Machine dedication and process flexibility in a group technology environment

Abstract This study investigates changes in inventory and customer service performance of a job-shop that desires to adopt a Group Technology (GT) philosophy in its shop floor operations. Simulation methodology is pursued to explore tradeoffs in shop performance between the routing flexibility of non-dedicated machines in a functional job-shop and the setup efficiency of dedicated machines in shops that have machine cell layouts. Further, traditional and GT-based scheduling procedures are investigated in these different shops to determine the conditions under which a GT philosophy may be profitably employed only in layout decisions, only in scheduling decisions, or in both layout and scheduling decisions. Results from this study show that shop layout choice is not a simple decision that can capitalize either on the high routing flexibility of the functional job-shop or on the setup efficiency advantages of a cell shop. The tradeoffs between routing flexibility and setup efficiency must be made carefully. The impact of demand variability on performance is also dependent on the type of layout. In general, product volume variability more adversely affects the performance of functional job-shops, while product mix variability has greater impact on the performance of cell shops. Finally, sensitivity analysis is performed to show that maintaining balance between the utilization of machines is a major determinant of performance, and consequently the best layout.

[1]  Nallan C. Suresh,et al.  Coping with the Loss of Pooling Synergy in Cellular Manufacturing Systems , 1994 .

[2]  F. Robert Jacobs,et al.  Applications and Implementation: AN EXPERIMENTAL COMPARISON OF CELLULAR (GROUP TECHNOLOGY) LAYOUT WITH PROCESS LAYOUT , 1987 .

[3]  Nallan C. Suresh.  Partitioning Work Centers for Group Technology: Insights from an Analytical Model* , 1991 .

[4]  N. Hyer.  The potential of group technology for U.S. manufacturing , 1984 .

[5]  F. Robert Jacobs,et al.  A simulation comparison of group technology with traditional job shop manufacturing , 1986 .

[6]  K. Y. Tam,et al.  An operation sequence based similarity coefficient for part families formations , 1990 .

[7]  Nancy Lea Hyer,et al.  Group technology in the US manufacturing industry: A survey of current practices , 1989 .

[8]  Nallan C. Suresh.  Partitioning Work Centers for Group Technology: Analytical Extension and Shop-Level Simulation Investigation* , 1992 .

[9]  Farzad Mahmoodi,et al.  An evaluation of order releasing and due date assignment heuristics in a cellular manufacturing system , 1990 .

[10]  A. Alan B. Pritsker,et al.  Introduction to simulation and SLAM II , 1979 .

[11]  Averill M. Law,et al.  Simulation Modeling and Analysis , 1982 .

[12]  Asoo J. Vakharia,et al.  Job and Family Scheduling of a Flow-Line Manufacturing Cell: A Simulation Study , 1991 .

[13]  Asoo J. Vakharia,et al.  Methods of Cell Formation in Group Technology: A Framework for Evaluation , 1986 .

[14]  John S. Morris,et al.  A simulation analysis of factors influencing the attractiveness of group technology cellular layouts , 1990 .

[15]  John L. Burbidge,et al.  The introduction of group technology , 1975 .

[16]  John B. Jensen,et al.  An Evaluation of Capacity Sensitive Order Review and Release Procedures in Job Shops , 1993 .

[17]  A. G. Burgess,et al.  Cellular manufacturing: its impact on the total factory , 1993 .

[18]  V. Barnett,et al.  Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1975 .

[19]  Joseph El Gomayel,et al.  GROUP TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTIVITY , 1986 .

[20]  Timothy L. Smunt,et al.  Countering the negative impact of intercell flow in cellular manufacturing / 1991:121 , 1991 .

[21]  Barbara B. Flynn.  Repetitive lots: The use of a sequence-dependent set-up time scheduling procedure in group technology and traditional shops , 1987 .