Computers ind. Engng Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.

131-142, 1987 Printed in Great Britain

0360-8352/87 $3.00 + 0.00 Pergamon Journals Ltd

CELL FORMATION IN GROUP TECHNOLOGY: A NEW APPROACH

S. K. KHATOR and S. A. IRANI
Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620, U.S.A.

(Received for publication 27 August 1986)

Abstract--In the U.S.A., machine-component cluster formation is considered a poor alternative to classification and coding as a planning tool for Cellular Manufacture. This paper introduces a heuristic procedure, the Occupancy Value method, for identifying clusters in a machine-component matrix created from route card data. A unique feature of this method is that it progressively develops block diagonalization starting from the northwest corner of the matrix. The flexibility of the procedure is illustrated in detail through a small example. Another large matrix is analyzed to demonstrate the inherent simplicity of the method. Further extensions of this method to implement the manufacturing cells from these initial clusters are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

Group Technology (GT) is an organizational principle that promises widespread benefits to small medium batch manufacturers. There are numerous modes of application to this important concept. One approach is the analysis of the material flows and machining requirements of the components constituting a company's products. Families of components are identified based on similar machine requirements. These machines are brought together into groups (called manufacturing cells) which are further equipped with other types of compatible equipment necessary to restrict the flow of those families of parts within the cells. Recognizing the contribution that GT can make to the implementation of Computer Integrated Manufacture (CIM), Merchant [1] says, "the appropIiate initial step, to lay a sound foundation for the gradual evolution of a factory to full computer control, is to institute group technology cellular organization".
APPROACHES TO FAMILY AND CELL FORMATION

Method 1: classification and coding

Each of the different design attributes of a component e.g. dimensions, overall shape, raw material characteristics, accuracy, surface finish, type of internal or external shape feature, etc. are represented by a single code number. Families of components would possess identical code numbers. The machine tools are selected by analyzing the route cards of those components. This method is prevalent in the U.S. even though it is an indirect approach to the creation of manufacturing cells. Much time and effort goes into accurate coding and the creation of an elaborate data base which provides a weak connection between component features and machine tool grouping.

Method 2: machine-component group analysis

By virtue of using route card data directly, this method is quick and sufficiently accurate to indicate to the company the scope for rearranging the shop floor into independent manufacturing cells. The basic input data is the list of machines that each component visits, ignoring the exact visitation sequence of those machines. This method is not a one step solution to the creation of cells. It is part of a more comprehensive system design tool, called Production Flow Analysis [2]. The same principles can be extended to the planning of Flexible Manufacturing Systems.
131

132

S. K. KHATOR and S. A. IRANI

Using route card data, a machine-component matrix is prepared, in which the rows represent machines and the columns represent components, or vice-versa. If a cell entry Aij = 1, it indicates that machine "i" makes component "j", or, if Aq = 0, there is no relation between the two. So, the complete matrix is a random array of O's and l's. The clustering algorithms which this paper discusses rely on the essential assumption that the machines and components can be partitioned into matched groups of machines and components. These will be represented as clusters along the diagonal of the matrix. This visual presentation of the possible constitution of the cells is the key merit of these methods. Some measure of common machine requirements among clusters will be directly indicated by the relative dispersion of entries along the diagonal of the matrix. EXISTING APPROACHESTO MATRIXANALYSISFOR CLUSTERFORMATION While the literature yielded nearly 20 approaches to cell formation, this paper concerns an analysis of only three methods: (a) Rank Order Clustering Algorithm [3] (b) Direct Clustering Algorithm [4] (c) Module Synthesis (Group Analysis Phase of Production Flow Analysis) [5].

