FLEXIBLE MANUFACTURING

Ads by Google
Add CPIM to Your Resume - Demonstrate your production and inventory skills
with APICS CPIM. - www.apics.org/certification
Arena Animation - Bsc Animation & Multimedia 3D Visual Effects Courses
Chennai - www.arenaannanagar.com
Acme Manufacturing - Provider of automated programmable finishing &
manufacturing systems. - www.acmemfg.com
Industrial Automation - Total solutions - PLCs, HMI, S-ware SCADA, Panels,
Sensors, Instruments - www.radix.co.in

Ads by Google
Gear Manufacturing
Gear Grinding & GearBox Rebuild
Large Precision Machining
www.itamco.com

Tubing Manufacturing
We provide high quality TPE tubing,
custom sizes and packaging
www.wmtubing.com

FERRIC Machinery
Quality new & used equipment
Dare to compare
ferricmachinery.com

Six Sigma Training India

Six Sigma certification for Rs 6618
Limited period offer. Apply NOW
iactglobal.in/sixsigma
Related toand sometimes synonymous withagile manufacturing, adaptable
manufacturing, cellular manufacturing, computer-integrated manufacturing, flexible
machining, and flexible automation, flexible manufacturing encompasses a diverse
set of manufacturing principles and technologies with a few common goals:

achieving a highly automated manufacturing process with rigorous

computerized monitoring and management of quality and productivity
making manufacturing operations readily scalable for different levels of
output
allowing customization and reconfiguration of manufacturing processes with
minimal downtime and cost
providing management with detailed and timely information about the
manufacturing process
enabling manufacturers to coordinate their work processes with those of their
suppliers and customers to maximize efficiency and minimize costs

More specifically, flexible manufacturing systems (FMS) generally consist of a

combination of computerized numerical control (CNC) machines, robots, self-
diagnostic systems, and a hierarchical information system. They may also include
any number of other devices for material handling and other functions. These
systems are designed to be easily reprogrammed or even regrouped with other
devices in order to permit rapid and inexpensive changes in the manufacturing
process, facilitating quick responses to market changes and allowing for so-called
mass customization of products. FMS can likewise monitor, schedule, and route
workflow to maximize efficiency and to avoid deadlocks due to component failures or
backlogs on certain devices.

THE BASICS OF FLEXIBLE

MANUFACTURING

Although each FMS is unique in configuration and process, an abstract description of

overall operations in outline form is possible. First, numerical control programs and
computer-aided process planning are utilized to develop the sequence of production
steps for each machined part. Next, based on inventory, orders, and computer
simulations of how an FMS can run most economically, a schedule is established for
parts that are going to be produced on that day. Following that, material and
required tooling are retrieved either automatically or manually from storage and
loaded into the system. Once loaded, the FMS begins machining operations.
According to the process plan, robots, conveyors, and other automated material
handling devices transport the workpiece between workstations. Should any tool
break down during the production cycle, an FMS can reroute the workpiece to other
tools within the system.

PART FAMILIES.

Most FMS (or their subsystems) are designed to produce any number of related
workpieces. In general, the essential characteristics that constitute a workable "part
family" are common shape, size, weight, and tolerance range. Since members of a
part family share many traits, usually a software-directed change is all an FMS
requires to switch from producing one kind of part to another.

FLEXIBLE MODULES.

Workstations, or individual processing units, are a concept central to any discussion

of FMS. A processing unit refers to the sum of operations performed within a
particular factory area containing several pieces of process equipment meant to carry
out individual or multiple operations on various products. Indeed, different
workstation distinctions mark the divide between two FMS subsystemsthe flexible
manufacturing module (FMM) and the flexible manufacturing cell (FMC). The
module comprises a stand-alone numerically controlled machine tool (NCMT),
automatic material handling device (such as a robot or automatic pallet changer) and
an automated monitoring system to control for tool breakage, equipment
depreciation, automatic measuring and related diagnostics. FMM constitute the first
step in the automation of the loading and unloading of parts to and from an NCMT.
For machining centers, automatic pallet changers make it possible for unmanned
attended machining to occur for up to six hours.

FLEXIBLE CELLS.

