Forest Service

Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station

Research Paper NE-666

Graphic Model of the Processes

Involved in the Production of
Casegood Furniture
Kristen G. Hoff
Subhash C. Sarin
R. Bruce Anderson

guidelines for
process timea

work oenter~chedub
C

uppiies if
in feedback
loop

BOM

Abstract
Imports from foreign furniture manufacturers are on the rise and American
manufacturers must take advantage of recent technological advances to regain their
lost market share. To facilitate implementation of technologies for improving
productivity and quality, a graphic model of the wood furniture production process
has been developed using the IDEF (!CAM- Integrated Computer Aided
Manufacturing-minition) modeling process and is presented. IDEF modeling
provides a graphic representation of the production process by presentingthe
information in easy-to-graspchunks. A description of the modeling process explains
how the model represents the data that flows through the plant, the activities in the
plant, and their interaction. Analysis of the model may result in improved
communication, recognition of specific points for implementing new technologies,
evidence of bottlenecks and problem areas, simplified inventory control, or reduction
of paperwork.

The Authors
KRISTEN G. HOFF is a research industrial engineer wlth the Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station's Forestry Sciences Laboratory at Princeton, West Virginia. She
received a B.S. in mathematics and computer science from Concord College,
Athens, West Virginia, in 1985 and an M.S. in industrial and systems engineering at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, in 1991. She
joined the Northeastern Station in 1987.
SUBHASH C. SARlN is a Professor in the Department of Industrial and Systems
Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,
Virginia. He received a Ph.D. in operations research and industrial engineering from
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. Previously, he held a
faculty position at Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. He worked with IBM
during the summer of 1983 as advisor to the ManufacturingSystems andAobotics
Development Department.
R. BRUCE ANDERSON is an economist with the Northeastern Forest Experiment
Station's Forest Sciences Labratory at Princeton, West Virginia. He received a B.S.
degree in forest science from The PennsylvaniaState University, University Park,
Pennsylvania, in 1965 and an M.S. degree in wood science from the same
institution in 1970. He received a Ph.D. in forest economics from Virginia
Polytechnic lnstitute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, in 1988. He currently
is working with the Northeastern Station's Advanced Hardwood Processing and
Technical Resource Center at Princeton.

Manuscript received for publication 14 May 1992

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station
5 Radnor Corporate Center
100 Matsonford Road, Suite 200
P.O. Box 6775
Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087-4585
August 1992

Introduction
Pls imports from foreign manufacturers increase, American
wood furniture producers are searching for reasons for this
loss of market share. Foreign competition in the furniture
industry has increased significantly since 1972, and the
greatest competition has been in the wood furniture
category (U.S. Department of Commerce 1985). To regain
market share, U.S. wood furniture manufacturers need to
use new technologies. To better communicate and analyze
manufacturing for applying the new technologies and
irnproving productivity, a graphic model of the wood
furniture production process has been developed. The
model represents the functions of the wood furniture
production system and the information and objects that
interrelate with those functions.

I2O

(USA= 100)

-77

USA LZ Europe

YEAR

Figure 1.-Index of American and European hourly

compensation costs (USA=100).

Reasons for Loss of Market Share

The Myth of Labor Costs
The most common perception among American manufacturers for the cause of this increased competition is
reduced labor costs associated with many foreign countries,
especially those in the Pacific Rim. While this may have
been true in the past, it is no longer true today. For
example, Taiwan, for many years, has enjoyed the
advantage of lower wage rates than the U.S. However,
today Taiwanese firms faced with labor shortages operate
below capacity. The factory workers that are available are
demanding higher wages and improved working conditions
(Smith and West 1991). Since this trend occurs as countries become more industrialized, it is reasonable to expect
wage rates to climb in other Pacific Rim countries, also.
European manufacturers have no advantage in labor costs
since wages in European countries are nearly the same as,
or higher than, American wages. Aggregate figures for the
16 European countries for which 1988 data is available
(Fig. 1) show that in 1986 European countries paid an
average hourly rate at 83 percent of the United States
average, 101 percent in 1987, and 105 percent in 1988
(I1.S. Department of Commerce 1989).

