The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-5771.htm
BIJ
28,5
1558
Received 4 June 2018
Revised 23 August 2018
Accepted 13 September 2018
Benchmarking: An International
Journal
Vol. 28 No. 5, 2021
pp. 1558-1575
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-5771
DOI 10.1108/BIJ-06-2018-0147
Assessment of a reconfigurable
manufacturing system
Durga Prasad and S.C. Jayswal
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Madan Mohan Malaviya University of Technology, Gorakhpur, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop the methodology which can facilitate the concept of
reconfiguration in the manufacturing system.
Design/methodology/approach – Design methodology includes the calculation of similarity matrix,
formation of part family, and selection of part family. ALC algorithm has been used for part family formation
and three criteria have been considered for the selection of part family. These criteria are reconfiguration effort,
under-utilization cost, and floor space cost. AHP has been used to calculate the weights of criteria and reference
ideal method has been used for the selection of alternatives.
Findings – In the manufacturing system, machines should be grouped on the basis of reconfiguration cost.
When the time period is less, light machines and Group 1 machines are added and removed. In the case study,
the concept of reconfiguration is useful for families (A, B, C, D). Machines can be reused by adding/removing
some modules of machines. The concept of reconfiguration becomes more useful when it is implemented with
lean manufacturing. Lean manufacturing techniques Jidoka and Poka-yoke are used to increase the
diagnosability of the system.
Practical implications – Industrial case study has been considered.
Social implications – Market competition is increasing rapidly and it increases the demand and variety of
products, due to which manufacturing enterprises are forced to adapt a manufacturing system which can
adjust its capacity and functionality quickly at low cost. To reconfigure manufacturing system from one
product/product family to another product/product family, changes can be done in hardware and/or software
components in response to sudden changes in the market or in regulatory requirements.
Originality/value – An integrated approach for reconfiguration has been proposed considering the industrial
application. It includes weighted Jaccard function, ALCA, AHP, RIM. The methodology for calculation of
reconfiguration effort, under-utilization cost, and floor space cost has been presented for industrial case.
Keywords ALCA, Reconfigurable manufacturing system, Reconfiguration effort, Reference ideal method,
Similarity coefficient
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Market competition is increasing rapidly and it increases the demand and variety of products,
due to which manufacturing enterprises are forced to adapt a manufacturing system which
can easily respond to these changes. Reconfigurable manufacturing system (RMS) belongs to
this category and it can quickly adjust to the requirements at low cost. To reconfigure
manufacturing system from one product/product family to another product/product family,
changes can be done in hardware and/or software parts so that it can easily absorb the
qsudden changes occurred in the market or in regulatory requirements (Koren et al., 1999).
RMS consists of the dedicated machines, reconfigurable machines, and CNC machines. It lies
between dedicated and flexible manufacturing system. Dedicated manufacturing systems
have the high capacity with limited functionality while flexible manufacturing systems
(FMSs) have less capacity with high functionality (ElMaraghy, 2005). RMSs have the exact
functionality and capacity that is required.
With the development of CNC machines and automatic material handling system, the
concept FMSs was introduced in the 1980s in order to respond to the uncertainties occurred in
the manufacturing environment so that the manufacturing system should be able to run
smoothly without any disturbance. But FMSs were very costly and complicated, also the
maintenance of FMS is very difficult. To deal with these problems, a new type of manufacturing Reconfigurable
system is introduced by the end of the 1990s named RMS. It consists of an adjustable structure manufacturing
of machine tools and material handling systems. By changing the hardware and software parts
in the machine as well as system, its flexibility is customized and it can be changed whenever a
system
need occurs (Prasad and Jayswal, 2017b, c, 2018c; Maganha et al., 2018).
Reconfigurable machine tools (RMTs) are also known as modular machines. In these
machines, some parts of the machines (also known as modules) can be hanged (added/
removed/adjusted) to change the functions or capacity of the machines (Goyal et al., 2013b). 1559
The concept of modular machines is not new and it has been used for many years (Rogers and
Bottaci, 1997), but it helped in the development of the concept of RMS. Many definitions of
modularity have been presented (Shaik et al., 2015). The main advantages of using the
concept of modular manufacturing is that it provides opportunity of short-term as well as
long-term goals of the industry, it enables the integration of machine tools, information flow,
processes, etc. It increases the reuse of the machine equipment (Rogers and Bottaci, 1997). In
the present work, reconfigurable machines have been considered in which parts, such as
fixtures and tools, are changed to manufacture another product. It increases the utilization of
the machine but reconfiguration cost occurs.
Initially, when the demand of products was low, process type systems were used. But
when the demand of certain products increased, separate cells were designed for those
products. Initially, cells were designed for single product but as the variety of the products
increased, industries started to design the product for a group. Researchers were focusing for
the group the products so that a manufacturing cell should be designed but after the
development of the concept of reconfiguration even that part family is grouped in the small
groups/families so that cell can easily be reconfigured between one subgroup to another
subgroup. For example, Figure 1 shows the part family formation without the concept of RMS
and with the concept of RMS. In this figure, manufacturing cell is designed for part families A,
B, and C. While in RMS, part family is designed for family A1 then it is reconfigured to A2 and
A3 whenever a need occurs.