The flexible manufacturing cell, on the other hand, comprises two or more machine
tools which may or may not include NCMT. Similar to FMM, the FMC incorporates a
material handling device (such as a robot) servicing several machine tools arranged
in a circle or line. Automatic pallet changers are also used in conjunction with
automatic conveyor systems linking NCMT. Compared to an FMM, information flow
to and from an FMC is integrated into a larger monitoring control system. FMC are
less flexible than FMM. Usually FMC are applied to a "family," as opposed to some
broader grouping of componentsfor instance shafts within a prescribed size range.
Because each FMC is designed to meet the specialized requirements of different
customers, standardization is not a universal feature. In fact just the design phase
requires considerable consultation and information exchange between the specific
user and FMC supplier. It should be noted that early versions of FMC and FMS
initially functioned below their anticipated performance level. Problems arose due to
the technical difficulties involved when linking product flows with different
machines. As a result, demand for FMC is initially limited to a few large firms with
enough financial clout to undertake the risky investment the systems represented.

COMPONENTS OF A SYSTEM.

With the above subsystems in mind, FMS can be distinguished by the following
characteristics: the flow of tools and parts between different machine groups is
automated; material handling is mostly, but not exclusively, performed by automated
guided vehicle systems (AGVS), and not, as in the case of FMC, industrial robots.
This is explained by the fact that FMS consist of machining centers mostly involved
with the production of, geometrically speaking, prismatic parts, while material
handling robots work in conjunction with computer numerically controlled (CNC)
lathes that machine rotational parts. To a far greater extent FMS also incorporate the
use of conveyors and rail guided transport systems. And, in comparison with their
subsystems, FMS have a lower rate of labor utilization, higher labor productivity,
and, in certain cases, higher capital productivity. FMS are usually equipped with a
"hot standby" feature. This alludes to a computer control system comprising two
computer units. Should one fail to operate, the other automatically kicks in to keep
the FMS running.

TYPES OF FLEXIBILITY.

In terms of joint characteristics, FMS and their subsystems share most, if not all, of
the following to differing degrees:
 1. Machine flexibilitythe ease of making the changes necessary to manufacture
a specific set of part/product types.
2. Process flexibilitythe capacity to manufacture a given set of part/product
types in a variety of ways, each possibly using different materials.
3. Product flexibilitythe systematically unique condition to change over to
produce a new set of parts or products economically and quickly.
4. Routing flexibilitythe capability to cope with breakdowns and continue
manufacturing a given set of part/product types using alternative routes.
5. Volume flexibilitythe ability to operate profitably across a range of different
production volumes.
6. Expansion flexibilitythe potential to expand in a modular fashion.
7. Production flexibilitythe variable domain of part/product types that a
system can produce.

Since all flexible systems are not equally versatile in all respects, manufacturers must
determine which aspects of flexibility best serve business objectives such as cost
efficiency, speed, or the ability to rapidly implement product alterations. These
objectives will dictate what kinds of tasks are best suited for flexible solutions and
how much capital should be invested to develop each component of the FMS.

RELATED AUTOMATION SYSTEMS.

Besides true FMS and their subsystems, are two other manufacturing concepts
distinguished by their comparatively higher level of automation and lower level of
flexibility. These are the flexible transfer line and fixed transfer line. Between these
two systems and FMS a trade-off, or "productivity dilemma," is said to exist.
Accordingly, the higher the level of automation, the greater the manufacturer
efficiency in terms of productivity and lower unit costs. But the efficiency advantage
held by non-FMS related systems is said to be achieved at the expense of losing a
certain degree of innovative flexibility.

The flexible transfer line comprises workstations utilizing numerous automated

general or special purpose machine tools joined by an automated workpiece flow
system according to line principle. The flexible transfer line is capable of
simultaneously or sequentially machining different workpieces running along the
same path. A fixed transfer line, by contrast, utilizes a number of special purpose
machine tools (as opposed to general ones) initially designed to produce one product
only. After a considerable period of setup time though, it can accommodate a
different variant of the product, as in the case of different sized cylinder heads.

CHOOSING A SYSTEM.