The Reality of Quality

One reason for the U.S. loss of market share is the
resistance of American manufacturers to design products
with customer expectations in mind. In a recent
international quality study conducted by the American
Quality Foundation and Ernst & Young, it was discovered
that Japanese companies are three times as likely as
American and Canadian businesses to incorporate customer
expectations into the design of new products and services.
Furthermore, German businesses are twice as likely as
North American businesses to translate customer
expectations into the design of new products and services
(Bemowski 1991).

Clearly, to improve the perceived quality of American

products by meeting customer expectations is key to
increasing the market share. New technologies must be
applied to respond to customer expectations in a timely
fashion, and employees need training in the application and
implementation of the technologies. Models of
manufacturing systems ensure that all employees not only
understand the current system, from raw materials to
finished product, but can effectively determine potential
points for implementing new technologies.

Strategy for Improvement

By educating the workforce on the complete manufacturing
process and the tools and techniques used to evaluate
productivity and quality, America can regain its competitive
status. The 1988 ASQCIGallup survey reported that
employee education is one of the most important ways to
improve quality in American business (Ryan 1989). A
practice common to recent winners of the Malcolm
Baldridge National Quality Award is the implementation of
training courses in managing for quality, making improvements, and using the tools and techniques available (Juran
1991). Before improvements in quality can be realized,
managers must recognize the points where quality problems
are likely to arise, where improvements are needed, and at
which new techniques may be applied effectively.
Once expertise on managing for quality is acquired, new
tools and techniques must be applied to gain control of the
manufacturing process. "Gaining total control of the process
requires a system applied uniformly across the operation,
from raw materials to finished product, so that
communication barriers come down via a common language
and common format." (Slater 1991). A graphic model can
be used to explain the manufacturing process to individuals
not familiar with the furniture industry, as well as to pinpoint
areas where quality might be a problem before final
assembly.

Description of Model
This paper presents the graphic model of a typical
casegood furniture plant. The model (Appendix A) was
developed using the IDEF (!CAM- lntegrated Computer
Aided ~anufacturin~- niti ion)^ modeling process
developed by the U.S. Air Force program for Integrated
Computer Aided Manufacturing ([CAM) (Softech, Inc. 1981).
The basic premise behind the process is that the human
mind has the ability to accommodate any amount of
complexity if it is presented in easy-to-grasp chunks that fit
together to make the whole. To impose the restriction that
only related information is shown on any single chart, the
IDEF method limits a function to six or fewer subfunctions;
thus a consistent level of detail for each function within a
chart is maintained and decision points become apparent.
In using the IDEF method, each box in the model
represents a function. Figure 2 contains six boxes, each
representing a major stage in the production of wood
furniture. Each arrow entering a box from the left
represents an input and each arrow exiting a box from the
right represents an output of the function. As shown in
Figure 2, the order preparation stage (prepare order box)
produces the supplies (including lumber, hardware,
fasteners, adhesives), due date, and work center schedule.
However, to see all the intermittent steps, it is necessary to
explode the box into several smaller boxes. This
decomposition is shown in Figure 3. Each of these boxes,
prepare cutting order and procure supplies, in turn, can be
decomposed further, hence Figures 4 and 5.
Arrows entering from the top represent constraints. For
example, in Figure 2, the moisture content of the lumber is
considered a constraint since moisture will affect how long
it will take to prepare the lumber for processing. Arrows
entering from the bottom represent mechanisms or devices
needed to execute the function which that box represents.
In Figure 6 , the stickers placed in between the lumber to
facilitate air flow are considered devices.
In addition, the IDEF method associates a node index with
the entire set of charts. The node index, an outline of the
process, is generated by assigning a number to each box
within a single chart. If a box is exploded into another
chart, each box within this chart is numbered and that
number is appended to that of the "parent" box. The
process continues recursively until entirely catalogued. The
node index provides a listing of all the functions and is
formatted to show "parent" functions and their "offspring."
For example, Figure 2 is the overview of the process and
is assigned the number 1A. Prepare order, a decomposition
of the first function, is designated 1Al; prepare lumber,
1A2; dimension pieces, 1A3, and so on. Figure 3 generates
1A1 I,prepare cutting order, and 1A1 2, procure supplies.
I ~ h use
e of trade, firm, or corporation names in this
publication is for the information and convenience of the
reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U S . Department of Agriculture
or the Forest Service of any product or service to the
exclusion of others that may be suitable.

