0
Research Papers

Extension of Manufacturing System Design Decomposition to Implement Manufacturing Systems That are Sustainable

[+] Author and Article Information
David S. Cochran

Systems Engineering,
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Fort Wayne, IN 46805
e-mail: cochrand@ipfw.edu

Steve Hendricks

Engineering Mechanics,
U.S. Air Force (Lt. Col., Retired)
Tulsa, OK 74119
e-mail: hendrickssd@gmail.com

Jason Barnes

Systems Engineering,
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Fort Wayne, IN 46805
e-mail: barnesj@ipfw.edu

Zhuming Bi

Mechanical Engineering,
Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Fort Wayne, IN 46805
e-mail: bi@ipfw.edu

Manuscript received December 1, 2015; final manuscript received July 19, 2016; published online August 10, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Karl R. Haapala.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 138(10), 101006 (Aug 10, 2016) (10 pages) Paper No: MANU-15-1625; doi: 10.1115/1.4034303 History: Received December 01, 2015; Revised July 19, 2016

This paper offers an extension of axiomatic design theory to ensure that leaders, managers, and engineers can sustain manufacturing systems throughout the product lifecycle. The paper has three objectives: to provide a methodology for designing and implementing manufacturing systems to be sustainable in the context of the enterprise, to define the use of performance metrics and investment criteria that sustain manufacturing, and to provide a systems engineering approach that enables continuous improvement (CI) and adaptability to change. The systems engineering methodology developed in this paper seeks to replace the use of the word “lean” to describe the result of manufacturing system design. Current research indicates that within three years of launch, ninety percent of “lean implementations” fail. This paper provides a methodology that leaders, managers, and engineers may use to sustain their manufacturing system design and implementation.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Three domains of design: customer, functional, and physical [41]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Product delivery system (PDS) and the seven requirements for system stability

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

High level path-dependent design on the PDS

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

CSD language expresses the reason (FR) for implementing the Andon board (PS)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Flame model of system design that includes the ideas and actions of people

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

CSD language to express the thinking layer of the flame model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

PDCA learning loop to sustain the system design through standard work

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

PDS requirements studied for FR valuation (without path dependency)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Cost in labor hours of not achieving system FRs (without path dependency)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Cost in labor hours of not achieving system FRs (based on path dependency)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Allowable investment in each PS to achieve system FRs

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In