From an economic standpoint, if the number of variants is high (500 or more

variants) but produced in relatively small annual amounts, the use of stand-alone
NCMT (a portion of which included FMM) is considered appropriate. Progressing to
larger annual production of fewer variants, FMC, followed by FMS, become optimal
strategies. FMS then, occupy a middle ground between highly automated and highly
flexible manufacturing systems. Based on several empirical studies conducted in the
1980s, the respective variants range for FMS stands between 4 to 100; for FMC,
between 40 and 800. For workpieces of different types ranging from 2 to 8, flexible
transfer lines are used, and for I or 2, fixed transfer lines.

More than a few manufacturing experts have taken issue with the so called
"productivity dilemma" as described above, countering that it is at best a transitory
trend. They look instead to the further development of computer-aided
manufacturing (CAM) as the potential solution for reversing the short term
opposition between cost efficiency and inflexible production units. Computer-based
technology, they have argued, reverses the trend towards specialized hardware and
replaces it with specialized software. Thus general purpose machines utilized in
flexible transfer lines can be programmed with special purpose software to achieve
the flexibility once attributed to an earlier but narrowly conceived definition of a
FMS. Simply by reprogramming a general purpose machine, the switch to a new
product variant can be accomplished without having to rip out and replace the
machine, as was the case in earlier times. Also unlike times past, this task can be
completed in a matter of hours instead of weeks.

COMPUTER SIMULATION

One of the outstanding features of FMS is computer simulation. Thirty years after
their introduction, a plethora of microcomputer-based simulation packages are
available for simulation analysis. There are also many mainframe simulation
packages now available in a microcomputer format. Unlike their mainframe
forerunners, microcomputer simulation packages are considered user-friendly and
do not require the presence of highly skilled individuals. Subsequent developments
introduced sophisticated color graphics in conjunction with several advances in
computer mainframes that allowed software developers to create even more complex
programs that retain their user-friendly orientation. A noteworthy advance is the
incorporation of animation techniques. In the opinion of Nigel Greenwood, had
simulation analysis been available in the early days of FMS, their success rate would
have been greatly enhanced.

Computer simulation exercises are performed to identify system bottlenecksthe

utilization of fixed resources such as machine tools and variable resources such as
operators, tools, and material transporters. Utilization of resources is measured in
terms of busy, idle, down, and blocked time. Simulation results then provide
information to FMS designers about work in progress, production rates, and the
impact of equipment failure, all relevant factors that determine how well a particular
FMS works. When computer simulation packages first appeared, many experienced
production engineers questioned their usefulness. Having been schooled in a "hard
modeling" simulation background that used scale layout, pieces of paper, drawing
pins, and the like to represent personnel and pallets, experienced engineers were
skeptical of computer simulation modeling. The substantial advantages of computer
simulation and the influx of new engineers with computer trained backgrounds has
alleviated this initial skepticism.

One critical limitation of computer simulation is that computer simulation modelers

are unable to accurately depict a specifically designed FMS facility, so that the
possibility of an informational discrepancy between FMS project designers and
simulators exists. Heightened communications between these two groups ensures
that discrepancies are minimized. It is also expected that further developments in
microcomputer-based packages will help minimize discrepancies.

In the evolution of an FMS during its multiphase design process, computer

simulation is of great assistance. During the conceptual design phase, if given a
hypothetical array of workstation configurations, a computer simulation is able to
determine their respective throughput times to a high degree of reliability. It is also
used to calculate initial financial analysis and to animate prospective configurations.
During the detailed design phase, computer simulation makes it possible for
suggested system improvements to be incorporated and tested in an FMS model to
analyze their impact.

MATERIAL TRANSPORT TASKS AND

COMPUTER CONTROL SYSTEMS

The principal motivation for developing and implementing an FMS is to ensure that
the transformation of processed and unprocessed raw materials to finished parts is
as rapid, efficient, and well-conceived as possible. Of the three elementary FMS
processes, material handling devices and computer control systems offer the greatest
potential for improved performance results. The other element of FMSthe
manufacturing processhas experienced significant progress in terms of speed,
reliability, and efficiency, which led to a sizable reduction in overall product
throughput time. In turn, a greater emphasis on the implementation of automated
material handling systems to increase the overall efficiency of FMS is paramount. It
has been estimated that close to one-third of an FMS product's total manufacturing
cost is absorbed by the expense of successive material handling tasks.