If no greater level of detail is required for a particular

function, then it is not imperative to generate additional
boxes even though other functions that follow may require
further decomposition. The complete node index for the
entire process is presented immediately following the model
in Appendix B.
The model describes the manufacturing processes of a
dresser, bureau, or nightstand. It may be customized
easily to show specific production lines for additional parts
such as doors, or different procedures such as a gang-ripfirst cutup operation.

Previous Applications
The IDEF modeling process improves problem analysis,
requirements definition, and functional specifications through
the rigorous expression of complex ideas that had seemed
too abstract and obscure to treat technically. The'process
does not solve problems; it is a tool that allows people to
express, understand, manipulate, and check problem areas.
The U.S. Air Force provides the showpiece of this
te"cnology in their CAM program. Thousands.of people
from hundreds of organizations working on more than one
hundred major projects used the methodology not only for
the technical work of system definition and design, but for
project management and integration as well.
Additional applications of this tool include system design,
package design, documentation organization, curriculum
design for teaching, and project estimation and
management. Some specific examples are separation of
function and design in environment control systems;
uncovering overlooked tasks in the structure of a software
development project; and assessment of the impact of
factory modernization on engineering, purchasing, quality
assurance, and shipping. Furthermore, one large
corporation applied the IDEF product specification and
design diagrams to meeting control; participants addressed
specific issues and made decisions with less effort and time
than before using IDEF (Ross 1985). These examples
demonstrate the breadth of problems addressed using the
IDEF modeling procedure.

Future Applications
Within the wood furniture industry, the possible benefits of
applying the IDEF modeling process are vast. As furniture
manufacturers move to respond to customers more quickly
and take advantage of new technologies, they must analyze
their product and current production system to determine
which technologies are applicable and feasible. The
analysis must also uncover points where the new
technologies may be integrated with the current system. By
modeling the production process with IDEF, such an
analysis would be greatly facilitated.
Inventory control may be improved by diagram analysis to
pinpoint areas where excess inventory is generated.

SCHEDULES
MOISTURE

"I

COMPLETED
MARKED OFF

SCHEDULE

LUMBER

-DRIED
BOARDS

M/C'
SPEEDS
FOR PART
TYPEOF
LUMBER

M/C*
SPEEDS
FOR
LUMBER

DIMENSION
PIECES
PIECES

f
SHAPE

ASSEMBLE

PACK

* Machine.
~ i g u r e2.- 1A Overview.

I"

inventory

hd

order

bill of materials

PREPME
due date
ORDER ~ w r center
k
schedule

supplies

PROCURE due date

SUpPLlES receipt date of supplies

rC

(for possible
revision of work
center schedule)

I
work center schedule

Figure 3.-Decomposition of prepare order.

guidelines for
process times

DETERMINEWHERE

receipt of
supplies if
in feedback
loop

ESTABUSH

PLACED

IAll
Figure 4.-Decomposition of prepare cutting order.

due date

on hand
inventory

bill of materials

DEDUCTONHAND
FROM BOM AND
UPDATE ON HAND
workcenter s c h e d u l ~

, I(
vendor's productbn
whedule and
on hand inventory

need-to-buy l i t
P

work center schedule

k i
doaired delivery data

Figure 5.-Decomposition of procure supplies.

g
E

WNENDOR

on-tlmedeliverydat{
delayed deliiry dates
C

due date
work center schedule

lA12

supplies

Similarly, production flow may be streamlined as

bottlenecks become obvious. Diagramming of the entire
production system reveals work-in-process accumulation.
Once such problems are identified, steps can be taken to
resolve the congestion, such as adding another machine or
rerouting work to a different machine.

managers to analyze a specific subsystem while

considering its interrelations with the system as a whole.
Previously overlooked factors that influence decision making
are revealed. In addition, downstream factors may have
more bearing on decisions than previously realized, forcing
decisions to be made too soon.

Paperwork may be reduced and information flow improved.

