Design for Changeability

Schuh, Guenther; Lenders, Michael; Nußbaum, Christopher; Kupke, Daniel

doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-067-8_14

Cited by 30 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…new processing technologies, new market requirements, volatile sales volumes, etc. (Schuh et al , 2009; Wiendahl et al , 2007). Thus, changeability comprises several types and levels of change, e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical enablers of changeable and reconfigurable manufacturing and their industrial implementation

Andersen

Larsen

Brunoe

et al. 2018

JMTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose During design of reconfigurable manufacturing systems, manufacturing companies need to select and implement the right enablers of reconfigurability in accordance with the specific requirements being present in the manufacturing setting. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to investigate enablers of reconfigurability in terms of their importance in industry, current level of implementation in industry, and significant differences in their implementation and criticality across different manufacturing settings. Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire survey is conducted, in order to provide generalizable empirical evidence across various industries and manufacturing types. Findings The findings indicate that the level of implementation of the reconfigurability enablers is rudimentary, while their criticality is perceived higher than the current level of implementation. Moreover, significant differences regarding implementation and criticality of mobility, scalability, and convertibility were found for companies with varying degrees of manual work, make-to-stock production, and varying production volume, industry type and organization size. Research limitations/implications Main limitations of the research cover the relatively small sample size and non-random sampling method applied, primarily limited to one country, which could be increased to further extent the findings reported in this paper. Practical implications The findings indicate that the importance and implementation of reconfigurability enablers is contingent on the manufacturing setting. Thus, the research presented in this paper provides valuable knowledge in regard to aiding a paradigm shift in industry and help companies design manufacturing systems with the right reconfigurability enablers. Originality/value This paper expands research on manufacturing system design for changeability and reconfigurability, by explicitly considering these as capabilities that can be enabled in various ways for various purposes in different manufacturing contexts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical enablers of changeable and reconfigurable manufacturing and their industrial implementation

Andersen

Larsen

Brunoe

et al. 2018

JMTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Schuh et al transfer the mentioned system states explicitly on production systems and distinguish four occurring types of systems: simple, complicated, complex, complicated and complex. Hence, they divide up production systems into a complicated and complex part [7]. Coming from the same three states, this comparison clearly shows that complexity is related significantly different to the system.…”

Section: Complexity As System Statementioning

confidence: 92%

“…How to pass through the single steps depends on the particular application. The model differentiates if the user is confronted with a new problem (2 to 6) which has never been evaluated before, if he wants to transfer the evaluation process to a different element of the production system (1 to 7) or if there is already data of an earlier evaluation which shortens the expansion for the evaluation (1,6,7). The boxes coloured in dark grey depict implicit steps, which are already included in the first step.…”

Section: Quantify Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic Procedure for Handling Complexity in the Automotive Production

Schöttl

Herrmann

Maurer

et al. 2014

Enabling Manufacturing Competitiveness and Economic Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Volatile influences from global markets force manufacturing companies to be more flexible, innovative and efficient. Implementing these attributes in products, processes and production resources, requires a high rate of change in development periods of decreasing lengths. The increasing level of perceived complexity is a critical result of these changes. Manifold approaches were developed and studies were conducted to derive measures for complex issues. But in the industrial field, the usability of such measures poses a major challenge. In this paper, we bridge the gap between the scientific and the practical perspective on complexity and extract three basic complexity cases. On this basis, our procedure supports the systematic analysis, classification and quantification of complex issues in automotive production. The approach has been successfully applied in an industrial use case of an automotive assembly line.

show abstract

“…Most also yield evaluated solutions that provide a starting point for embodiment design. Although the FDO methodologies in Table 1 all require a Baseline Design (phase 1), its selection is usually ad hoc , without an explicit description. Only Nilchiani and Hastings 17 explicitly address the identification of a suitable Baseline Design to motivate FDCs, although they do not detail the substeps and criteria. Process management (phase 5) is only considered by certain FDO methodologies from the field of engineering systems. In the FDO methodologies from the field of engineering systems, the emphasis often lies on the extensive, quantitative assessment of a high number of FDCs (based on a limited number of design variables and for a limited number of objects to address change), whereas FDO methodologies from the field of manufacturing and factory planning tend to stress the gradual identification and containment of various FDCs based on many alternative design variables for numerous objects. Some FDO methodologies 17,31 intentionally embed the selection of flexibility‐relevant aspects (eg, selecting changeability type, suitable evaluation methodology) as an output of a separate step, while others constrain such aspects and pursue a specific goal from the beginning (eg, targeting “modularity” of Change Objects only 26 ). …”

Section: Context and Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A methodology for identifying flexible design opportunities in large‐scale systems

Allaverdi

Browning

2020

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite many uncertainties, industrial fields such as energy (eg, oil rigs), utilities infrastructure (eg, telecommunications), space systems, transportation systems, construction, and manufacturing make large and mostly irreversible investments in systems with potentially long life cycles. The life cycle value of such systems may be increased significantly by designing in the flexibility to make future changes. This paper presents a systematic methodology for designers to identify flexible design opportunities (FDOs) more comprehensively and earlier in the system design process. The methodology guides designers to generate flexible design concepts that can be assessed, selected, and integrated into a design during an early stage of the design process. We demonstrate and validate the FDO methodology on a case in the offshore drilling industry.

show abstract

Design for Changeability

Cited by 30 publications

References 3 publications

Critical enablers of changeable and reconfigurable manufacturing and their industrial implementation

Critical enablers of changeable and reconfigurable manufacturing and their industrial implementation

Systematic Procedure for Handling Complexity in the Automotive Production

A methodology for identifying flexible design opportunities in large‐scale systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About