FMS incorporate four major types of material transport tasks: transport between
different systems; transport between different subsystems within the same FMS;
transfers between workstations within various subsystems; and transfers within the
workstations themselves. From the standpoint of an FMS designer, it would be ideal
to address these tasks in their totality, but the incompatible variety of the tasks or
load types makes this impossible.

Given their relatively versatile property and high load capacity, automated guided
vehicle systems figure prominently in most FMS. They are battery-driven,
bidirectional vehicles designed to automatically transport material from one location
to another along a predefined route or set of routes. Programming is accomplished
using microprocessor controls or wire guided systems. Of the two, wire guided
vehicles are preferred. Transport instructions from a central computer are received
via a wire buried an inch below the shop floor through inductive sensors located on
either side of the vehicle. Loading and unloading operations are performed by
hydraulic lifts or in a manner similar to traditional fork-lifts.
Considered less flexible and unable to duplicate the high load capacity of an AGVS,
conveyors are thought to be just as reliable, relatively less expensive, and battery-
free. Conveyors are useful for frequent transportation tasks. Because of their
mechanical simplicity, conveyors can transfer loads efficiently using a large number
of sensors connected to a conveyor control system. Conveyors are available in a wide
variety of sizes, speed capabilities, and forms. Among some of the more common
industrial types are overhead monorail, carry and free, power and free, under-floor
drag chain, floor slat, gravity feed, and plastic chain link.

Rail guided transport represents a blend of conveyor and AGVS systems. Instead of
being guided by a underground wire, above-ground rails determine routing direction.
Compared to an AGVS, rail guided transport moves more rapidly along straight
distances that typically range from 30-50 meters, but do not have as much route
flexibility. Because of their relatively unsophisticated control systems and battery-
free operation, rail guided transfer systems have many of the advantages attributed
to conveyors.

Within FMS subsystems, robot and gantry loaders predominate. Robots are mostly
used for tasks directly related to the manufacturing process rather than material
handling. Under the appropriate circumstances, they can be used for material
transport, as their inherent flexibility often offsets their relatively high cost.
Programmable logic controller gantry loaders combine the advantages of robots with
conveyors. Indeed many of these are simply an overhead rail-mounted robot or a
robot arm moving along a rail. This gives them a speed advantage over robots, but
being mounted on a fix path (albeit with several stopping points) reduces their
flexibility. Manual material loading or fork-lift operations are the most inexpensive
material handling and most versatile form of transport. The advantage held by
automated systems however, is their continuous operation and accurate and
consistent performance.

Computer control systems account for the largest single risk factor within FMS.
Between 50 and 75 percent of the total risk involved in FMS implementation is
attributed to the control system, which includes both the computer hardware and
associated software. In overall cost terms, computer hardware ranges from 10 to 15
percent while its associated software represents 15-30 percent.
This high risk factor is associated with several problems, the most pronounced of
which is that the "mechanics" of many FMS are designed by machine-tool inclined
engineers, while the software is designed by persons who have little background in
the manufacturing environment they are attempting to create products for. An
additional problem is that FMS software is extremely difficult to evaluate prior to
being installed and tested. If found to be inadequate, corrective steps are expensive.

The principal objectives of an FMS computer control system are fourfold: to facilitate
the transmission of support software to material handling systems and
manufacturing process equipment; to coordinate the material handling system to
allow the manufacturing process equipment to function at it highest level of
utilization; to facilitate data entry, control, operation, and monitoring of the FMS as
a whole; and to guide the return of the system to its complete operational status
following a failure.

At the turn of the 20th century, one of the most active areas of FMS development is
directed at producing a "generic" computer control system to replace customized
systems. While the prospects for success are mixed, incremental progress is being
made in reducing the costs and risks associated with software developments.

EARLY FMS AND HISTORICAL

ANTECEDENTS

In the early 1970s, after a period of initial euphoria, disappointment set in when FMS
failed to live up to their potential. Since the early 1980s, however, FMS proved to be
technically feasible, reliable, and cost-effective. Indeed, by the 1990s, it was widely
accepted that production principles once thought to be applicable only at the level of
the small job-shop (a small manufacturing facility typically engaged in making a
small batch of a wide variety of different parts for a large customer) were equally
successful in mass production operations.

