Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Journal of Applied Sciences 9 (1) : 69-78

    Uploaded by

    Abdul Wazed
    25 views10 pages

    Original Title

    Journal of Applied Sciences 9 (1): 69-78,

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    25 views10 pages

    Journal of Applied Sciences 9 (1) : 69-78

    Uploaded by

    Abdul Wazed

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    Journal of Applied Seiences 9 (1): 69-7 ISSN 1812-5654 © 2009 Asian Network for Seientifie Information Commonality and its Measurement in Manufacturing Resources Planning MA. Wazed, Shamsuddin Ahmed and Nukman Yusoif Department of Engineering Design and Manufacture, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ‘Abstract: The main objectives of this research are to study the commonality indices in manufacturing resource planning reported in literatures since 1980 and some useful insights including advantages and disadvantages of using commonality in manufacturing production environment. Itis observed that in designing a new family of produetsiprocesses or analyzing an existing family, commonality indices can often be used as a starting point, Systematic understanding and effective use of commonality and commonality indices can help managing inventory levels, uncertainties ancl cost dimensions Key words: Commonality index, uncertainty, manufacturing resourves planning INTRODUCTION "The underlying ideas for commonality and modalarity are not really new. As early as 1914, an automotive engineer demanded the standardization of automobile subassemblies, such as axles, wheels and fuel feeding mechanisms 19 facilitate a mixand-matching of components and to reduce costs (Fixson, 2007), Commonality, ie, using the same type of component in lffevent looations of product structure tees, is frequently encountered in manufacturing industries Ithas long been known that using a common component can reduce the cost of safety stock, Basically, taking commonality into account a manufacturer can reduce the inventory level, shorten the time for reaching the market, decrease the set= up time, inerease productivity and improve flexibility, ‘The commonality index is a measure of how well the product design utilizes standardized components. A. component item is any inventory item (including a raw material), other than an end item that goes into higher- level items (Dong and Chen, 2005). An end item is a finished product or major subassembly subject to a customer order: ‘The global nature ofthe markets and competition has forced many companies to revisit their operations strategy. Companies have moved from centralized operations to decentralized operations in order fo take advantage of available resources and to be closer to their markets, International antagonism is forcing firms to attain world-class manufacturing in order to vie in global markets. Short manufacturing lead time is aegepted as the central underlying factor for successfully accomplishing world-class manufacturing goals of on-time delivery (Blackbur, 1985), quality (Schmenner, 1991; Schonberger, 1986), flexibility (Stalk, 1988) and productivity (Wacker, 1987), The length of mamufacturing lead time is frequently used as a measure of a firm's competitiveness, Many factors characterize today's manufacturing environment, such as inoreased product variety, intensifying global competition, changing social expectations and rapid advancement of manufacturing technology. Manufacturing companies find themselves in a totally changed environment, so they must improve both of their produets and their productivity by making their processes more efficient and effective to remain competitive as a matter of survival (Selabeldin axl Franeis, 1998; Towers ef al, 2005), An important factor for improving these processes is the controlling of production operatiors. ‘Today's marketplace is highly competitive, global and volatile: customer demands are constantly changing and they seek wider varieties of products at the same price as mase-produced goods. This shift in che market hhas increased the need for produet variety, in which variety andl customization replace standardized products This emerging paradigm has been names as mass customization, which Pine (1993) defined as at its limit, the mass production of individually customized goods and services, Nowadays, manufacturing companies need to satisfy a wide range of customer needs while maintaining manufacturing costs as low as possible and many companies are faced with the challenge of providing. fas much variety az possible for the market with as litle Corresponding Author: MLA, Wazed, Department of Engineering Design and Manutiture, culty of Engineering, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ‘Tel: +50-143-605425 Fass +603-7967-5330 o J. Applied Sei, 9 (1): 69-78, 2009 variety as possible between the products. Although the benefits of commonality ste widely. known, many companies are stil not taking fll advantage