You are on page 1of 9

Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37 (2015) 173181

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Manufacturing Systems


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmansys

Technical paper

Economic efciency of manufacturing technology integration


S. Tnissen , J. Rey, F. Klocke
Laboratory for Machine Tools and Production Engineering WZL, RWTH Aachen University, Steinbachstrae 19, 52074 Aachen, Germany

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 18 December 2014
Received in revised form 19 April 2015
Accepted 18 July 2015
Available online 31 October 2015
Keywords:
Multi-technology platforms
Productivity
Cost
Throughput times

a b s t r a c t
Manufacturing technology integration is an emerging paradigm that focuses on the functional integration of diverse manufacturing technologies into machine tools. This paper describes the application
of models of production, cost, and queuing theory to identify conditions under which manufacturing
technology integration yields greater productivity, lower cost, and decreased throughput times than
a manufacturing system comprising conventional single-technology machine tools. It was found that
manufacturing technology integration is particularly cost- efcient for small output quantities. However,
although the logistic chain is shortened through manufacturing technology integration, throughput times
might increase because of waiting times.
2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Society of Manufacturing Engineers.

1. Introduction
The layout of manufacturing systems and the design of machine
tools are governed by manufacturing paradigms that mirror
evolution-like mechanisms [13]. According to Koren et al., there
are three paradigms in manufacturing system design: dedicated,
exible, and recongurable [47]. The limited functions of a dedicated manufacturing system are intended for manufacturing, a
xed set of known products only. Flexible manufacturing systems
are initially equipped with an enhanced functional spectrum to
enable the manufacture of products that are unknown at the time of
system design. The recongurable manufacturing paradigm postulates that the ever-increasing volatility in terms of product volumes
and functional requirements may best be met by manufacturing
systems that are recongurable, that is, their functions may be
interchanged.
During the past decade, the economic justication of the recongurable manufacturing paradigm has received much academic
attention. [414] However, while this paradigm has been successfully applied to the design of recongurable assembly systems,
recongurable machine tools are not broadly implemented in
industry as yet [15]. First, the initial costs of recongurable machine
tools are higher than those of conventional machine tools [16].
Second, the maturity of the technology is still low [17]. Hence,
the recongurable manufacturing paradigm has not yet proven its
viability in terms of machine tool design.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 241 80 27400; fax: +49 241 80 22293.
E-mail addresses: s.toenissen@wzl.rwth-aachen.de (S. Tnissen),
j.rey@wzl.rwth-aachen.de (J. Rey), f.klocke@wzl.rwth-aachen.de (F. Klocke).

The breadth of scientic literature covering the economic justication of recongurable manufacturing systems is wide. However,
the actual evolution of the application of machine tools in industry
should rather be understood as a continuous functional enhancement based on the exible manufacturing paradigm. The latest
trend in this development is a functional enhancement that targets manufacturing technology integration, wherein machine tools
are enabled to execute diverse manufacturing technologies that
were previously installed on individual machine tools. This type
of a machine tool is referred to as multi-technology platforms
or multifunctional machine tools. In addition to multi-technology
platforms with one workspace, multi-technology platforms with
two workspaces have been studied in past research [1820].
To date, very little attention has been paid to the economic
justication of manufacturing technology integration; for example, the 2008 CIRP keynote paper on Multi-functional machine
tools provides only one citation that addresses economic justication comparisons [21]. Some machine tool builders have
developed platforms that have never been marketed. However,
other multi-technology platforms such as the Trumpf TruMatic,
which combines punching and laser cutting have been successfully
sold for decades [22], clearly illustrating the economic potential of
the manufacturing technology integration paradigm.
This paper shifts its focus from the economic justication of
recongurable machine tools to the economic efciency of manufacturing technology integration, because of its greater relevance
to actual machine tool development in industry. In section 2, key
terms regarding manufacturing technology integration are dened.
Section 3 derives efciency models of manufacturing technology
integration on the basis of production, cost, and queueing theory. In
section 4, the efciency models are applied to discuss the integrated

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.07.003
0278-6125/ 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Society of Manufacturing Engineers.

174

S. Tnissen et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37 (2015) 173181

Table 1
List of acronyms.
Acronym
BN
cj
Cj
fl
IMS
Lpara
Lserial
m
MTP
n
o
ocrit
SMS
tco,j
top,j
tp,j
ttp,j
ttr,SMS
twc,j
T
Top
Um,max
x
xcrit,j
tco
top
tp
twc

j

N
 op
 tr

Unit
D/qty.
D

qty.
qty.
qty.
qty.
qty.
qty.
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
min
%
qty.
qty.
min
min
min
min
min1
min1
qty.
qty.