When all inputs to a function are identified, they may be
checked, one by one, to see if that information is
necessary to the function. If it is not necessary, that
transaction can be eliminated and the information provided
only when it is necessary. Conversely, by analyzing the
IDEF model, it may become apparent that information
required for a particular function may not be carried through
formal communication channels. In this instance, a direct
line of communication may be opened, thus eliminating the
need for a production employee or expeditor to trace the
information.

Setup time may be reduced once production employees

become familiar with the entire manufacturing system. Also,
when design engineers are acquainted with the complete
process, design for manufacture can be implemented. An
additional operation early in the production process may
eliminate two or more operations later on. In addition, the
change may be accomplished more easily earlier in the
process. The IDEF model shows the most frequent
changeover occurrences and which changeovers constrain
the system.

Decision making should improve. The IDEF model allows

The IDEF model of the wood furniture production process

may be analyzed to shed light on a wide range of
problems, not just those listed here. Only after these
problems are defined, can they be addressed.

Literature Cited
Bemowski, Karen. 1991. The international quality study.
Quality Progress. 24(11): 33-37.
Juran, J.M. 1991. Strategies for world-class quality.
Quality Progress. 24(3): 81-85.
Ross, Douglas T. 1985. Applications and extensions of
SADT. Computer. (4): 25-34.
Ryan, John. 1989. Is U.S. quality competitiveness back?
Quality Progress. 22(12): 37-39.
Slater, Roger H. 1991. lntegrated process management:
a quality model. Quality Progress. 24(3): 91-94.
Smith, Paul; West, Cynthia. 1991. The Taiwan and Korean
furniture industries. Import/Export Wood Purchasing

News. 17(4): 3, 24, 26, 28.

Softech, Inc. 1981. lntegrated computer-aided
manufacturing (ICAM) architecture, Part II, Vol. IV
Function modeling manual (IDEF-0) AFWAL-TR-814023. Vol. 4. Waltham, MA. Air Force Wright
Aeronautical Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, OH. 167 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

1989. Statistical abstract of the United States 1990.
Report 771. Washington, D.C. Table 1465, p. 849.
U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade
Administration. 1985. A competitive assessment of
the U.S. wood and upholstered furniture industry.
Washington, D.C. 50 p.

Appendix A

- IDEF Model

type of lumber used for this

order (from production control)
desired
moisture
content
green lumber
dried lumber
-7

STACK BOARDS
OF ONE KIND
OF LUMBER

stacks
of boards

uideline information on
ROW
long to dry lumber

--LUdried boards
-

DRY

due date
work center schedule

BOAROS

+stickers
due date
work center sct

completely dried boards

rk center schedule

REVISED

WORK
CENTER

-+

SCHEDULE

CONTENT

not dry enough

boards

CENTER
J *WORK
SCHEDULE WITH
DELAYS SHOWN

UNSTACK

lumber
(boards)
1A2

Figure 6.-Decomposition of prepare lumber.

pSUPPLIES
m ~

ORDER

DUE DATE

WORK
CENTER
SCHEDULE

PREPARE
BOARDS

WORK CENTER
SCHEDULES
WIACTUAL
WORK
COMPLETED
MARKED OFF

SPEEDS
FOR PART
TYPE OF
LUMBER

DIMENSION
PIECES

LUMBER
PIECES

f
SHAPE

4 ASSEMBLE I

* Machine.
Figure 7.-1A Overview.

on hand
inventory
order

1 bill of materials

supplies
PROCURE due date
SUPPLIES receipt date of supplies

5-

-----(for possible
revision of work
center schedule)
'

work center schedule

Figure 8. 1A1 Prepare order.

guidelines for
process times

DETERMINE WHERE
ON SCHEDULE
ORDER IS TO BE
PLACED

due date
___)

supplies if
in feedback
loop

DETERMINE BILL
OF MATERIALS
(BOM)

due date

---------)

BOM
-

1-

ESTABLISH
WORKCENTER
SCHEDULE

BOM

Figure 9.- 1A 1 1 Prepare cutting order.