of i when developing new products or re-designing the existing ‘A compromising decision among the product variety customers demand and costs should be reached to cope tp with the market trend and customers expectations, eventually for survival in busines, This stay Took into tho issue of commonality asa key element to aciove the products/processes economy/safety in designing and production. AS a consequence commonality indices, Which measure and help to design/manage commonality, com into its consideration. PERSPECTIVES OF COMMONALITY AND ITS. ‘MEASUREMENTS: ‘The term commonality refers in literatures are shown, in Table 1. The advantages and disadvantages of commonality are shown in Table 2 ‘Therefore, commonality 8 an approach in manufacturing, production and inventory management system where different components replace by common components) or same components are used for multiple products and thereby simplifies the management and control of resources and ease the analysis and improvement of existing producta/processes of development of new products/processes at an optimize costs ‘The actual measurement for commonality comes in variety of flavors. They range from measurements directly on the component level to measurements in very indirect or abstract dimensions. For example, some researchers suggest a simple fraction count: The ratio between the total number of produet design modules and the product size (Nambisan, 2002). Mikkola and Gassmann (2003) developed their modularization fimetion based on the number of components and the degree of coupling “Table: Detiaton of commen Referee De booween them. Focusing on the interdependence between modules, Kaski and Heikkila (2002) constructed a similar measure, Kota ef al. (2000) suggested s product line commonality inex tbat measures the fraction of pars Which i shared aeross « produet family eelaive to the prs that could have been shared, adjusted for materials, ‘manufacturing and assembly processes. Pitfalls of increasing component proliferation: More and more evidences point to the pitfalls of expanding too aggressively in component proliferation when the process is not managed well. Rapid component proliferation greatly affects a company’s ability to compete oa a coat and time basis, It is stated that half of all overhead costs are in some way related to the number of different parts iandled (Cooper and Tumey, 1990), According to Ostrenga and Ozen (1992), manufachrers have estimated the annual administrative cost ofeach part number to be $10,000 or more. There are a number of negative effects generated by part proliferation, They are: Excessive design effort inereased time-to-market, inefficient manufacturing, higher overhead costs, ete. The widely used and effective approach to component variety is to exploit commonality in components COMMONALITY INDICES. Several commonality indices are found in literatures to measure that within a family of products/processes Commonality is defined as the number of partx/components that are wed by more than one end product and is determined for all product family (Ashayeri fand Selen, 2005). Within a product/process family, commonality index is @ metric to assess the degree of commonality. It is based on different parameters like the rmumber of common components, component costs, manufacturing processes, ete. Several component-based indices are shown in Table 3 Evan (1995) Meyer nd nerd (1207) bs fan be cet developed ad rodiced Mat at (2002) A appear wish single Ue anager and clo lavaaary an lio rdice vedo i compact canmanaly Ctralty 82g of read pects at share conn crater, wach can be featrey carports at iis aset of obeys and nerfces that ona ean ct on whi em of dative prot ‘Conpcntcommenay geneity far tan prose in manitrnin which wo ceed component fr dierent ‘onprdts (oper te sane prt fais) ae rephce by xeon compen tit ean perfor he oetion ofthe eplces Mca nd Mist (2002) Cutpeeatcanmmoality ees toa umuficurng even weretwo or mare prods se fie sane capone thee sembly Cmmocalty an intesal lament of te revsney popular nserblet-ader satay tht inva estan ‘steal cepts, hang ead ine end expense Comicon these ofthe sane verso of carpet ao ate protic. ex cost eresing ste ina tc eve fan ‘lend envvcnme becuse Wy pols ls the wal valne a the enon compet can be foreced meee secure shaver at Seen 2008) all rode fais (Cont Is il the udr panslerponents oe ae used mee le eed poets deine Ke J Applied Sci, 9 (0): ‘Teble > Advantage nd saan ‘Adages 7 Canmnalty absent Tove te sts of ele poke Tie Mitigate the let of produ proitation on produ an process ‘expen Cease Samiti, 2005) + Carmona eee: the sot of lets tock: Basel, aking commonality in aecoum an reduce the nesta lee, share he tine fr eching he sat, decease te sap ime, ereave pod andingrve esbity (Chal rat, 200) + Bven fete common pa moe expensive tonsil nerve to cauply inte single peti eas lie, 2002) + Dati pooled na sali aber of cermponet edict routed snuber fede (ses ili 20023) + Rigooling nd lend ie unetaity