1 / 11

Comparative Influence of Three Flexibility Types on Manufacturing Lead-Time Performance

Comparative Influence of Three Flexibility Types on Manufacturing Lead-Time Performance. Authors: S. Wadhwa, K.S. Rao, F.T.S. Chan Received: 19 Apr 2004 Accepted: 2 Feb 2005 Published: 23 Nov 2005 Presented by: Ben Spencer 12 Nov 2007. Introduction .

ezra-randall
Télécharger la présentation

Comparative Influence of Three Flexibility Types on Manufacturing Lead-Time Performance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparative Influence of Three Flexibility Types on Manufacturing Lead-Time Performance Authors: S. Wadhwa, K.S. Rao, F.T.S. Chan Received: 19 Apr 2004 Accepted: 2 Feb 2005 Published: 23 Nov 2005 Presented by: Ben Spencer 12 Nov 2007

  2. Introduction • This paper attempted to show that three types of manufacturing flexibility affected lead-time. • Transformation (i.e. Types of machining operations) • Sequencing (Order transformations are done in) • Product (Flexibility inherently designed into a product)

  3. Introduction (Cont.) • Reasons for paper • Authors state that research has not been done combining these three types of flexibility and that the current literature only deals with one specific type. • The authors provide only a conceptual model. This I assume is because research in combining these three flexibility types has never been done, and the authors wish to there model to be a starting point for further research.

  4. Models and Methods • Authors state that simulations were performed on their conceptual models. However, no information is included as to what these models contained or used, to describe the three flexibility types, or how they arrived at their lead time (statistical) conclusions.

  5. Results • Transformation Flexibilty

  6. Results (Cont.) • Sequencing

  7. Results (Cont.) • Product

  8. Combined Results

  9. Conclusions • Designing your product to be inherently flexible, gives the greatest reduction in lead times when changes take place. • The conceptual idea that going from level 1 (no flexibility) to level 2 (first initial flexibility improvements) does have impact on shortening lead times seems intuitively factual. • Authors do not specifically explain the major variables of their results. • TFL, SFL, PFL, (How do you go from one level to the next) • Further research could be conducted to show what happens to throughput as flexibility levels go up.

  10. Implications • As more and more manufacturing operations tend to move towards Flexible Manufacturing Systems, they will need to optimize how much and how many resources they spend on making their operations for flexible. As the paper showed, there is a diminishing return for each advancement in flexibility, and combining the lead time decrease, with the cost to make the operations more flexible will need to be determined.

  11. THANK YOU!QUESTIONS?How about Matt Allen’s AWESOME catch with one toe in bounds Thursday Night?

More Related