due date

work center schedule

on hand
inventory

bill of materials

DEDUCT ON HAND
FROM BOM AND

work center schedule

UPDATE ON HAND
INVENTORY
RECORDS

vendor's production
schedule and
on hand inventory

need-tebuy list

CUT
PURCHASE

due date

purchase order

desired deliverv date

work center schedule

due date

i
Figure 10. - 1A1 2 Procure supplies.

work center schedule

supplies

PlACE
ORDER

W/VENDOR

rn

on-time delivery dates

delayed delivery date.

type of lumber used for this

order (from production control)
desired
moisture
content
green lumber
dried lumber

stacks
boards

STACKBOARDS
OF ONE KIND

uideline information on
long to dry lumber
FIow
dried boards

'ILN DRY due date

BOARDS -

work center schedule

due date
work center schedule

REVISED
WORK ---+
CENTER
SCHEDULE

not dry enough

boards
,.................................

i
j

PREPARE
CUlTING
ORDER

.................................

iI
1-

WORK CENTER
SCHEDULE WITH
DEIAYSSHOWN

UNSTACK
BOARDS

I
lumber

A (boards)
Figure 1 1. -1A2 Prepare lumber.

type of lumber

guideline
information on
how long to
dry lumber

desired
moisture
content

type of
lumber
desired

work center

GET STACK(S)
OF BOARDS OF
TYPE OF LUMBER
SPECIFIED ON
WORK CENTER
SCHEDULE

Figure 12.- 1A22 Kiln dry boards.

work center

ADJUST CONTROLS

work center
schedule

dried boards

3 I
work center schedule

,,

BOARDG

current required
saw
speed lengths from
{cutting bill

groups of pieces
with same length
due date

pieces cut to length

supplies

f
supplies

SEPARATE
~ ~ ~ S S Cdue
U Tdate
BOARDS
BY
Iwork center schedulA LENGTH
-

t1

saw
speed

RIP
BOARDS

supplies
pieces of a propriate
rough pieces of size
GLUE
length cut o width
BOARDS
due date
due date
TOGETHER
work center schedule
work center schedule

I I

PIECES

core pieces
work center schedule
b

Figure 13.-1A3 Dimension pieces.

current required lengths

from cutting bill
1

planed boards
due date

SCAN BOARD
FOR DEFECT

dried boards
due date
work center schedule

DETERMINE WHERE
CROSSCUTS SHOULD
GO TO GET LARGEST

human eye or
vision system

dried boards
due date

operator or vision system's

computer algorithm

saw speeds for

type of lumber
due date
PLACE IN
WASTEBINS
____t

I crosscut saw

*work center schedule with actual

work completed marked off.

Figure 14.- 1A32 Crosscut boards.

saw speed
for part
type lumber

cutting bill
requirements
pieces
cut to lendh

work center
schedule

supplies
pieces cut to width

C,

SET SAW BLADES

FOR DESIRED
WIDTHS

pieces

FEED BOARDS
THROUGH
RIP SAW

D-

due date

L
7

work center schedule*

1 waste pieces and sawdust

D-

PLACE IN
WASTE BINS

* work center schedule with

actual work done marked off.

Figure 15.-1 A33 Rip boards.

work center schedule

workcenter schedule

work center schedule

SELECT PIECES SUCH

THAT THE TOTAL WIDTH
COMES CLOSEST TO
DESIRED WIDTH WITHOUT
GOING UNDER

glue pieces
APPLY
GLUE

due date
I

work center schedule

work center schedule

glue roller
ball

k:
rough pieces of size

PUT
ANDCURE
TOGETHER

work center schedule

glue wheel or
high-frequency
elecbonic bonding
machine

=igure 16.- 1A35 Glue boards together.

I required thickness
of piece

rough pieces of size

due date

RESURFACE

TRIM PIECES TO
UNIFORM LENGTH

work center schedule

core pieces
APPLY VENEER OR
VINYL COATING

Figure 17.-1A36 Trim pieces.

work center schedule

*
b-

completed
shaped pieces

shaped pieces

UT O W
BASIC
SHAPES

SHAPE
EDGES

due date
work center
schedule

B-

duedate
work center

=-

I 1

due date
work center
schedule

111

1 accessible pieces RTA**

sanded pieces
supplies

supplies

INSPECT
PIECES

I work center schedule*

inaccessible after assembly pieces

-7

flawed pieces

P
repaired pieces
REWORK
FLAWED
PIECES
STAIN PIECES
WHICH W I U BE
VISIBLE ONLY
PART OF THE

stained
pieces
RTA
*work center schedule with actual
work done marked off.
** Ready to Assemble.