Description
Bottle-neck machine tool
Piece cost
Machine and operator cost per machine tool
Workload on l-th machine of segregated manufacturing system
Integrated manufacturing system
Number of paralleled machine tools
Number of serial machine tools
Lot size
Multi-technology platform
Number of features per workpiece
Number of orders
Critical output/productivity limit in terms of lots
Segregated manufacturing system
Changeover time per lot
Operation time per lot
Processing time per feature
Throughput time
Transportation time between machines of segregated manufacturing system
Workpiece change time per workpiece
Duration of reference period
Maximum operation time during reference period T
Maximum mean utilization of machine tools
Output quantity
Critical output/productivity limit in terms of workpieces
Difference in changeover time between multi-technology platform and bottleneck machine of segregated manufacturing system
Difference in operation time between multi-technology platform and bottleneck machine of segregated manufacturing system
Difference in processing time between multi-technology platform and bottleneck machine of segregated manufacturing system
Difference in workpiece change time between multi-technology platform and bottleneck machine of segregated manufacturing system
Arrival rate of orders
Service rate of orders
Characteristic threshold for lot size
Characteristic threshold for number of features
Ratio of operation times between multi-technology platform and segregated manufacturing system
Ratio of transportation time to operation time of segregated manufacturing system

manufacturing of an exemplary part. Section 5 outlines conclusions


and presents future research questions. A list of all acronyms used
herein is presented in Table 1.

Segregated
manufacturing
system

Manufacturing technology integration is a design paradigm for


manufacturing systems and machine tools linked to the exible
manufacturing paradigm. Machine tools designed according to
the manufacturing technology integration paradigm will be called
multi-technology platforms and are capable of executing diverse
manufacturing technologies that were previously installed on separate machine tools. A manufacturing system designed according
to the manufacturing technology integration paradigm is an integrated manufacturing system.
The antonym of integration is segregation, which denotes the act
of isolation. Thus, a segregated manufacturing system is a manufacturing system, wherein the manufacturing technologies remain
segregated among individual single-technology machine tools. A
segregated manufacturing system is based on the manufacturing
technology segregation paradigm.
Fig. 1 depicts the technology chain of both segregated and
integrated manufacturing systems. This paper focuses on the comparison of the parts of the technology chain that are integrated
on multi-technology platforms to the corresponding parts of the
segregated manufacturing system.
The conguration of a manufacturing system is the lineup of
machine tools [23]. For low output quantities beneath its productivity limit xcrit ,MTP , a single multi-technology platform sufces to
produce the desired output quantities, as shown in Fig. 2. Beyond
xcrit,MTP , multi-technology platforms must be paralleled so that the

Integrated
manufactruring
system

2. Denition of terms

Technology chain

T1

T2

T3

Single technology machine tools

T1, T2, T3

Multi-technology platforms
Focus of comparison
Fig. 1. Focus of comparison.

integrated manufacturing system assumes a parallel conguration


for high output quantities.
The segregated manufacturing system assumes a serial conguration for low output quantities, because the required
manufacturing technologies are segregated between individual single-technology machine tools. For high output quantities
beyond the productivity limit of the critical (bottleneck) machine
xcrit,BN , the segregated manufacturing system adopts a serial and a
parallel conguration.

S. Tnissen et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37 (2015) 173181

Low output*

Integrated
manufacturing system

175

Segregated
manufacturing system

Single multitechnology platform

High output

Serial configuration

Parallel configuration

Legend:

Serial and parallel configuration

Machine tool

*Minimum configuration suffices to produce output quantity.


Fig. 2. Congurations of integrated and segregated manufacturing systems.

Profitability

Productivity

Throughput time

Precision synergy
effect

Monetary synergy
effect

Temporal synergy
effect

Functional synergy through manufacturing technology integration


Fig. 3. Classication of synergy effects of manufacturing technology integration.

Manufacturing technology integration implies that the functions that were previously installed on separate single-technology
machine tools are integrated into a single multi-technology platform. For low output quantities, this functional integration creates
a functional synergy. This is because a single machine bed, a single operator, and a single machine control are required within
the integrated manufacturing system. However, within the segregated manufacturing system, multiple machine beds, operators,
and machine controls are required.
Depending on the workpiece to be machined and the manufacturing technologies combined, the functional synergy based on
manufacturing technology integration may create a precision, a
monetary, and a temporal synergy effect, as shown in Fig. 3. The precision synergy effect describes the enhancement of the workpiece
accuracy resulting from manufacturing technology integration,
because the workpiece may be machined in a single clamping. The
monetary synergy effect refers to the cost difference between a
multi-technology platform and a serial line of single-technology
machine tools within the segregated manufacturing system. The
monetary synergy effect is particularly great if functionally similar
manufacturing technologies such as drilling and milling are integrated. This is because in this combination, the same tool clamping
unit may be used in a machining center. Of course, the monetary
synergy effect is not quite as signicant if functionally dissimilar
manufacturing technologies such as turning and grinding are integrated. The temporal synergy effect of manufacturing technology
integration is based on the reduction of workpiece change time
because the workpieces may be machined in a single clamping.