Rank Order Clustering Algorithm

The Rank Order Clustering Algorithm (ROC) [3] represents route card data as a binary matrix. Using a positional weighting technique for the "1" entries in the matrix, the rows and columns are alternately rearranged in order of decreasing rank. The result is a diagonalization of the l's into several clusters. If independent machine-component groups do exist in the sample data provided, each machine will occur in only one cluster. Components will be uniquely assigned to any one of the clusters. Using this algorithm, the analyst can obtain a visual assessment of the machine groups and the associated families of parts simultaneously. With such an approach, a very valuable preliminary assignment of machines can be obtained because, if a large number of machines is shared over several clusters, plans for cellular manufacture can be shelved at the outset. But, there are a few weaknesses in this algorithm which affect its performance, caused by two types of cell entries which prevent cluster formation and create dispersion away from the diagonal. These are: (1) Exception elements. These are a few cell entries that occur outside a pair of clusters. However, only one cluster can contain that machine, resulting in an inter-cell move of the other components requiring that machine to complete their processing. The occurrence of such entries is expected but the ROC solution is disrupted, due to the method adopted for ranking. It relies on pairwise comparisons of cell entries in the leftmost column (when ranking rows) and topmost row (when ranking columns). So if the positional occurrence of these elements is such that they influence the ranking, poor cluster formation will result. (2) Bottleneck machines. These are machines that are used by a large number of components. Since these components can be expected to be dispersed over more than one cluster, such machines must appear in more than one row in the matrix. Otherwise, the ranking procedure creates large, dispersed clusters with many machines and components contained in them. The ROC Algorithm works only after these two types of elements are (i) identified and (ii) suppressed after visual analysis of the initial matrix solutions. Such prior assumptions bias the solution, especially as the algorithm must indicate exceptions and bottleneck machines, not rely on their temporary suppression to be effective. Other drawbacks of King's method are: (a) An inability to analyze large matrices since the binary word lengths increase. Rows and columns are compared pairwise increasing the number of comparisons necessary for a solution. The ranking being dependent on the positional coordinates of the entries in

Cell formationin group technology

133

the matrix, the complete matrix needs to be analyzed, which increases computational time. (b) Inconsistency in the number of clusters, the identity of the exceptional elements and the machine-component constitution of the clusters, depending on the initial input matrix. (c) Total neglect of load figures to decide the allocation of bottleneck machines among the clusters. King assumes that these machines can be freely duplicated if they are required in several clusters. He ignores the fact that some clusters would need to be merged to optimize the utilization of those machines. This same assumption tends to view an exception more as an array-related problem. And not as one due to the nonavailability of sufficient load to justify the inclusion of at least one machine in the cluster in which the component occurs.

Direct Clustering Algorithm

The Direct Clustering Algorithm (DC) [4] is a poor version of the ROC Algorithm, except that it eliminates the sensitivity of the latter to the configuration of the initial matrix. The number of positive cell entries K in each row and column is counted. The input machine-component matrix is rearranged with columns in decreasing order of K but rows in increasing order of K. So, approximate diagonalization is created and the machine-component matrix is input in the same format always to the algorithm. Otherwise, this algorithm has the same handicaps as the ROC Algorithm, and uses a limited binary comparison procedure for ranking, by neglecting subsequent comparisons to resolve ties in ranking. Even the approach suggested for handling large matrices suffers from the problems of: (a) Deciding the allocations of components to be entered in each of the smaller matrices. They are obtained by breaking up the matrix for all the machines and components, and combining machine requirements of several components into one to include them in further analysis. (b) The number of entries in the rows and columns which will increase in the matrices analyzed later, creating cluster dispersion similar to the influence of the bottleneck machines, and exception elements.

Burbidge's method of module synthesis in group analysis

This approach has been surprisingly ignored by researchers as an effective method for machine-component group formation. His basic assumption is that clusters can be developed by adding machines to those making a small number of components. A module is defined as "a set of machines and a set of parts for which there is a high probability that they will exist together in only one group" [5]. This method succeeds in reducing a large machine-component matrix to a smaller machine-module matrix, whose size is determined only by the number of machines included in the analysis. Refinements in this method are necessary because: (1) No algorithm is used for identifying clusters in the module-machine matrix. (2) Individual components lose their identity in the module. (3) Excessive machine duplication occurs when it would be better to suppress some machines from unnecessarily repeating in several modules before entering them in the machine-module matrix. (4) Choice of successive nucleus machines is made solely on the basis of minimum number of components that have not been modularized. (The "minimum F - E f value" controls only one dimension of the machine-component matrix.) But, the routes of those components could contain a large number of machines. This could lead to the formation of a large dispersed cluster. (5) Even though the modules are essentially small machine-component clusters, the connection between successive modules is prevented. This is because no attempt is made to create modules from the machines, other than the nucleus machines entered in the first few modules.