The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith's famous analysis of the division of labor and its
impact on specialization, productivity, automation, and product flow, marked one of
the first recorded commentaries on changing production techniques in the early
modern era. Nearly 130 years later, thanks to Henry Ford, the assembly line
method of mass production represented the perfect illustration of Smith's ideas. Yet
because Ford's highly automated assembly line operated with only the slightest
degree of product variation, it represented the virtual antithesis of flexible
manufacturing. Between the two World Wars, the automated assembly line
dominated the industrial sector because of its unsurpassed efficiency and
productivity.

Two developments following World War II proved critical in the development of

flexible manufacturing systems. These are the manufacturing philosophy of group
technology and the introduction of numerical control machine tools (soon to be
followed by the related development of computer numerically controlledCNC
machine tools and other applications). Both developments have been instrumental in
narrowing the gap between the increased variety characteristic of FMS and the
efficiency associated with assembly line automation.

GROUP TECHNOLOGY.

Group technology was based on the principle of using the common properties of
similar parts to rectify shared design and manufacturing problems. This involved the
creation of a coding system to classify parts into groups given their shape, overall
dimension, required accuracy, surface finish, manufacturing requirements, and
material composition. Afterwards, an analysis is performed to determine all the
major components a firm might manufacture. The acquired information is then
sorted into major categories, such as processes or products, to indicate common
production groupings in order to determine the appropriate set of machine tools
necessary for their manufacture.

Initially, because the set of machine tools used for producing these parts was kept to
a minimum, a small scale manufacturing shop was able to produce the parts more
efficiently than a larger manufacturing unit. The connection between group
technology and FMS stems from the sorting process that occurred within group
technology. Sorting parts into well defined groups, performing an analysis, selecting
the parts, and determining the most appropriate machine groupingall of these
steps are necessary to derive the maximum benefits from a FMS investment.

The cost-saving impact of group technology was illustrated in a 1986 study.

Components produced by one large U.S. manufacturer required over 100 operations
and had a throughput time (a measure of a component's processing time from start
to finish) averaging five months, during which time they traveled some three miles
on the shop floor. Following the implementation of group technology, the number of
operations decreased from 100 to 10, throughput time fell to just days, and the
distance traveled on the shop floor decreased to 200 feet. A factor critical to the
success of group technology was the willingness of the workforce to acquire a
multiskilled background that reduced the number of shop-floor skill levels from 11 to
2.

NUMERICAL CONTROL MACHINE TOOLS.

Numerical control machine tools, on the other hand, first emerged in 1952. Parallel
developments were undertaken at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and by
Alfred Herbert in the United Kingdom. Initially, these continuous-path machines
proved unreliable and it was 1956 before more reliable machines were developed.

It is largely the aerospace industry that encouraged the development of NCMT

because it frequently required "copied" components that could only be produced
repetitively using relatively inaccurate hand made templates. The computer
equipment used to control machines engaged in manufacturing aerospace
components was at first cumbersome and expensive, but advancements in computer
technology in the area of complex integrated circuits ushered in the era of computer
controlled machine tools. Compared to their numerical control predecessors, small
minicomputers had far more versatile and reliable control devices. They were less
expensive, incorporated computer-aided programming, and featured sophisticated
editing components. These benefits meant machine tools were more flexible, more
programmable, and easier to set-up when producing a variety of components.
Developments in computer numerically controlled machine tools culminated in
machining centers, which incorporated automatic tool changers, tool storage
systems, automatic work transfer, and off-line programming capabilities.

The development of CNC machine tools provided the major technological foundation
upon which early FMS versions were built. The tools made it possible for a computer,
instead of a skilled operator, to control a manufacturing process. At first computer
numerical control was applied only to machine tools. Later it is broadened to a wide
variety of manufacturing processes. Further developments in CNC applications led to
the creation of advanced industrial robots. Among other tasks, robots are used for
material handling purposes, arc and spot welding, and paint spraying. The
combination of CNC technologies and advances in computer technology allowed
FMS designers to introduce such breakthrough tools as programmable logic
controllers (PLACE), automated guided vehicle systems (AGVS), and automated
storage and retrieval systems (ASKS). Yet despite these advancements, FMS
encountered difficulties when it came time to smoothly integrate these major
elements into a dependable working system while minimizing the costs and risks
attributed to once-off control software.