The temporal synergy effect is related to protability, productivity, and throughput time, whereas the precision and the monetary
synergy effect solely inuences protability.
3. Efciency modeling
This section aims at the determination of the conditions for
the economic efciency of integrated manufacturing systems compared to segregated manufacturing systems using quantitative
models based on production, cost, and queuing theory. Three efciency criteria are reected in this analysis: productivity, cost, and
throughput time.
3.1. Productivity
The productivity of the integrated manufacturing system may be
measured by the operation time top,MTP required to manufacture a
specic product lot. This time is determined by the changeover time
tco,MTP , the lot size m, the workpiece change time twc,MTP , the number of workpiece features n, and the processing time per feature
tp,MTP according to the following expression:

top,MTP = tco,MTP + m twc,MTP + ntp,MTP

(1)

The productivity of the segregated manufacturing system is


determined by the operation time of the bottleneck machine top,BN .
The bottleneck machine manufactures only the fraction fBN of the
total number of workpiece features.

top,BN = tco,BN + m twc,BN + nfBN tp,BN

(2)

Now, the conditions in terms of lot size m and number of workpiece features n will be identied for which the productivity of the
integrated manufacturing system is higher than that of the segregated manufacturing system. The productivity of the integrated
manufacturing system is higher if the operation time difference
top is less than zero.
top = top,MTP top,BN < 0

(3)

The difference of operation time top may be rewritten in terms


of the difference in changeover time tco , the difference in workpiece change time twc , and the difference in processing time tp .

176

S. Tnissen et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37 (2015) 173181

tco



twc



top = (tco,MTP tco,BN ) + m((twc,MTP twc,BN )

tp



+ n(tp,MTP tp,BN fBN ))

(4)

synergy effect of manufacturing technology integration is not sufciently large to compensate for the smaller number of workspaces.
In short, the productivity of the multi-technology platform is less
than that of the bottleneck machine of the segregated manufacturing system.
xcrit,MTP < xcrit,BN .

In the following section, it will be discussed whether the differences in changeover, workpiece change, and the processing time
are greater or less than zero when an integrated manufacturing
system is compared to a segregated manufacturing system.
Changeover time tco is the time required to prepare a machine
tool to manufacture a particular lot. Since the multi-technology
platform is more complex than the single-technology machine
tool at the bottleneck of the segregated manufacturing system, it
seems reasonable to assume that the changeover time of the multitechnology machine tool tco,MTP is higher than that of the bottleneck
machine tco,BN .
Assumption : tco > 0

(5)

Workpiece change time is the time required to exchange a


workpiece in a manufacturing machine. This time component may
effectively be reduced using manufacturing technology integration
if the machining takes place in a single clamping. The reduction
of workpiece change time has been called the temporal synergy
effect of manufacturing technology integration. If a temporal synergy effect exists, the difference between workpiece change times
of the multi-technology platform and the bottleneck machine of
the segregated manufacturing system is assumed to be less than
zero.
Assumption : twc < 0

Assumption : tp > 0

(7)

The difference of workpiece change time twc is the only time


component that may eventually be smaller than zero. Under the
aforementioned assumptions, the operation time of the multitechnology platform is shorter than that of the bottleneck machine
if the number of workpiece features undercuts the characteristic value N and the lot size m exceeds the characteristic value M,
compare expression (8).

top < 0 n

3.2. Cost
This section discusses the conditions, wherein the piece cost of
an integrated manufacturing system cIMS is less than that of a segregated manufacturing system cSMS . This discussion is based on the
assumption that the productivity of a multi-technology platform
xcrit,MTP is less than that of the bottleneck machine of the segregated manufacturing system xcrit,BN . Furthermore, the material and
xed costs are considered equal for the integrated and the segregated manufacturing system, such that these cost fractions may be
neglected.
The piece cost of the integrated manufacturing system depends
on the number of paralleled multi-technology platforms Lpara,MTP ,
the machine and the operator cost of a multi-technology platform
CMTP , and the output quantity x.
cIMS =

twc
N=
m
tp

tco
M=
twc + ntp

(8)