Figure 18.- 1A 4 Shape pieces.

-

tenacity
of lumber
shaped pieces

core pieces

..

supplies
due date

3
work center schedule

due date
I work center schedule

supplies
EXTERIOR due date

SHAPE*
- . .. -. -

** profiling mlc's,
drills, carving mlc's,
and boring mlc's.

work center schedule

t
machines*

* machines for this

operation would ~nclude
routers, lathes, tenoners,
planers, and shapers.

( tenacity

sawdust

I
of lumber

CARVE
INTERIOR

shaped and carved basic pieces

flawed pieces
sawdust

!machines**

Figure 19.-1 A41 Cut out basic shams

4-----

PLACE
IN
WASTE
BINS

saw speeds
for type of
lumber

A-

supplies
due date

SETUP
MACHINES

sha ed ieces
su lies
due date

M/C's TO
SHAPE EDGES

~ completed
:
~ pieces
~

I flawed pieces

I sawdust

machines*

PLACE IN
WASTE BINS

*
Figure 20.- 1 A42 Shape edges.

machines may include moulders,

dovetailers, mitering machines.

required
thickness
of piece

7
supplies
b
due date
center scheduleb

completely

mostly sanded pieces

SET UP
SANDING

due date

MACHINES

wok center scheduE

c-

RUN PIECES
THROUGH
SANDERS

supplies
due date
work center schedule
sawdust

_,__________________I_______________________I_______________________I_______________________I_______________________I______________________

1j

1 1

REWORK
FLAWED

w
C

Figure 21.- 1A43 Sand pieces.

\I

TOUCHUP
INTRICATE
WORK BY
SANDING BY
HAND

rework

c
sanded pieces

PLACE IN
WASTE BINS

sanded pieces
supplies
due date
work center
schedule

-------c

SCAN
SURFACES

T
human
operator

ready-to-assemble (RTA) pieces

Figure 22.- 1A44 Inspect pieces.

flawed pieces
supplies
due date
work center
schedule-

MARK
c

FLAWS

marking
pencil

RTA which do not require

pre-assembly staining
RTA which require pre-assembly
staining

COUNT
RTA
NUMBER
PASSED
~NSPECTION count of number passed
(work center schedule with
actual work done marked off)

b-

.
flawed pieces (minor)

FILL IN
FWWS

filled pieces

SMOOTH
OUT
FILLING

(major)

PLACE IN
WASTE

Figure 23.- 1 A45 Rework flawed pieces.

paint
brush

I iron

repaired pieces

pieces
supplies
due date
work center schedule

ASSEMBLE
FRAME

c-

-I

frames

accuracy
of saw
operator

+ PUT R M v E S

supplies

pieces
supplies

due date
work center schedule

Ll

1 1-

Iokaved bare furniture

INSPECT

barewood furniture

AND
DRAWERS
TOGETHER

ASSEMBLE
DRAWERS

texture
of wood

I I

supplies

Figure 24. - 1A5 Assemble parts.

gz

r]
supplies

AlTACH
HARDWARE

count of finished goods (work center

schedule with work done marked off)
finished goods

*
*

accuracy
of saw
operator'

accuracy
of saw
supplies
due date
work center schedule
pieces

7
*

AnACH
SIDES
TOTOP

supplies

AlTACH
SHELVES

Ushape

'

Astap~es
or dowel
pins

staples
or
screws

supplies

_I

ATTACH
RUNNERS

7-

screws

Figure 25.- 1 A51 Assemble frame.

frame

_I

A r n H
PA&T

c
outside frame

frame

1 accuracy of

I accuracy
of
saw operator
supplies
due date
work center schedule
pieces

saw operator

JOIN SIDES
TOBACK

supplies
U shape

supplies

ATTACH

bracket,
cjrtaiIingl

BOllOM

staples

1 accuracy of
saw operator
supplies
drawer box
DRAWER
FRONTS

Figure 26.- 1 A52 Assemble drawers.

drawers

accuracy of
saw operator

frames
supplies
drawers

INSERT
DRAWERS
INTO
FRAMES

r
l
supplies
Ucasen

AFFIX
STOPS

I
Figure 27. -1A53 Put frames and drawers together.

screws

barewood furniture

-1

furniture

Figure 28.- 1A54 Inspect.