134

S.K.. KHATORand S. A. IRANI THE OCCUPANCY VALUE METHOD

The Occupancy Value (OV) method being presented in this paper eliminates limitations of the earlier methods by: (a) Creating compact clusters without any preliminary assumptions or visual identification of exceptional elements or bottleneck machines. (b) Building up clusters along the diagonal by using small selected sections of the larger original matrix. This allows the analyst flexibility to reiterate whenever dispersion of cell entries outside a cluster is observed, due to the occurrence of bottleneck machines. So, given any seed or starting machine, its components will indicate the other machines that will occur in the cluster. Only a good choice of seed machine is required. (c) Using the machine-component matrix only as a means for data representation and not for array manipulations like the ROC or DC Algorithms. (d) Using the OV to delay the entry of bottleneck machines and components with a large number of machines in their routes into the matrix. Otherwise this will create large clusters, useless for transforming into cells. (e) Simplifying the identification of both exceptional elements and bottleneck machines by grouping correctly all the machines which would occur in only one cluster. The Occupancy Value (OV) for a component The route of a component, p, consists of a set of machines 11. All components visiting one or more of these machines can be represented by a set J. Some of these components might be using additional machines, represented by a set 12. The machines in 11 and 12 and components in J represent a machine-component submatrix whose Occupancy Value is defined as EE
OVp-

Aij
_

Zmj
je.I

j e J ie {llUi2}

since M]=

~Aij i

xn

mn

where m = number of rows of the sub-matrix n = number of columns of the sub-matrix. For I~ = J = and the sub-matrix shown below, component 1 uses machines A and B. Therefore, {A,B}. Components 1 through 5 use one or both of these two machines. Therefore, {1,2,3,4,5}. The additional machines required by these components are machines C D, i.e. 12 = {C,D}. Component 12345 A B C D
11 1 1 1 111 11 1

Machine

111

Mi 2 2334 11 U 12 = J-m = n = {A,B,C,D} {1,2,3,4,5} number of rows in the sub-matrix = 4 number of columns in the sub-matrix = 5 Z ~=2+2+3+3+4=14
jeJ

Cell formation in group technology

135

Therefore, the Occupancy Value for Component 1 = OV1

--

jej

-- _ _ 1 4
4x5

_ 0.7

mxn

Basis of the O V method The method starts to rearrange an initial machine-component matrix by introducing a component into the northwest corner of the new machine-component matrix. A component with the smallest machine usage value is selected first and the machine(s) used for its processing are brought into the new matrix. The remaining operations of all the components that use one or more of these machines is decreased accordingly. At this point a new component having a minimum number of remaining machines is brought into the new matrix. This new component will indicate the new machine(s) to enter the matrix. Ties for more than one component having the same number of remaining machines are broken by calculating their Occupancy Value (OV) (as explained in the next section). A higher occupancy value will mean a dense matrix. The repeated application of this method will result in the diagonalization of the machine-component matrix. A downward flow occurs when more machine types are added and horizontal flow as more components are added. If independent clusters exist, this method will perform as well as the R O C Algorithm [3]. Its actual merits lie in its ability to form clusters, and to indicate exceptions and bottleneck machines (i.e. a machine with high usage value) directly, as the example problems will show. Since the method progressively creates a new machine-component matrix with clusters, it allows restricted machine duplication to solve the problem of bottleneck machines in getting independent cells. Steps in the O V heuristic
(1) Develop an original machine-component matrix consisting of l's and O's. Each entry in cell (i,j) will be 1 if machine i is used in the processing of component j, will be zero otherwise. Form another initial machine-component matrix identical to the original matrix. (2) For each component j in the initial matrix find the total number of machines used (M j). (3) Scan the component list for selecting component(s) with the minimum number of (remaining) machines. (a) If only one component results from the above scan, go to Step 5. (b) If there are ties in terms of more than one component having the same minimum number of operations, go to Step 4. (4) Calculate the Occupancy Value for each of the components found in Step 3 (as outlined in the previous section). Select the component with the highest Occupancy Value. Ties for the highest Occupancy Value can be broken at random. (5) Enter the selected component and the machines used into the new matrix. (6) Update the initial machine-component matrix for all the machines in the following manner: Cross out the rows containing machines selected in Step 5. For each component remaining in the initial matrix decrease its Mj value by 1 if a crossed out machine was used by this component. (7) Enter any additional components in the new matrix if its Mj value is zero. (8) If all machines and components are entered in the new matrix, go to Step 9. Otherwise, go to Step 3. (9) Using cell entries from the original machine-component matrix as input, complete the new matrix.