In other words, workpieces should comprise few but versatile


features and lot sizes should be large. This nding contradicts the
prevailing notion that manufacturing technology integration is particularly suitable for workpieces with as many features as possible
in small lot sizes. Another approach addressing the inuence of
lot sizes on the productivity of exible manufacturing systems is
presented in [24].
However, note that although a multi-technology platform possesses the same functional spectrum, the number of workspaces
is greater in the segregated manufacturing system. Thus, multiple
workpieces may be simultaneously machined in the segregated manufacturing system, whereas a single multi-technology
platform can only machine a single workpiece. The following considerations are made under the assumption that the temporal

Lpara,MTP (x) CMTP


x

(10)

To determine the piece cost of the segregated manufacturing


system, the sum of the machine and the operator costs of all l-stages
of the production process within the segregated manufacturing system need to be considered, taking all paralleled machine tools into
account.

Lserial

(6)

Processing time is the time during which the tool interacts


with the workpiece. The manufacturing processes are technologically indifferent between the integrated and the segregated
manufacturing system. Since more processes are executed on the
multi-technology platform than on the bottleneck machine, only a
fraction fBN of the bottleneck machines processing time needs to
be considered for the difference tp . Consequently, this difference
tp is assumed to be greater than zero.

(9)

cSMS =

l=10

Lpara,l (x) CMT,l


x

(12)

The number of paralleled machine tools at the l-th stage of the


production process may be calculated by rounding up the ratio
of output quantity x and the productivity limit of the respective
machine tool xcrit,l .

Lpara,l (x) = roundup

x
xcrit,l

(11)

Fig. 4 shows typical progressions of the piece cost functions of an


integrated and a segregated manufacturing system over the output
quantity x. For high output quantities, the piece cost of an integrated
manufacturing system converges to the ratio of machine and operator cost of a single multi-technology platform CMTP divided by the
productivity limit xcrit,MTP .
cIMS (x ) =

CMTP
.
xcrit,MTP

(13)

The piece cost of the segregated manufacturing system converges to the sum of the ratios of machine and operator cost CMT,l
divided by the productivity limit xcrit,l :

CMT,l

Lserial

cSMS (x ) =

l=1

xcrit,l

(14)

If the workload is unevenly distributed between the stages of


the segregated manufacturing system, the piece costs at the productivity limit of the bottleneck machine are higher than the piece
costs the graph converges to:

cSMS xcrit,BN > cSMS (x ) .

(15)

For small output quantities beneath the productivity limit


xcrit,MTP , a single multi-technology platform may be cost competitive with a serial line of machine tools in a segregated

S. Tnissen et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37 (2015) 173181

Segregated manufacturing system

*Configuration of
manufacturing system

IMS(

2xcrit,IMS

3xcrit,IMS

0
0
0

xcrit,IMS

Piece cost of segregated manufacturing system cSMS

Piece cost of integrated manufacturing system cIMS

Integrated manufacturing system

177

SMS(xcrit,BN)

SMS(

0
00

Output quantity x

xcrit,BN xcrit,2 2xcrit,BN


Output quantity x

xcrit,3

Fig. 4. Piece cost progressions of integrated and segregated manufacturing systems.

manufacturing system. In this output domain, manufacturing technology integration is cost-efcient if the cost of a multi-technology
platform and its operator are less than the machine and operator
cost of a serial line of machine tools in a segregated manufacturing
system.

Lserial

cIMS < cSMS CMTP <

CMT,l , x < xcrit,MTP .

(16)

l=1

For high output quantities, the cost threshold for machine and
operator cost of the multi-technology platform may be determined
by considering expressions (13) and (14).
<1

cIMS < cSMS CMTP (x ) <

  
L
serial
l=1

xcrit,MTP
CMT,l , x .
xcrit,l

(17)

Expression (17) comprises the ratio between the productivity


limit of the multi-technology platform xcrit,MTP and the productivity limit of the single-technology machine tools of the segregated
manufacturing system xcrit,SMS . It was assumed that the productivity limit of the multi-technology platform is less than that of
the segregated manufacturing systems bottleneck machine tool.
Since the bottleneck machine tool is the least productive machine
in the segregated manufacturing system, the ratio xcrit,MTP /xcrit,l is
less than 1 for any of the Lserial stages of the segregated manufacturing system. By comparing expressions (16) and (17), it is apparent
that the threshold for machine and operator cost of the multitechnology platform is smaller for high output quantities than for
output quantities less than xcrit,MTP .
CMTP (x ) < CMTP (x < xcrit,MTP ).

