Bridging the Gap between High and Low-volume Production through Enhancement of Integrative Capabilities☆

Today—more than earlier—value creation, competitiveness and sustainable growth are dependent on development and utilization of new technology. New technologies enable new ways to develop products and production systems and may improve infrastructure for sharing information. These new technologies bridge the gap between production systems, function and design – and hence between high-volume and low-volume production. For manufacturing companies this represents a true paradigm shift referred to as Industry 4.0. Within this emerging endeavour, organizational learning and social and technical skills become increasingly important to enable faster and leaner operations. In this article, prior art of integrated processes, tools and guidelines for design has been studied. This will be seen in connection with how a company that operates in Norway have succeeded with developing an automated assembly solution for a large and complex product produced in low-volume by re-designing the product and its automated production process in parallel; i.e. a manufacturing context that is usually regarded as difficult to automate in an economical way. As automation knowledge within the company was limited, capabilities have been developed and demonstrated together with selected research partners in a technology project named Autoflex. According to our findings, to sustain competitive within a rapidly changing industry is dependent on, 1) a company's ability to absorb new technologies and provide flexibility within work environment-production system to maximize capacity utilization; 2) processes that facilitates team-work and iterative product and process development; 3) supporting tools such as design guidelines for sharing knowledge between production and product engineering. As a result, companies that succeed in enhancing their integrative capabilities will gain competitive advantage long term.

[1]  Marko Starbek,et al.  Project-driven Concurrent Product Development , 2009, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl..

[2]  Jay Jina,et al.  Applying lean principles for high product variety and low volumes: some issues and propositions , 1997 .

[3]  Tom Zacharia,et al.  Design for Manufacturing (DFM) approach for Productivity Improvement in Medical Equipment Manufacturing , 2014 .

[4]  Geoffrey Boothroyd,et al.  Product design for manufacture and assembly , 1994, Comput. Aided Des..

[5]  Samuel H. Huang,et al.  Design for manufacture and design for `X`: concepts, applications, and perspectives , 2001 .

[6]  A. H. Redford,et al.  Mechanized assembly : fundamentals of parts feeding, orientation, and mechanized assembly , 1968 .

[7]  Durward K. Sobek,et al.  Toyota's Principles of Set-Based Concurrent Engineering , 1999 .

[8]  G. Boothroyd,et al.  Design for Assembly and Disassembly , 1992 .

[9]  Magnus Persson,et al.  Managerial issues in modularising complex products , 2006 .

[10]  M. Blanchet,et al.  Industrie 4.0: the new industrial revolution. How Europe will succeed , 2014 .

[11]  J. Liker,et al.  The Toyota Way in Services: The Case of Lean Product Development , 2006 .

[12]  Gerfried Zeichen,et al.  Dynamic product development , 1998, Other Conferences.

[13]  Daryl Powell,et al.  Globally Distributed Engineering Processes: Making the Distinction between Engineer-to-order and Make-to-order , 2014 .

[14]  Ali K. Kamrani,et al.  A methodology for integrated product development using design and manufacturing templates , 2006 .

[15]  Brigitte Moench,et al.  Engineering Design A Systematic Approach , 2016 .

[16]  Günther Schuh,et al.  Collaboration Moves Productivity to the Next Level , 2014 .

[17]  Donald Gerwin,et al.  An Evaluation of Research on Integrated Product Development , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[18]  Rikard Söderberg,et al.  An approach for producibility and DFM-methodology in aerospace engine component development , 2013 .

[19]  Stig Ottosson,et al.  Dynamic product development — DPD , 2004 .

[20]  Kenn Steger-Jensen,et al.  Barriers towards integrated product development: Challenges from a holistic project management perspective , 2014 .

[21]  Jonathan Littman,et al.  The Ten Faces of Innovation , 2005 .

[22]  R. I. Winner,et al.  The Role of Concurrent Engineering in Weapons System Acquisition , 1988 .

[23]  Torgeir Welo,et al.  Design for Automated Assembly of Large and Complex Products: Experiences from a Marine Company Operating in Norway , 2015 .

[24]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  On customer value and improvement in product development processes , 2003 .

[25]  Martin O’Driscoll.  Design for manufacture , 2002 .

[26]  K. L. Edwards,et al.  Towards more strategic product design for manufacture and assembly: priorities for concurrent engineering , 2002 .

[27]  Mikell P. Groover,et al.  Automation, Production Systems, and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing , 1987 .

[28]  M. Hobday.  The Project-Based Organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems? , 2000 .

[29]  James G. Bralla.  Design for Excellence , 1995 .

[30]  B. L. Miles,et al.  Design for Manufacture and Assembly , 1998 .

[31]  Mathias Schmitt,et al.  Towards Industry 4.0 - Standardization as the crucial challenge for highly modular, multi-vendor production systems , 2015 .

[32]  Badr Haque.  Problems in concurrent new product development: an in‐depth comparative study of three companies , 2003 .

[33]  M. S. Parvez,et al.  Integrated manufacturing features and Design-for-manufacture guidelines for reducing product cost under CAD/CAM environment , 2013, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[34]  John Norrish,et al.  Recent Progress on Programming Methods for Industrial Robots , 2010, ISR/ROBOTIK.

[35]  P. A. McKeown,et al.  Product Design for Automated Manufacture and Assembly , 1986 .

[36]  M. Hobday.  Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation , 1998 .

[37]  Hans-Jörg Bullinger,et al.  Rapid product development—an overview , 2000 .