136

S. K. KHATOR and S. A. IRANI

Example
Step 1. The original machine-component matrix [O] is shown below: Component 1234567
1 1

111 1 11 1 1 11 1 11 1

Machine

2 3 4 5

11

Create an identical initial machine-component matrix [I] for use in all subsequent steps. Step 2. For each component, machines it uses, Mj.

j, in [I], scan its column to find the total number of

1234567 2333223 Step 3. Scan the Mj values in the component list for selecting component(s) with the minimum number of (remaining) machines. Condition 3(a) is violated. Condition 3(b) is fulfilled. Three components tie with M1 = M5 = M6 = 2. Go to Step 4. Calculate the Occupancy Value for each component selected in Step 3(b). The sub-matrices and OV computations are shown below: Component 1 Submatrix Component 1234567 1 2 3 4 5 1
1

Step 4.

111 11
1 1

Machine

1 111
1

1 3223 m=5

11

Mi 2 3 3 ~ mj=18
J

n=7

18 OWl - 5 )<-~ - 0.514

Cell formation in group technology

137

Component 5 Submatrix Component 13457

1

Machine

3 4 5

1111 111 1 1 23323

1 11 1

~ M j = 13 m = 4
J

n=5

13 OV5 - ----5 4 - 0.65

Component 6 Submatrix Component 123467

1 1 11

Machine

2 3 4 5

1 111111 1 1 1 111

Mj 2 3 3 3 2 3 16 ~mj=16 m=5 n=6 OV6=5x6=0.533 J Component 5 returns the highest Occupancy Value, 0.65. Step 5. Step 6. Enter component 5 and machines 1 and 4 into the new machine-component matrix [N]. The initial matrix [I] is now updated using the results from Step 5: (i) Set all Aij values in the rows corresponding to the entering machines zero, and (ii) recompute all Mj values as shown below: Component 1234567
1 0

Machine

2 3 4 5 Mj

000 1 11 1 111 0 0 0 1 1 11 1 312022

Step 7. Step 8.

No other component enters the new matrix. Machines 2, 3 and 5 have not yet been entered into the new matrix. Go to Step 3.

138
Iteration 2

S. K. KHATORand S. A. IRANI

Step 3.

Step 4.

Step 5. Step 6.

Scan the component list for new minimum Mj values: M1 = M3 = l. Each component requires only one more machine to complete its route. Go to Step 4. In this case both components require the same machine 3. Since the Occupancy Values for both the components will be equal, no OV calculation is required. Enter any one of the two components selected in Step 4 (say 1) and machine 3 into the new matrix. Scan the row for machine 3 to update A3j and Mj values:

Component 1234567 1 2 3 4 5 0
1

000 O0 0
1

Machine

00

O0 0
11

M,. 0 2 0 1 0 1 1
Step 7. Step 8.
Iteration 3

Component 3 enters the new machine-component matrix since M3 = 0. Machines 2 and 5 remain to be entered into [N], go to Step 3.

Step 3. Step 4.

Step 5. Step 6.

M4 = M6 = M7 = 1. Condition 3(b) is fulfilled. Go to Step 4. Occupancy Values for all the components in the previous step will be the same. Only machine 5 is required to complete the routes of all three components. Enter component 4 and machine 5 into IN], since it occurs first in a left-toright scan of Mj values in [I]. Update the matrix [O] as shown below:

Component 1234567 0
1

000

Machine

00 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0

Mj 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Step 7. Step 8.
Iteration 4

Enter components 6 and 7 into [N] since M6 = M7 = 0. Machine 2 remains to be entered. Go to Step 3.

Step 3-8.

Component 2 and machine 2 will enter the new machine-component matrix [N] now.