(18)

This signies that the manufacturing technology integration


should be considered for small output quantities, particularly
where a single multi-technology platform may substitute a serial
line of single-technology machine tools.
The difculty in applying manufacturing technology integration
to the production of large output quantities may be detailed by the
following consideration. For this consideration, it shall be assumed
that no temporal synergy effect prevails, that is, the operation time
of the integrated and the segregated manufacturing system are similar and equal to top . The productivity limit of the multi-technology
platform xcrit,MTP depends on the lot size m, the maximum

operation time during the reference period Top , and the operation
time per lot top .
xcrit,MTP =

mTop
.
top

(19)

Furthermore, the productivity limit of the l-th stage of the segregated manufacturing system depends on its workload fraction
fl .
xcrit,l =

mTop
mTop
=
.
top,l
top fl

(20)

To simplify the consideration, it will be assumed that the


machine and operator costs of all Lserial stages of the segregated
manufacturing system are equal.
CMT,l = CMT .

(21)

Expressions (19), (20), and (21) are now substituted in expression (17) to determine the machine and operator cost threshold
of the multi-technology platform for high output quantities. If no
temporal synergy effect of manufacturing technology integration
exists, the machine and operator cost of a multi-technology platform must be less than that of a single-technology machine tool.
CMTP (x ) < CMT .

(22)

However, this is impossible since the complexity of the multitechnology platform is greater than that of a single-technology
machine tool. This contradiction will be called the paradox of manufacturing technology integration. This paradox illustrates that a
signicant temporal synergy effect is required such that the cost of
an integrated manufacturing system is lower than that of a segregated manufacturing system for high output quantities.
3.3. Throughput time
This section determines the conditions, wherein the throughput
time of a multi-technology platform is less than that of a serial line
of single-technology machine tools within the segregated manufacturing system.
ttp,MTP < ttp,SMS .

(23)

Since the threshold for machine and operator cost of the multitechnology platform is higher for output quantities beneath the

178

S. Tnissen et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37 (2015) 173181

Segregated manufacturing system with two machines


1,4
1.4

Segregated manufacturing system with three machines


1,4
1.4

tr,SMS = 4
Threshold of operation
time ratio op [-]

Threshold of operation
time ratio op [-]

op,min

tr,SMS = 4

1,2
1.2

1,2
1.2
tr,SMS = 2

1,0
1.0
0,8
0.8
0,6
0.6

tr,SMS = 0

0,4
0.4

op,min

1
1.0

tr,SMS = 2

0,8
0.8
0,6
0.6
0,4
0.4

Assumption:
f2=f3=(1-f1)/3

tr,SMS = 0

0,2
0.2

0,2
0.2

0
0.0

0.0
0,0
0

25

50

75

25

100

50

75

100

Workload on first machine f1 [%]

Workload on first machine f1 [%]

Fig. 5. Operation time ratio for shorter throughput times of the integrated manufacturing systems.

productivity limit xcrit,MTP , throughput times will be determined in


this output domain.
x < xcrit,MTP .

(24)

In the following, the so-called M/M/1 queueing model will be


applied to determine the throughput times of the considered manufacturing systems. The queueing model assumes that arrival rate
and the service rate follow a Poisson distribution [25].
The arrival rate  may be determined by the ratio of orders o
arriving during the reference period T.
=

o
.
T

(25)

The service rate of the multi-technology platform MTP is the


reciprocal of operation time per lot top,MTP.
MTP =

1
top,MTP

(26)

According to the M/M/1 queueing model, the average throughput time of one order on a single multi-technology platform may
be determined by the following expression:
1
.
MTP 

ttp,MTP =

(27)

The average throughput time ttp,MTP is higher than the operation


time top,MTP because orders have to wait if the multi-technology
platform is busy machining previous orders. To delimit the ratio of
throughput times to operation times, the maximum mean utilization of a machine tool Um,max may not exceed 0.8.
Um,max =

max
= 0.8 max = Um,max MTP .
MTP

(28)

The service time at the l-th stage of the segregated manufacturing system may be determined on the basis of the operation time
top,SMS and the respective workload fl.
l =

1
.
top,SMS fl

(29)

To determine the average throughput time of the segregated


manufacturing system ttp,SMS , apart from the service rate l and
the arrival rate , the transportation time of orders between the
machine tools must be considered.