Part family A Part family B Part family C

Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3

Part family formation without the concept of reconfiguration

Part family A1 Part family A2

Part family A3
Figure 1.
Part family formation
without the concept of
Cell 1 RMS and after the
concept of RMS
Part family formation after the concept of reconfiguration
BIJ For designing a manufacturing system, question arises that whether it should be designed
28,5 for all the products or for a part family and then reconfigured for another part family? What
should be the level of reconfiguration? Should all the machines be reconfigured or some
selected machines should be reconfigured? Research work has been conducted to find the
answers of these questions. Case study of Continental Automotive Components (India) Pvt.
Ltd has been used to find the answers.
1560
2. Literature review
Various researchers have worked on RMS. In this section, the literature review related to
similarity index, ALCA, and cost methodology used in work, have been discussed.

2.1 Similarity index

Part families in the manufacturing systems are formed on the basis of similarity of the
operation. For this purpose, similarity coefficient is calculated. Similarity coefficients are used
for the measurement of the groupability in the system. Baroni-Urbani and Buser (1976)
defined some properties for similarity coefficient. These can be discussed as a similarity
coefficient is symmetric, when Smn5Snm. A similarity coefficient lies between 0 and 1. It is
0 when there is no similarity and if it is 1 then there is complete similarity. The oldest and best-
known similarity coefficient is given by Jaccard (1908). McAuley (1972) used this coefficient in
manufacturing cell formation. Mosier and Taube (1985) modified it to weighted similarity
coefficient. Seifoddini and Wolfe (1986) proposed the similarity coefficient which was based
on the production data by considering production volume, operations sequence, and
processing times. There are some others similarity index developed by Askin and Zhou
(1998), Irani and Huang (2000), Goyal et al. (2013a), etc.

2.2 Linkage algorithm

There are two techniques available in the literature, single linkage cluster algorithm (SLCA)
and average linkage cluster algorithm (ALCA) (Seifoddini and Wolfe, 1986). Initially, these
techniques were used for grouping the machines. McAuley (1972) used a single linkage
clustering algorithm for the formation of manufacturing cell. The method was later used by
other researchers (Seifoddini and Wolfe, 1986; Carrie, 1973; Witte, 1980). Seifoddini and Wolfe
(1986) used ALCA for the formation of machine cells. Galan et al. (2007) used ALCA for group
formation in a RMS. Seifoddini (1989) compared a single linkage clustering algorithm and
ALCA for cell formation. In a single cluster algorithm, the similarity coefficient between two
clusters was defined as the similarity coefficient between two closest members of the two
machine cells. While in ALCA, the similarity coefficient between two machine cells was
defined as the average of pairwise similarity coefficients between all members of the two cells
(Seifoddini, 1989). The results of cluster analysis are represented by dendrogram. It is similar
to the tree diagram which represents the clusters at different similarity levels.