eto: grove tesco of sale hugh agree sizes. sii plamning, schedule and contol. seanine ‘au sped prodct develope proces a a, 2002) + Tncee wor n-rees eb and greater prot vast by hifi the spl boundary foward the castor Rede there of eis, pom Broke opetaine canoes senle itzes qua) angrovemer, cae Stppleresensip and seduce det devel se (irchanian nd Mi, 2002) +A deen contiguaion wih comanaly ean lower he mnuficarng cos ant design savings are obtained ea eau fs etn san efit (Dest 2000) Rede the cot of sy soc lie. 200) + Carmnaly in he design of rt any o generations of procs ovis he Km ith a chance to meet diverse este nods hl cost “iyo econoiesoacale nprocueme, rodbxtion nl sition ‘Kimand cane, 2000) + Dewees sea cost alae ss, decreases the anu iventay el 1 taking scvntages isk poolinz and deereses comple cost by eeqiing ever arias toe proces bythe inde iets erp (Trewern an rdw, 2000) + Canmanaiy reduces the alive eequzed to mct a specified sevice Tevet The apts sok fhe canman cnpanzt ower ta the combed pal socks. itrelaces (Cerca ef, 158) + Corry potty allow ir toredce sive in safety tock whilemistati elev of easton service er 1985) + Canmonay provides yt fle igh vey whereas low vey a pertons and thst lower casts Lato, 2000) + Ceermanaysacesfllyredes manicrng fad tne Ealing ‘cmon ingrovsnteral avablty and educa system complexity ‘tual, 191) + High coamenalty mes rete prion ofthe rot str suitable for repetvemftiring wh nim ress in sr if pring ant Scheduling Be eta, 1992) + Ceimoaiy leas to dered msi eines (GSheu sd Wacker, 1997) + Canmnaliy lowers the seu antholing ests Coles, 1981, 1852) ‘decease led ine ad ck dns proaact develope + fect istoo fw reacting cots i nereasesubsily singe a, 200 ofeommoality 69-78, 2009 Dean + Curia reioes pou diseiaion an evan, Gena redietie traci of prdit ne Geese at Saran, 205) Using he same compen een oto ii eqie dat the cetponent is mde more ele ad therefore ore expensive 2 pared to choosing tlie ens forts respective eats Thema cos of ccnmnoaly ens ny Urea mach higherbcaueonsrenrramberof fein hia bbe. 200) “Thies usualy not wort to cupley Bento case when the conmionconpone i expensive ile, 2003) + igh unit ccpenet cos eto excesive perfomance higher ‘eek nahi Gintalancein war ane vr er eprocesivenay levels Mae al 2002) +A deg wth cone ay ir he ley to extract price renims through rode! ferentiation Desi a. 2001) + Excessive ecmmonalty emf cicero f profits tnd cage let fe Bamps ara dss nt appeal tothe euseees fr whom dead (Ken an Cased, 28) Tneeasespodoction cot (Thomann and Bree 2000) {Thecus pina socks prairie compen rchigher Wie commonly dm wit (Gerchakt , 1988) + iP coumnoalgy too high price ack dcciveneas and hee india petommnce isnt eptirized (Sipsoner al, 2001) [le unin a a ——— ee oe wuss ; : ane oS, fester eae Cae mearie mesate eae ; to Pole rset peace tel eat ae 3 feet ccna Leesa ; / sere diate ey nee eT Sata ; commen CMC J.Applied Sei. Degree of commonality index: The most commen measure of the degree of commonality is the average places used for adiatinet component, or the average number of parent items per distinct component part (Collier, 1981; Sheu aad Wacker, 1997), This measure is known as the Degree of Commonality Index (DCI. It reflects the average number of common parent items per average distinct ccmportent Eq! wo Where: 4%, = No. of immediate parent component j has over a set of end items o product structure level(s) Total No, of distinet components in the set of end stems or product structure level(s) i ~The total No, of end items or the total No, of highest level parent items for the product structure levelis) d A component item is an inventory item other than an end item that goes into higher level items, An end itera is the finished product or major subassembly subject to a customer order or sales forecast. Parent item is any inventory item that has component pasts ‘The DCI has no fixed boundaries, ranging between 1 and B, where fl is defined in Table 3 ‘The main advantage of the DCT is its ease of computation. However, it has two severe imitations it is a cardinal measure without fixed boundaries. and it does not consider component usage by changes in demand or ‘quantity per assembly (Wacker and Treleven, 1986). It is ‘ifficult to estimate the increase in commonality while redesigning a family and to compare different families of products. Different fom Collier (1981) two types of commonality indexes are defined by Dong and Chen (2005). One is called component-level (denoted as CL), which is to provide an indicator on the percentage of a compenent being used in different produets, The other is called productlevel (denoted as Cl,). There are three variables that will affect the commonality inex, These are: number of unique components (denoted as u), number of total components along the product line (denoted as c) and final mumber of product varieties offered (Genoted sn), The formula used to calculate the compenent-level and produet-level commonalities are shovin in Eg, 2 and 