The first FMS (albeit rudimentary) was installed in England in 1968. Some
authorities dispute this however, arguing that Project Tinkertoy, carried out under
the auspices of the U.S. National Bureau of Standards in 1955, represented the first
FMS. The English FMS was developed by D.T.N. Williamson of the Molins Machine
Tool Company; it was known as System 24. The confluence of several factors
prompted its development: the advancements made in machine tool technologies,
theoretical progress surrounding the area of job-shop scheduling, the growing
influence of group technology in different manufacturing environments, and the
increasing demands placed upon larger manufacturing establishments to produce
components economically in small batches.

Similar to later FMS developments, System 24 was designed to feature three specific
qualities: the ability to produce a large variety of components virtually at random;
the ability to both load and unload tools and workpieces automatically; and the
ability to operate without manned attendance over an extended period. The eventual
demise of System 24 came about due to the system's unreliability and the fact that
the light flat alloy components market for which it was developed did not expand as
had been predicted. As a result, the development of FMS techniques in England was
abandoned for nearly ten years; FMS research and development pressed onward in
the United States and Japan.

In their early phase, many FMS encountered a common set of difficulties that were
eventually corrected. First, process equipment initially proved to be insufficiently
flexible to meet varied production requirements. Second, many supporting
technologies also proved inadequate. For instance, sensors built into early systems
were usually limit switches. Experience had demonstrated that limit switches are
highly unreliable, yet they were included in FMS in such a manner that their failure
prompted the entire FMS to cease operation.

Additionally, most early FMS were overly machining-center oriented. This bias
resulted from the fact that advances in machining centers outdistanced those of other
machine tool types. Systems typically associated with cubic component workpieces
progressed the quickest in design and implementation, computer control systems,
and pallet and tool changers; systems associated with rotational workpieces lagged
considerably behind.

FMS AND LABOR ISSUES

Because they can dramatically change the manufacturing process when

implemented, FMS can also have significant impact on a company's labor and
organizational structure. Three main issues are involved: (1) workplace organization;
(2) their significant employment/labor-saving component at the company level; and
(3) changes in skills needed to run FMS versus traditional functional manufacturing
processes.

ORGANIZATION.

Although there have been mixed findings in the academic literature, the conventional
wisdom is that flexible systems lend themselves to decentralized organizational
structures. This is allegedly because they are information-intensive but require
comparatively fewer people with broader skills to run them. Studies suggest that the
effects on organizations from installing flexible automation may be much less than
once believed; while the two phenomena may be correlated, there is not much
evidence that flexible automation actually causes decentralization. Instead, it may be
that the same forces that tend to make companies pursue flatter management
structures also encourage the adoption of flexible manufacturing practices.
Nevertheless, because the information channels and labor requirements are different
under FMS, organizational design is a valid concern for companies using them.
Indeed, some evidence suggests that, in contrast to the decentralization theory, FMS
can lead to decision making being further removed from the individuals who run the
systems.

WORKFORCE FLEXIBILITY.
Two persistent, parallel, and interconnected economic forces figured largely in the
development of FMS, which in turn prompted a substantial reorganization of the
workplace environment. First, competitive pressures to lower unit costs are typically
achieved by boosting productivity through the introduction and diffusion of
technological change. This applied just as readily to FMS production techniques as it
did to other groundbreaking techniques. And, as is true in previous times, active
periods of technological change usually entail a significant de-skilling component.

Second, in terms of changes in market demand, a heightened presence of market

uncertainty (rapid demand surges followed by just as rapid declines) stimulated FMS
development. The impact of increased market uncertainty required that workers
respond in a manner consistent with changing demand conditions, which in turn
gave rise to the notion of labor flexibility. With respect to the organization of the
workplace, this notion contained three potential policy scenarios related to flexibility:
functional, numerical, and financial.

