assembly Technology,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Linköping University.