3, respectively. Lah @) 9 (1): 69-78, 2000 {Fe n) he Total Constant ‘Commonality Index (TCCI) is a modified version of the DCI (Wacker and Treleven, 1986). Contrary to the DCI, which is a cardinal index (and hence an absolute increase Jn commonality is not possible to measure), itis a relative index: that has absolute boundaries ranging from 0 to 1 Eq, 4. The absolute boundaries of TOCI facilitate comparisons between product families and within a familly of products during redesign «@ 100 6) Where: CC, = Component commonality index for component i= nf =fy>f, MaxCCl, = Maximum possible Component Commonality Index for component i=) MinCCCL,= Minium possible Component Commenality Index for component xd P = Total number of non differentiating components that can potentially be standardized aeross models N = No, of products in the product family a = No. of products in the product family that have component i J. Applied Sei, 9 (1): 69-78, 2009 Size and shape factor for component i = Ratio of the greatest number of models that shace component i with identical size and shape to the greatest possible number of ‘models that could have shared component i with identical size and shape (n) Materials and manufacturing processes factor for component i = Ratio of the greatest number of models that share component i with identical materials and manufacturing processes to the greatest possible number of models that could have shared componert i with identical materials and manufacturing processes (1) Assembly and fastening schemes factor for component i = Ratio of the greatest number fof models that share component i with ‘identical assembly and fastening schemes to the greatest possible number of models that could have shared component i with identical assembly and fastening schemes @ & ‘The product line commonality index: Contzary to the indices that simply measure the percentage of components that are common across a produet family {and hence penalizing families with a broader feature mix), the Produet Line Commonality Index (PCT) measures and penalizes the differences in the non-unique components, aaiven the product mix (Kota ef al., 2000). The PCT has fixed boundaries that range from 0 to 100 Ea. 5. When PCI = 0, either none of the non-unique components are shared across models, of if they are shared, their sizes/shapes, materials’mannfacturing, processes and assembly processes are all. different When PCI = 100, it indicates that all the non-anique components are shared across models and that they are of identical size and shape, are made using the same material end manufacturing process and the assembly and fastening methods are identical. This index focuses ‘on commonality that should exist between products that share common or variant components rather than on the ‘unique components that differentiate the products, It provides a single measure for the entire product family, bout it does not offer insight into the commonality of the individual products Percent commonality index: The Percent Cormmonality Index (C%) is based on thee main viewpoints: component viewpoint, component-component association viewpoint and assembly viewpoint. Each of these viewpoints results| in @ percentage of commonality, which can then be combined to determine an overall measurement of commonality for a platform by using the appropriate weights for each item (Siddique et af, 1998) The component viewpoint measures the percentage of jonents of a platform that are common to different models and i the percent commonality of components Ce (Eq, 6 100% Comma compan = He Common components 6) ‘Common components Unigne components ___ 100» common cones ~ Common connections + Urigp comesions o ‘The componentcomponent connections viewpoint measures the percentage of common connections between components, C, (Eq, 7): Similarly, the assembly viewpoint measures the percentage of common assembly sequences, Two indices are used) Cl to measure the percentage of common assembly sequences (Eq, 8) and Ca, to meanure the percentage of common assembly workstations (Eq, 9): ‘These four valuss can then be combined into an overall platform commonality measize; the weighted-sum formulation Eq, 10 is the most popular (Siddique et al., 1998) 10Comon ase empessoatng sy eompne ong + Ue obi epee lng @) e Common assembly workstation °~ Common asembiy workstaion + Unique assembly worisaon ) IMC=LXC.