VISUALLY
SCAN
PIECES

1y
flawed barewood furniture

texture
of wood

Supplies +/ FILL AND

SPECIAL

treated
furniture

I
7

/
I

stained furniture

texture
of wood

SEAL AND
STAlN

Figure 29.-1A55 Stain and finish.

supplies
b

PERFORM
HIGH
GLOSS
RUBDOWN

stained furniture (glossy)

I texture
of wood
I

supplies
treated furniture

ON
BAREWOOD

stained furniture

7
Figure 30.-1 A552 Fill and stain.

RUBOFF

stained furniture

RUNS

+
supplies

stained furniture (1 st coat)

v
supplies

texture
of wood

APPLY
FINISH

supplies

RUBOFF

stained furniture

stained furniture

dull, stained furniture

FURNITURE

Figure 31.- lA553 Seal and stain.

type of
furniture

4 -1 - 1
1

s"~~'ies

'IT
HARDWARE

hardware kit

ASSIGN
KIT TO

supplies

PIECE
.

furniture
w/kit

I
furniture
I
I

t
1

supplies

_I

WIPE OFF
FURNITURE

Figure 32.- 1A56 Attach hardware.

supplies
finished furniture

_1

INSPECT

ATTACH
HARDWARE
TO PIECE

-1

furniture

count of finished goods

finished goods

furniture

THOROUGHLY
VISUALLY
INSPECT

PIECE

okayed furniture

flawed furniture

INCREMENT
COUNT OF
FINISHED
GOODS BY 1

count of finished aoods

finished goods

PLACE IN
BUFFER

Figure 33.-1 A565 Inspect furniture.

due date
finished good

tr-7
+I 2x4 I

work center schedule

supplies

supplies
FIT BOX

wrapped
piece

SEAL

'

~ ~ O U N D
piece loosely

TOP OF

boxed

BOX

piece mostly

tape

supplies
_____C

boxed piece

I
Figure 34. - 1A6 Pack and ship.

of furniture
crowbar

TRANSPORT
TO WAREHOUSE
OR WAITING
TRUCK

Appendix B

- Node Index

1A. Overview
1A1 . Prepare order
1A1 1. Prepare cutting order
1 A l l l . Determine where on master schedule
order is to be placed
1A1 12. Determine bill of materials
1A1 13. Establish workcenter schedules
1A12. Procure supplies
1A1 21. Deduct on hand inventory from bill of .
materials and update on hand inventory
records
1A122. Cut purchase orders
1A1 23. Place order with vendor
1A2. Prepare lumber
1A21. Stack boards of one kind of lumber
1A22. Kiln dry boards
1A221. Get stack(s) of boards of type of lumber
specified on work center schedule
1A222. Move and put in kiln and adjust controls
1A23. Test moisture content
1A24. Unstack boards
1A3. Dimension pieces
1A3l. Plane boards
1A32. Crosscut boards
1A321. Scan board for defect information
1A322. Determine where crosscuts should go to
get largest clear area of desired length
1A323. Crosscut boards
1A324. Place in waste bins
1A33. Separate boards by length
1A34. Rip boards
1A341. Set saw blades for desired widths
1A342. Feed boards through rip saw
1A343. Place in waste bins
1A35. Glue boards together
1A35l. Load selector
1A352. Scan pieces
1A353. Select pieces such that the total width
when glued together comes closest to
desired width without being under desired
width
1A354. Apply glue
1A355. Put boards together and cure
1A36. Trim pieces
1A36l. Resurface pieces
1A362. Trim pieces to uniform length
1A363. Apply veneer or vinyl coating
1A4. Shape pieces
1A41. Cut out basic shapes
1A411. Set up machines
1A412. Cut exterior shape
1A4l3. Cawe interior designs
1A41 4. Place (flawed pieces and sawdust) in
waste bins
1A42. Shape edges
l A 4 2 l . Set up machines
1A422. Run pieces through machines to shape
edges
1A423. Place flawed pieces and sawdust in waste