Lserial

ttp,SMS =

1
+ ttr,SMS .
l 

(30)

The operation time ratio is dened as follows:


op =

top,MTP
.
top,SMS

(31)

The smallest operation time ratios required for smaller throughput times occur if the multi-technology platform is utilized at the
maximum mean utilization Um,max , whereas the single-technology
machine tools of the segregated manufacturing system are only
partially utilized. Hence, the following equation must be solved to
determine the critical operation time ratio.
ttp,MTP =

1
< ttp,SMS =
MTP max

Lserial

1
+ ttr,SMS .
l max

(32)

Basic algebraic transformation may be applied to calculate the


operation time ratio  op required for smaller throughput times. The
resulting term, however, is too complex to be displayed herein and
may be found in [10].
The operation time ratio  op required for smaller throughput
times depends on the workload of the machines fl and the transportation time ratio  tr , which is determined by the following
fraction:
tr,SMS =

ttr,SMS
.
top,SMS

(33)

Fig. 5 shows the threshold of the operation time ratio  op


required for smaller throughput times for a segregated manufacturing system employing two and three machines. To obtain
smaller throughput times, operation times of the multi-technology
platform must be signicantly less than those of the segregated
manufacturing system if the transportation time ratio  tr is less
than four and the workload is evenly distributed between the stages
of the segregated manufacturing system.
The considerations of throughput times indicate that the shortening of the logistic chain through manufacturing technology
integration does not necessarily lead to smaller throughput times.
If the productivity of the multi-technology platform is less than that
of the bottleneck machine of the segregated manufacturing system,
the mean utilization of the multi-technology platform is greater.
Since waiting times depend on the mean utilization and may signicantly exceed operation times, throughput times are likely to be
greater in the integrated manufacturing system. In particular, this
will be the case for small output quantities when a single multitechnology platform competes with a segregated manufacturing
system comprising multiple single-technology machine tools.

S. Tnissen et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37 (2015) 173181

179

Um,max = 80%. This signies that the maximum operation time of


the machine tools during the reference period Top = 128 h.
Table 4 shows the machine and operator cost of the integrated
and the segregated manufacturing system during the reference
period T. It is assumed that each machine tool is operated by a single operator. The critical output ocrit of each machine tool in terms
of lots manufacturable during the reference period T is determined
by the following expression:


Fig. 6. Rotary table of a machine tool.

ocrit,l = rounddown

Top
top,l

(34)

The left-side diagram in Fig. 8 depicts the piece cost progression of either manufacturing system over the number of orders o.
According to expression (16), the integrated manufacturing system
is more protable in a domain that is delimited by the critical output ocrit = 30 if the machine and operator cost of a single
multi-technology platform is smaller than that of the segregated
manufacturing system. This is the case for the exemplary values
depicted in Table 4.
CMTP = 10, 184.62 D <

CMT,l

l=1

Fig. 7. Machine tools of segregated and integrated manufacturing system.

4. Case study
The practical relevance of the results of section 3 will be elucidated using the following case study. Fig. 6 depicts a rotary table
of a machine tool from the workpiece spectrum of a machine tool
manufacturer. Workpieces with similar features but distinct geometric properties are manufactured in lot sizes of m = 10 in low
output quantities. The raw material is a cast body that requires
milling and drilling as a rst step. At the lower side, the rotary table
possesses two guideways that require grinding.
The end machining of the rotary table may be performed by a
segregated or an integrated manufacturing system, as shown in
Fig. 7. The segregated manufacturing system consists of milling
and grinding machines. The integrated manufacturing system
comprises multi-technology platforms that combine milling and
grinding.
In the following section, the relative economic efciency of the
integrated and the segregated manufacturing system will be discussed for variable output quantities. The conguration of either
manufacturing system is adjusted according to the output quantities to be machined. Hence, the integrated manufacturing system
may assume a parallel conguration comprising multi-technology
platforms, whereas the segregated manufacturing system may
assume a serial and parallel conguration of multiple milling and
grinding machines.
Table 2 illustrates the operation times per lot of the machine
tools of the integrated and the segregated manufacturing system. The operation time of the integrated manufacturing system
is less than that of the segregated manufacturing system due to the
temporal synergy effect of manufacturing technology integration.
Despite this, the productivity of a single multi-technology platform
is less than that of the bottleneck machine (milling machine) of the
segregated manufacturing system.
The relative protability and throughput times of manufacturing technology integration will be discussed during a reference
period of 4 weeks and for a variable number of orders, as shown
in Table 3. During the reference period of 4 weeks (T = 160 h),
the machine tools are used to a maximum mean utilization of

= 5, 876.92D + 6, 646.15D = 12, 523.07D.