+eCaheGeyxe, (10) Where 1, = Importance (weighting factors) where, EI, ‘%eCommonality as previously described ‘The resulting %C ranges from 0 to 100. This index: takes the manufucturing process into consideration; moreover, it can be adapted to different strategies using weighting factors. One disadvantage is that the measure is applied to each platform and not the family as a whole, which inereases the computational expense of this J. Applied Sei, 9 (1): 69-78, 2009 ‘Commonality index: Proposed by Martin and Ishii (1996, 1997), the Commonality Index (CI) is a measure of unique components that is similar tothe DCI proposed by Collier (1981), CI ranges from Oto 1 (Eq. 11: ama P ay Where ‘No, of unique components ‘No. of components in model j Final No. of varioties offered A higher Cl is better sinoe it indicates that the different varieties within the product family are being achieved with fewer unique components. The CT ean be interpreted as the ratio between the mumber of unique components in a product family and the total number of ‘components in the family Component part commonality index: Proposed by Jiso snd Tseng (2000), the Component Part Commonality Index (CI) is an extended version of the DCT that takes into account the preduet volume, quantity per operation and the cost of each component Eq. 12. ‘The CI” hes moving boundaries that range from 1 10 . The CI” gives very useful information, as it takes the cost of each component into consideration. For instance, fa very expersive component commonality dhroughout a family has more influence than a component that is very cheap and different from one product to another. A. lisadvantage in C1 is in estimating the quantity and cost information needed to compute the index. Tt is also noteworthy that this index can subject to errors in some specific cases; a corrected version of the formula is proposed by Bleeker etal, (2005). CMC appears to be more ingermation-intensive than other indices, The CMC is computed at the component level, but if the number of components becomes too large, the CMC can be computed at the module level, where each module is considered ax a single entity rather than multiple components. Thevenot et al (2007) defined CMC as Eg. 13 Other commonality indices: Some other commonality indices are found in literatures, but they are much more information intensive and henee difficult to apply. Martin and Ishii (2002) proposed a Generational Variety Index to help identify which components are likely to change over time in order to mest future market requirements and a coupling Index to measure the coupling between these components. A funetional similarity index was introduced by MeAdams eral. (1999, 2002) to assist in concept development and: modular product design. Finally, indices for measuring the degree of variation within a scale based product family have also been proposed by Matlson and Messac (2005) and ‘Simpson etal. (2001). COMMONALITY AND (COMMONALITY INDEX-AN INSIGHT ‘Commonality is an intogral element of Assernble-to- Order (ATO) strategy. This strategy identifies certain ‘components subassemblies that inventoried in a generic form at a higher echelon Typically these components are expensive and have a high manufacturing (or procurement) lead time, These components are Made-to-Stock (MTS) using forecasted requirements ancl are utilized as needed when the product demand materializes, Used in this manner, common component reduce inventory costs due to risk-pooling and the optimal allocation of component inventory (Eynan tnd Rosenblatt, 1996; Gerchak ef at, 1988). The common components also help in delaying the point of commitment of material to an individual product and thus | ‘inosease the flexibility for meeting customer order specifications, Firms thus ean deliver product variety by postponing the point of preduet differentiation to manage Jong throughput eyeles and short delivery times (Lee and Tang, 1997), In earlier studies (Baker, 1985, Baker ef al, 1986; Collier, 1982 Eynan and Rosenblatt, 1996, Gerchak etal, 1.988; Hillier, 2000, 2002b; Ma et al, 2002; MeClain etal, 1984) the benefits of component commonality were almost solely associated with a decrease in inventory, safety stock and order costs due to the risk pooling effeet and Jans ef al. (2008) validated the importance of the development costs and unit produetion costs on the component commonality decision, Thonemana and Brandeau (2000) and Mirchandani and Mishra (2002) study part commonality in the component design and to satisfy service level constraints, respectively. Commonality increase the flexibility of the work-in process, reduce setup and retooling times, improve operating economies of scale and simplifies the identification and seduction of production and quality problems. Common components also lead to easier part umber administration and improved supplier critical and are J. Applied Sei, 9 (1): 69-78, 2009 relationships (Balakrishnan and Brown, 1996), Commonality helps in simplifying engineering design, in integrating the design of products and processes and in reducing new product development time. FIPS QI1 Sy my ff fC CL foe xp eke= xf" CE) a3) cw Where: = Total No, of distinct component parts used in all the product structures of a product family ~ Index of each distinet component part ee of each ype of purchased ‘components of the estimated coat of ‘each internally made component part = Total No. of end products in a product family ndex of each member product of a product Faily Volume of end produet iin the family =No. of immediate parents for each

    You might also like