2.3 Reconfiguration effort

When a manufacturing system is reconfigured, it requires some effort and cost. There are two
methodologies available to calculate the cost. The first methodology is the calculation of
reconfiguration effort. Youssef and ElMaraghy (2006) used the term reconfiguration
smoothness (RS). Generally, RS has been calculated by formula:
No: of modules added No: of modules removed
RS ¼ σ þ ð1  σ Þ :
Total no: of modules Total no: of modules
It was used for configuration selection in the research of Youssef and ElMaraghy (2007).
Goyal et al. (2013b) used term reconfiguration effort and for the calculation of machine
reconfigurability. For reconfiguration effort, three terms have been considered; number of Reconfigurable
modules added, number of modules removed and number of modules adjusted. The formula manufacturing
has been shown in Equation (8). Prasad and Jayswal (2017a, c, 2018a, b) calculated
reconfiguration effort for manufacturing system. In both cases, the relative value is
system
calculated between 0 and 1. In the second method, unit cost is considered for reconfiguration.
Lee (1997) used this concept for the calculation of relocation cost. Galan et al. (2007) used this
concept for the calculation of reconfiguration cost.
Benderbal et al. (2018) outlined an approach to optimize the design of RMS. It consisted of 1561
three objectives. The first objective was to maximize the modularity of the system. The
second objective was to minimize the completion time of the system. The third objective was
to minimize the cost of the system. They used archived multi-objective simulated annealing
method for solution of the problem. Mittal et al. (2017) used an index for the consideration of
reconfigurability considering the different characteristics such as modularity, convertibility,
and diagnosability. Lee et al. (2017) considered factors related to sustainability and developed
a model to simulate self-RMS. Li et al. (2018) presented an approach for limited inventory of
the components that can be configured. Mortensen et al. (2017) defined a framework that can
be used for virtual recommissioning in the RMSs. Bettaieb et al. (2017) presented an approach
for reconfiguration process following a predictive monitoring. Lameche et al. (2017) proposed
an approach based on the design structure matrix to design RMS.
In the literature, it has been found that Jaccard coefficient is the simplest one and easy to
use for industrial application. Since each machine/operation has different importance,
therefore in the present work, weighted Jaccard coefficient has been used for the calculation of
similarity index and average linkage algorithm has been used for part family formation. Part
family has been selected on the basis of three criteria: reconfiguration effort, under-utilization
cost and floor space cost. Case study of industry has been used to validate the methodology.

3. Case study
In the present work, a case study of Continental Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd has
been considered for the validation of the methodology. Continental Automotive Components
(India) Pvt. Ltd is a part of Continental AG, one of the world’s top five automotive parts
suppliers. In Gurgaon IMT Manesar plant, there are four business units: clusters –
speedometer (mechanical), clusters – speedometer (electrical), sensors and actuators, and
wheel speed sensor (WSS).
In WSS assembly line, four types of WSS models are manufactured. To keep data
confidential, names of model types have been changed to product families A, B, C and D.
Processes which are performed in assembly line are cable cutting, grommet insertion,
stripping, shrinking, wire seal insertion, wire stripping, contact crimping, assembly, jacket
stripping, wire stripping-2, element crimping, molding, pin cutting, height checking, test
(vacuum chamber), insulation testing and marking, adjustment, fastening, clip cutting,
bracket crimping, test (current leakage), functional testing, taping, visual checking, and
packing. For a manufacturing system, maximum productivity is achieved when each person
get independent and clearly defined job description with standard procedures and timing
(Taylor, 2004). Therefore, work study has been carried out in the manufacturing system.
Table I shows the time for operations performed on the assembly line. Continental is using
lean manufacturing to improve the quality of manufacturing system. 5-S has been
implemented in the assembly line. Jidoka and Poka-yoke have been used to reduce the
defected products and overall equipment effectiveness is used as a standard of productivity.
Some points drawn on the basis of work study have been discussed below:
(1) In the present layout, 24 operations are performed. In this assembly line, four types of
product families are manufactured. The names of these product families have been
BIJ Machine’s Processing time (in
28,5 Processes type Machines sec) Nk A B C D

op 1 – Cable cutting Group 2 M1 1 1 U U U U

op 2 – Grommet insertion Group 3 M2 14 1 U U U U
op 3 – Stripping Group 2 M3 4 1 U U U U
op 4 – Shrinking Group 2 M4 16 1 U U U U
op 5 – Wire seal insertion Group 2 M5 16 1 U U U U
1562 op 6 – Wire stripping Group 2 M6 7 1 U U U U
op 7 – Contact crimping Group 2 M7 8 1 U U U U
op 8 – Assembly Group 2 M8 12 1 U U U U
op 9 – Jacket stripping Group 2 M9 5 1 U U U U
op 10 – Wire stripping-2 Group 2 M10 8 1 U U U U
op 11 – Element crimping Group 3 M11 10 1 U U U U
op 12 – Molding Group 3 M12 13 1 U U U U
op 13 – Pin cutting Group 2 M13 9 1 U U
Group 2 M 14 9 1 U
Group 2 M15 9 1 U
op 14 – Height checking Group 2 M16 6 1 U U
Group 2 M17 6 1 U
Group 2 M18 6 1 U
op 15 – Test (vacuum chamber) Group 2 M19 7 1 U U U U
op 16 – Insulation tester and marker Group 3 M20 8 1 U U U U
op 17 – Adjustment Group 1 M21 10 1 U
Group 1 M22 10 1 U
Group 1 M23 10 1 U
Group 1 M24 10 1 U
op 18 – Fastening Group 1 M25 23 2 U
Group 1 M 26 23 2 U
Group 1 M27 23 2 U
Group 1 M28 23 2 U
op 19 – Clip cutting Group 1 M29 8 1 U
Group 1 M30 8 1 U
Group 1 M31 8 1 U
Group 1 M32 8 1 U
op 20 – Bracket crimping Group 1 M33 18 2 U
Group 1 M34 18 2 U
Group 1 M35 18 2 U
op 21 – Test (current leakage) Group 2 M36 7 1 U
Table I. op 22 – Functional testing Group 2 M37 15 1 U U U U
Processes and op 23 – Visual checking and Group 1 M38 7 1 U
machines used for packing
product families A, B, op 24 – Taping Group 1 M39 9 1 U U U U
C and D Total 46 26 22 24 24