(35)

For high output quantities, the ratio of cost to productivity


according to expression (17) must be considered. The relative
protability condition of manufacturing technology integration
is not fullled for the exemplary values. Hence, the segregated
manufacturing system yields smaller cost than the integrated manufacturing system for high output quantities.
cIMS (x ) =

CMTP
= 33.95D <
/ cSMS (x ) = 13.67D
xcrit,MTP

+ 10.07D = 23.74D.

(36)

The right-side diagram of Fig. 8 depicts the throughput time


progressions over the number of orders o. The M/M/c queueing
model was applied to calculate the throughput times of the integrated and the segregated manufacturing system beyond ocrit,MTP .
A transportation time of ttr,SMS = 10 min was assumed between the
two machines in the segregated manufacturing system. Hence, the
transportation time ratio  tr,SMS is nearly zero. The workload of the
milling machine is f1 = 60%. According to the left-side diagram in
Fig. 5, the operation time ratio  op must be smaller than 0.64 such
that the throughput times of the integrated manufacturing system
is smaller than the throughput time of the segregated manufacturing system for all output quantities. However, the actual operation
time ratio  op assumes a value 0.86.
op =

top,MTP
250 min
=
= 0.86.
top,SMS
290 min

(37)

Although operation times are shorter, the throughput times


of the integrated manufacturing system exceed the throughput
times of the segregated manufacturing system in an output domain
between o = 13 and 30, as shown in Fig. 8.
This case study illustrates that manufacturing technology integration leads to a smaller piece cost, particularly in a domain of low
output quantities. However, in this domain, throughput times of a
single multi-technology platform are likely to be greater than those
of a segregated manufacturing system despite shorter operation
times.

180

S. Tnissen et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37 (2015) 173181

Table 2
Operation times per lot of segregated and integrated manufacturing system.

Changeover time per lot tco,j [min]


Workpiece change time per workpiece twc,j [min]
Processing time per workpiece tp,j [min]
Operation time per lot top,j [min]

Milling Machine

Grinding Machine

Multi-Technology Platform

15
1
15
175

15
2
8
115

20
1
22
250

Table 3
Duration of reference period and maximum operation time.
Weeks

Days Per Week

Shifts Per Day

Hours Per Shift

Reference Period T [h]

Maximum Mean Utilization Um,max

Maximum Operation Time Top [min]

160

80%

128

Table 4
Cost during reference period T.

Machine and operator cost Cj [D]


Critical output ocrit,j [qty.]
Cj /xcrit,j [D/qty.]

Milling Machine

Grinding Machine

Multi-Technology Platform

5876.92
43
13.67

6646.15
66
10.07

10,184.62
30
33.95

1500

100

cIMS
50

IMS(x

SMS(x

ttp,SMS

*
Throughput time ttp [min]

Piece cost cj []

1000

ttp,IMS
500

cSMS

cIMS<cSMS

0
0

60

80

13

20

Number of lots o [qty.]


Integrated manufacturing system (IMS)

ttp,IMS<ttp,SMS

20 ocrit,MTP 40

ocrit,MTP 40

60

80

Number of orders o [qty.]


Segregated manufacturing system (SMS)

Fig. 8. Piece cost and throughput time progressions over number of orders.

5. Conclusion and outlook


The considerations in section 3 show that a basic understanding of economic efciency of manufacturing technology integration
may be derived using production, cost, and queueing theory.
Manufacturing technology integration should be considered for
workpieces with few but versatile features. Output quantities
should not exceed the productivity limit of a multi-technology,
because manufacturing technology integration is particularly costefcient if a single multi-technology platform substitutes for a
segregated manufacturing system. However, throughput times of
a multi-technology platform are likely to be greater than those of
a segregated manufacturing system in a domain of small output
quantities. This is based on the fact that the mean utilization of
a multi-technology platform exceeds the mean utilization of the
single-technology machine tools in the segregated manufacturing
system.
The inuence of human behavior on the success of manufacturing technology integration is not captured by the applied
quantitative models. However, it must be expected that such an

inuence exists because the degree of human interaction differs


between an integrated and a segregated manufacturing system.
For example, less material handling and machine operation steps
are performed by humans in the integrated manufacturing system. This signies that human errors are more likely to affect
productivity, protability, and throughput times in the segregated
manufacturing system. Future research should closely study the
inuence of human behavior on productivity, protability, and
throughput time of an integrated manufacturing system in comparison to a segregated manufacturing system. Furthermore, the
stochastic conditions assumed herein regarding the throughput
times of manufacturing systems should be scrutinized by discrete
event simulations.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the German Research Foundation DFG for the support of the depicted research within the Cluster
of Excellence Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage
Countries.