Cell formation in group technology Step 9. The final machine--component matrix would appear as: Component 5134672 1111
1 1 1

139

Machine

111111 1111 1

Analysis of results This discussion presents the basic difference between the OV method and the R O C [3] and DC [4] Algorithms. Assume that only one machine of types 1, 2, 4 and 5 is available. Machine 3 is clearly a bottleneck machine. At least 2 machines of its type should be available for two clusters to be formed, Components 5, 1, and 3 belong to cluster 1. Components 6 and 2 belong to cluster 2. Four operations represented by the machinecomponent pairs 1-4, 4-7, 5-4 and 5-7 qualify as exception operations. The assignments of components 4 and 7 will depend on whether capacity requirements yield a better utilization for machine 3 in cluster 1 or 2. Component 4 will yield an exception operation 1-4 or 5-4 depending on whether it is assigned to cluster 2 or 1, respectively. Similarly, component 7 will yield an exception operation, 4-7 or 5-7, depending on whether it is assigned to cluster 2 or 1, respectively. One of the final cell assignments will appear as:
Component 5134672 1 4 3 3 5 2
1 *

Machine

1111 1 1 1 1
1

*Exception Operation

Demonstration of the O V method King's matrix for a 16 machine-43 component example [3] was chosen to demonstrate how the OV method easily acommodates the problems which the DC and R O C Algorithms describe. Figure 1 is the Initial Matrix. Figure 2 is the solution got by applying the OV method. For this small matrix, the OV method simply changed the order in which machines were listed. Then, it used the Mj = 0 criterion to order the sequence of entry of the components. The two bottleneck machines, 6 and 8, though included in the analysis, did not affect the clusters. They were not duplicated to create 5 perfect clusters, as this violates practical constraints on machine availability in a job shop. However, if those machines are duplicated, one will notice the exceptions, listed below:
Machine 11 16 14
C A I E 12:2-B

Component 9 7 2

140

S. K. KHATOR and S. A. IRANI

Iteration 1 Min Mj = 1 Component No. 26 Machine No. 10 OVe6 = 0.607, OVz2 = 0.6, Machines entered 10 Components entered 26

22 12
OV 4

7 25

36 3 = 0.529, 6 8 13 39

4 9

16 5
OV36 = 0.55, OVI6 =

0.538

31

12

Iteration 2 Min Mj = 1 Component No. 22 11 20 4 6 34 36 16 15 8 Machine No. 12 12 11 9 14 3 3 5 5 5 OV22 = 0.6, OV2o = 0.667, O V a = 0.56, O W 6 = 0.45, O V 3 4 ~- 0.533, O V 1 6 = 0.538, OVll = 0.6, OV36 = 0.533, OVt5 = 0.538, OV8 = 0.538 Machines entered 11 12 13 Components entered 20 22 30 11 27 24 3 Iteration 3 Min Mj = 1 4 Component No. 9 Machine No. OVa = 0.56, OV6 = 0 . 4 5 , OVs = 0.61 Machines entered 5 Components entered 16 14

6 14
OV34

34 3
=

36 16 15 8 3 5 5 5 0.53, 01/'16 = 0.61, O V 3 6

0.53, O V 3 5 = 0.61,

4 15 19

15 8 21

23

29

33

41

43

Iteration 4 Min Mj = 1 Component No. 4 6 34 36 Machine No. 9 14 3 3 O V 4 = 0 . 5 6 , O W 6 = 0.45, OV34 = 0.53, O V 3 6 = 0 . 5 3 Machines entered 9 2 16 1 14 Components entered 4 28 40 18 10 32 Iteration 5 Min Mj = 1 Machine entered 3 35 Components entered 17

38

37

42

34

36

C O M P O N E N T S

1111111111222222222233333333334444
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 I 2 3 4 5 611 71 8111 9 101 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 1

I I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1

I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1

11

M. 4631323343233421325241442133222432216423354 J

Fig. 1.

Initial machine-component matrix.

