The cellular manufacturing paradox: a critical review of simulation studies

Purpose – A number of simulation studies have been conducted previously by several researchers, in order to compare the performance of cellular and functional layouts. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the lack of objectivity of a number of these studies, in order to explain the origin of their conflicting conclusions.Design/methodology/approach – A taxonomy of the main experimental factors and performance measure used in the main simulation comparative studies is followed by a critical assessment of ten of these studies. The analysis is focused on the objectivity of the layout comparison methodologies. Then, the determined shortcomings are categorized and some of them are illustrated by way of simulation.Findings – The revealed shortcomings are most likely responsible for the conflicting conclusions of the studies and may well explain what is called in the literature the “cellular paradox.”Originality/value – This work sets up the basis for an objective comparison methodology between the two manu...

[1]  Jing-Wen Li,et al.  Improving the performance of job shop manufacturing with demand-pull production control by reducing set-up/processing time variability , 2003 .

[2]  S. M. Shafer,et al.  A simulation analyses of factors influencing loading practices in cellular manufacturing , 1995 .

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

[4]  Joseph Sarkis,et al.  A review and analysis of comparative performance studies on functional and cellular manufacturing layouts , 1998 .

[5]  F. W. Craven.  Some Constraints, Fallacies and Solutions in Gt Applications , 1974 .

[6]  Randall P. Sadowski,et al.  Simulation with Arena , 1998 .

[7]  C. Carl Pegels,et al.  Performance evaluation of cellular manufacturing systems: a taxonomy and review of research , 1996 .

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

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

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

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

[12]  John W. Nazemetz,et al.  Evaluation of the performance domain of cellular and functional layouts , 1998 .

[13]  Gajendra K. Adil,et al.  Effect of conversion of functional layout to a cellular layout on the queue time performance: some new insights , 2006 .

[14]  Faizul Huq,et al.  A simulation analysis of factors influencing the flow time and through‐put performance of functional and cellular layouts , 2001 .

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

[16]  John S. Morris,et al.  A simulation comparison of process and cellular layouts in a dual resource constrained environment , 1994 .

[17]  John B. Jensen,et al.  Machine dedication and process flexibility in a group technology environment , 1996 .

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

[19]  Barrie Dale,et al.  Planning the introduction and predicting the benefits of group technology , 1984 .

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

[21]  John M. Charnes,et al.  Cellular Versus Functional Layouts Under a Variety of Shop Operating Conditions , 1993 .

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