Functional meant the ease with which tasks performed by workers could be adjusted
to meet changes in technology, markets, or company policy. Functional flexibility
further grouped skill backgrounds into core, dual, and multiskill classifications. Core
skill referred to cases where the practice of an existing craft or trade continued but,
as the need arose, performance of unrelated tasks was required. Dual skill meant
retention of the existing skill but also the requirement that the worker become
proficient at a second task, for instance a machine operator undergoing training in
hydraulic systems in order to maintain industrial robots. Multiskill referred to
workers who had obtained skill proficiency in three or more tasks.

Numerical flexibility referred to the ease with which the number of workers could be
adjusted to meet demand fluctuations using alternative types of employment
contracts. These included annual hours, various forms of job sharing, part-time, and
minimum/maximum hours working arrangements.

Financial flexibility captured the degree to which the structure of pay encouraged
and supported functional and numerical flexibility. By the 1990s, while only a
handful of FMS firms had incorporated the full complement of labor flexibility
components as describe above, it was widely expected that, in time, they were to
become the norm. Several case studies suggested that functional flexibility was more
likely to be found in capital-intensive FMS firms, while numerical and financial
flexibility practices were growing among relatively more labor-intensive ones.

CHANGING SKILL REQUIREMENTS.

As concerned the de-skilling impact of FMS, Edquist and Jacobsson (1988)

conducted research in Sweden that indicated that the diffusion and displacement of
conventional machine tools by NCMT led to a significant reduction in the skills per
worker needed to operate NCMT, as well as in the number of people required to learn
these skills. They reported that the maximum time required for an unskilled person
with a technically oriented secondary education to become proficient with a NCMT
ranged from 6 to 12 months. For skilled operators using conventional machines, by
contrast, five years experience was often necessary to acquire proficiency.
Productivity gains ranging from 50 to 60 percent were reported by substituting
semiskilled computerized numerically controlled (CNC) machine operators for
skilled conventional operators. Increases were reported, however, in newly skilled
NCMT and CNC support workers, such as setters, programmers, and repair and
maintenance engineers. All of these positions emerged with the spread of
nonconventional machine tools and were not previously required as support labor to
operate conventional machines. But in the long run, the implementation of flexible
systems is expected to continue the decades old trend of declining employment in
manufacturing trades.

WORKER ACCEPTANCE.

Since flexible systems can represent a threat, or at least a challenge, to traditional

manufacturing workers, it is important that management address worker issues early
and effectively. Securing cooperation from workers is not only necessary to maintain
employee motivation and morale, but it may also hold the key to the success of
the new system. In one noteworthy comparison, a highly automated General Motors
plant delivered lower productivity than another of the automaker's less automated
joint venture plants. Research suggests that, more than anything, training and
preparation for the new environment is most beneficial to gaining employee buy-in.
Training, or perhaps re-skilling, was found to be more important than financial
incentives or even job security.
[ Daniel E. King ]

FURTHER READING:

"Adaptable Manufacturing: Agility to Cost-Effectively Produce on Demand." Modern

Materials Handling, 15 May 1998.

Anderson, David M. Agile Product Development for Mass Customization. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1997.

Chen, Injazz, Atul Gupta, and Chen-Hua Chung. "Employee Commitment to the
Implementation of Flexible Manufacturing Systems." International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, July 1996.

Edquist, Charles, and Staffan Jacobsson. Flexible Automation: The Global Diffusion
of New Technology in the Engineering Industry. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers,
1988.

Jha, Nand, K., ed. Handbook of Flexible Manufacturing Systems. San Diego:
Academic Press, 1991.

Oleson, John D. Pathways to Agility. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998.

Tidd, Joseph. Flexible Manufacturing Technologies and International

Competitiveness. London: Pinter Publishers, 1991.

Tsubone, Hitoshi, and Mitsuyoshi Horikawa. "Impact of Various Flexibility Types in

a Hybrid Fabrication/Assembly Production System." International Journal of
Production Economics, 20 April 1999.

Vajpayee, S. Kant. Principles of Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1995.

Vokurka, Robert J., and Gene Fliedner. "The Journey Toward Agility." Industrial
Management & Data Systems, March-April 1998.

Ware, Richard S. "Flexible Automation Reconfigures the Future." Machine Design,

21 March 1996.
Read more: Flexible Manufacturing - benefits
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/Fa-For/Flexible-
Manufacturing.html#ixzz1RU4YZRRu