S. Tnissen et al. / Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37 (2015) 173181

References
[1] ElMaraghy H, AlGeddawy T, Azab A. Modelling evolution in manufacturing: a
biological analogy. CIRP Ann 2008;57(1):46772.
[2] Tolio T, Ceglarek D, ElMaraghy H, Fischer A, Hu S, Laperrire L, et al.
Speciesco-evolution of products, processes and production systems. CIRP Ann
2010;59(2):67293.
[3] ElMaraghy W, ElMaraghy H, Tomiyama T, Monostori L. Complexity in engineering design and manufacturing. CIRP Ann 2012;61(2):793814.
[4] Koren Y. The global manufacturing revolution: product-process-business integration and recongurable systems. 1st ed Hobok John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2010.
p. 424.
[5] Koren Y, Shpitalni M. Design of recongurable manufacturing systems. J Manuf
Syst 2011;29(4):13041.
[6] Koren Y, Heisel U, Jovane F, Moriwaki T, Pritschow G, Ulsoy G, et al. Recongurable manufacturing systems. CIRP Ann 1999;48(2):52740.
[7] Landers LG, Min B-K, Koren Y. Recongurable machine tools. CIRP Ann
2001;50(1):26974.
[8] Renna P. Capacity reconguration management in recongurable manufacturing systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2010;46(14):395404.
[9] Meng X. Modeling of recongurable manufacturing systems based on colored
timed object-oriented Petri nets. J Manuf Syst 2010;29(23):8190.
[10] Abbasi M, Houshmand M. Production planning and performance optimization
of recongurable manufacturing systems using genetic algorithm. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 2011;54(14):37392.
[11] Reza Abdi M, Labib AW. Performance evaluation of recongurable manufacturing systems via holonic architecture and the analytic network process. Int J
Prod Res 2011;49(5):131935.
[12] Wang W, Koren Y. Scalability planning for recongurable manufacturing systems. J Manuf Syst 2012;31(2):3891.
[13] Goyal KK, Jain PK, Jain M. Optimal conguration selection for recongurable manufacturing systems using NSGA II and TOPSIS. Int J Prod Res
2012;50(15):417591.

181

[14] Kristianto Y, Gunasekaran A, Jiao J. Logical reconguration of recongurable manufacturing systems with stream of variations modelling: a
stochastic two-stage programming and shortest path model. Int J Prod Res
2014;52(5):140118.
[15] Wiendahl HP, ElMaraghy H, Nyhuis P, Zh M, Wiendahl HH, Dufe N, et al.
Changeable manufacturingclassication, design and operation. CIRP Ann
2007;56(2):783809.
[16] Abele E, Wrn A, Stroh C, Elzenheimer J. Multi machining technology integration in RMS. In: Proceedings of CIRP sponsored 3rd Conference on
Recongurable Manufacturing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan; 2005.
[17] ElMaraghy H. Recongurable process plans for responsive manufacturing systems. New York: Digital Enterprise Technology, Springer; 2007.
p. 3544.
[18] Tnissen S. Economic efciency of manufacturing technology integration. In:
Dissertation RWTH Aachen. Aachen, Germany: Apprimus-Verl; 2014.
[19] Brecher C, Breitbach T, Do-Khac D, Bumler S, Lohse W. Efcient utilization of
production resources in the use phase of multi-technology machine tools. Prod
Eng Res Dev 2013;7(4):44352.
[20] Tnissen S, Klocke F, Mattfeld P, Shirobokov A. Productivity boundaries of
multi-technology platforms with two workspaces. Procedia CIRP 2013;9:
137.
[21] Moriwaki T. Multi-functional machine tool. CIRP Ann 2008;57(2):73649.
[22] Arntz K, Brecher C, Bundschuh W, Deutges D, Eckert M, Emonts M, et al.
Hybride produktionstechnik. In: Brecher C, Klocke F, Schmitt R, Schuh G,
editors. Wettbewerbsfaktor produktionstechnik. Aachen: Shaker Verlag; 2011.
p. 31744.
[23] Koren Y, Hu SJ, Weber TW. Impact of manufacturing system conguration on
performance. CIRP Ann 1998;47(1):36972.
[24] Nazarian E, Ko J, Wang H. Design of multi-product manufacturing lines with
the consideration of product change dependent inter-task times, reduced
changeover and machine exibility. J Manuf Syst 2010;29(1):3546.
[25] Gross D, Shortle JF, Thompson JM, Harris CM. Fundamentals of queueing theory.
4th ed Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2008. p. 528.