bins
1A43. Sand pieces
l A 4 3 l . Set up sanding machines
1A432. Run pieces through sanders
1A433, Touch up intricate work by sanding by
hand
1A434. Place sawdust in waste bins
1A44. Inspect pieces
1A441 . Scan surf aces
1A442. Mark flaws
1A443. Place in scrap lumber pile
1A444. Count number passed inspection
1A45. Rework flawed pieces
1A45l. Fill in flaws
1A452. Smooth out filling
1A46. Stain pieces which will be visible only part of
the time
1A5. Assemble parts
1A51. Assemble frame
1A51 1. Attach sides to top
1A51 2. Attach shelves
1A513. Attach runners
lA514. Attach to pallet
1A52. Assemble drawers
1A521. Join sides to back
1A522. Attach bottom
1A523. Attach drawer fronts
1A524. Attach slides (and blocks)
1A53. Put frames and drawers together
1A531. Insert drawers into frames
1A532. Affix stops
1A54. lnspect
1A54l. Visually scan pieces
1A542. Mark flaws
1A543. Pull off assembly line
1A544. Put in buffer area
1A55. Stain and finish
1A551. Treat with special effects (highlight, fly
speck)
1A552. Fill and stain
1A5521. Spray stain on bare wood
1A5522. Rub off runs
1A5523. Dry furniture
1A553. Seal and stain (top coat)
1A553l. Apply finish (glaze)
1A5532. Rub off runs
1A5533. Dry furniture
1A554. High gloss rubdown
1A56. Attach hardware
1A561. Kit hardware
1A562. Assign kit to piece
1A563. Attach hardware to piece
1A564. Wipe off furniture
1 ~ 5 6 5 . lnspect furniture
1A5651. Thoroughly inspect piece visually
1A5652. Increment count of finished goods
by one
1A5653. Mark flaws
lA5654. Pull off line
1A5655. Place in buffer area
1A6. Pack and ship
1A61. Wrap in packing material

1A62.
1A63.
1A64.
1A65.
1A66.

Fit box around piece

Seal top of box
Remove furniture from pallet
Seal bottom of box
Transport to warehouse or waiting truck

Sr U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992--648-139/40,026

Hoff, Kristen G.; Sarin, Subhash C.; Anderson, R. Bruce. 1992. Graphic
model of the processes involved in the production of casegood
furniture. Res. Pap. NE-666. Radnor, PA: U S . Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 39 p.
Imports from foreign furniture manufacturers are on ,the rise, and American
manufacturers must take advantage of recent technological advances to
regain their lost market share. To facilitate the implementation of these
technologies for improving productivity and quality, a graphic model of the
wood furniture production process is presented using the IDEF modeling
process. Description explains the data that flows and the activities that occur
in the plant, and their interaction. By analyzing the model, communication may
be improved, specific points for implementing new technologies may occur,
bottlenecks and problem areas may become evident, inventory control may be
simplified, and paperwork may be reduced.
Keywords: Wood furniture production; quality improvement; productivity
improvement; IDEF

Headquarters of the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station is i n Radnor, Pennsylvania. Field laboratories are maintained at:
Amherst, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the University of Massachusetts
Buriington, Vermont, in cooperation with the University of Vermont
Delaware, Ohio
Durham, New Hampshire, in cooperation with the University of New Hampshire
Hamden, Connecticut, i n cooperation with Yale University
Morgantown, West Virginia, i n cooperation with West Virginia University
Orono, Maine, in cooperation with the University of Maine
Parsons, West Virginia
Princeton, West Virginia
Syracuse, New York, in cooperation with the State University of New York,
College of Environmental Sciences and Forestry at Syracuse University
University Park, Pennsylvania, in cooperation with The Pennsylvania State University
Warren, Pennsylvania
Persons of any race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, or with any handicapping condition are welcome to use and enjoy all facilities, programs, and services of
the USOA. Discrimination in any form is strictly against agency policy, and should be
reported to the Secretary of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

'Caring for the Land and Serving People Through Research'