Cellformationingrouptechnology
COMPONENTS 2213 31223122 11 22344 112 24113334 13 6 5 3 9 1 1 2 0 2 0 1 7 4 3 6 5 8 9 3 9 3 1 3 5 4 9 1 4 8 0 8 0 2 8 7 2 2 6 7 5 7 4 6 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 7 111 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 11111 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 111 111 * 11 1111 12 11 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 111 1111 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16
I

141

33

1 1

11 *111 11111

14 3 M. 1 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 2

1 2 2 3 4 3 1 2 3 4 4 2 3 3 ~ 3 4 5 4 1 3 3 2 3 4 4 6 5 6 2 3 2 3 2 1 * Exception Elements if Machines # 6 and # 8 d u p l i c a t e d

Fig. 2.

Solution obtained using OV method.

FURTHER RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

While further research is necessary to refine the computer implementation of the proposed heuristic, certain other considerations need to be discussed, hitherto ignored in the research literature. It concerns the decisions on the final machine-component contents of the clusters, after the problems of the bottleneck machines and exception elements are resolved. If unlimited machine duplication is allowed whenever a machine is required over two or more clusters, then perfect diagonalization of the machine--component matrix will be observed as shown below: 1
2 3

4 In reality, the number of cells that will be formed can be expected to be less than the number of clusters shown. Although several types of machines will be found common to two or more clusters, it may not be possible to allocate machines to every cluster due to restrictions on investment and uneconomical utilization of the extra machines purchased. Some initial constraints that will need to be satisfied will be: Upper and lower limit for number of cells. Total number of machines assigned to any cell between a given range. Lower limit on overall utilization of the existing machine tools after reallocation among the cells. It will also be necessary to study trade-offs between material handling costs and set-up losses. That is, in case of a machine being shared among one or more clusters, it will be necessary to consider the position of the machine in the overall sequence of operations of the parts in each cluster.

142

S.K. KHATORand S. A. IkANt

It is proposed to resolve this problem of machine assignment using the following procedure. The initial clusters formed using the OV method would indicate the machine types that are being shared among the clusters. Load calculations will indicate the relative utilizations of these bottleneck (or shared) machines among the clusters. Certain clusters, by their smaller size, will be broken up and the parts contained in them reassigned to other larger clusters, to maximize machine utilization and to minimize overall material handling and set-up costs. So, cluster merging can be viewed as a partscluster assignment problem similar to that of bottleneck machines. The allocation of bottleneck machines either to individual cells or to a common facilities cell will involve a large number of components using them. Unlike the bottleneck machine case, the problem of exception elimination concerns a few components in two or more clusters sharing a single machine. It is required to assign the machine to one of the competing clusters. So, exception elimination can be viewed as a machine-cluster assignment problem. Currently, the OV method yields solutions without the need for machine duplication arising, since the components visiting most machines generally occur together at some point along the diagonal. Machine duplication will be required for a larger number of components. It is proposed to include a lookahead feature which will check if a machine needs to be duplicated over subsequent iterations. If the capacity requirements of the components remaining to be introduced in the new machine-component matrix require one or more machines of a type entered earlier, duplication will be allowed. This will allow diagonalization or cluster growth to recommence at any point.
CONCLUSION

This paper was intended to introduce a heuristic approach to machine-component grouping in cellular manufacturing applications. Using the assumption of independent machine-component groups, a simple reordering of the listing of machines will decide the order in which the components get listed. The block diagonalization indicating clusters will appear. Most of the examples cited in the literature can be solved easily by this approach. The Mj and Occupancy Values were used to control the size of the clusters. This approach is superior to the array-based ones encountered earlier. It has potential for widespread industrial use.
REFERENCES 1. M. E. Merchant. Group technology--a sound foundation for computer control of cellular manufacturing systems, 9th CIRP International Seminar on Manufacturing Systems. Cranfield Institute of Technology, Bedford, U.K. (1977). 2. J. L. Burbidge and D. M. Zelenovic. Using production flow analysis (PFA) to plan group technology (GT) for a new factory. Mater. Flow 1, 129-140 (1983). 3. J. R. King and V. Nakornchai. Machine-component group formation in group technology: review and extension. Int. J. Prod. Res. 20(2), 117-133 (1982). 4. H. M. Chan and D. A. Milner. Direct clustering algorithm for group formation in cellular manufacture. J. Manufact. Syst. 1(1), 65-74 (1983). 5. J. L. Burbidge. A manual method of production flow analysis. Prod. Engng 56, 34-38 (1977).