given as A, B, C and D and name of the processes has been given as op 1, op 2, . . ., op

24. The machines required for these operations are M1, M2, . . ., M39. These machines
have been divided into three groups: Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3 shown in Table I.
Group 1 machines are very light machines or fixtures used, Group 2 machines are
medium machines and Group 3 machines are the heavy machines.
(2) For reconfiguration, some parts of the machines are changed. The parts of machines,
which are changed, can be tools, tool-holding devices, job-holding devices and other
supporting devices. These parts are also known as auxiliary modules. In the
assembly line, machines which are reconfigured are grommet insertion machine (M2),
crimping machine (M11), molding machine (M12), and insulation testing machine
(M20). Machines with auxiliary modules used for different types of products have
been identified and specific names have been given to these modules shown in
Table II. For example, crimping machine (M11) has two auxiliary modules CT1 and
 CT2. CT1 is used for product families A, B and C while CT2 is used for product family Reconfigurable
D (Table II). manufacturing
(3) Current leakage test and taping operations are performed only on model A. Bracket system
crimping operation is performed on A, C, and D model.
(4) Jidoka has been used for the line. Seven Poka-yoke symbols have been used in the line
(for grommet insertion, housing assembly, crimping, pin cutting and height checking,
insulation testing and current leakage test). Jidoka and Poka-yoke also increases the 1563
diagnosability of the system which is one of the key characteristics of RMS.
(5) Three pin cutting and height checking machines are used for four types of product
families. One for A, C while other two machines are used for B and D.
(6) Single product type flow has been adapted except shrinking, molding operation and
vacuum chamber operations. In the shrinking operation, two workpieces and in
molding operations, four workpieces are operated simultaneously to reduce the
average cycle time while in the vacuum chamber 50 pieces (max) can be kept.

4. Methodology
In the present work, methodology presented is based on industrial situation. The
methodology has been sub-divided in following parts:
(1) calculation of similarity matrix;
(2) grouping of product families; and
(3) selection of the part families.
In the methodology, following notations have been used:
 Nk: number of machines required for kth operation.
 Sij: similarity between a pair of products (i, j).
 REs: reconfiguration effort for schedule s.
 Us: under-utilization cost for schedule s.
 Fs: floor space cost for schedule s.

Machines Machine configurations Auxiliary modules A B C D

M2 M 12 GIM1 U
M 22 GIM2 U
M 32 GIM3 U
M 42 GIM4 U
M11 M 111 CT1 U U U
M 211 CT2 U
M12 M 112 MM1 U U
M 212 MM2 U
M 312 MM3 U
M20 M 120 ITM1 U U Table II.
M 220 ITM2 U Machines with
M 320 ITM3 U machine
Total 4 4 4 4 configurations
BIJ 4.1 Calculation of similarity matrix
28,5 Jaccard similarity coefficient measures the similarity between a pair of products (i, j), and it is
defined in terms of the machines that each product has to visit for the operations. This
coefficient (Sij) may be expressed as (Sarker and Islam, 1999):
a
Sij ¼ ; 0 < Sij < 1; (1)
aþbþc
1564 where a, number of machines that visit both products m and n; b, number of machines that
visit only product i; c, number of machines that visit only product j.
If different importance is given to each machine visited, then the formula can be changed
to:
PK
Nk θk xijk
Sij ¼ Pk¼1
K
; (2)
k¼1 Nk θ k yijk

where θk, importance given to the kth operation.


1 if both products ði; jÞ visits for kth operation
xijk ¼ ;
0 otherwise

1 if either product ði; jÞ visits for kth operation
yijk ¼ :
0 otherwise
In the present work, similarity coefficient has been considered as the weighted sum of the
similarity coefficient between the machines (S1) and similarity coefficient between the
machine modules (S2). The similarity coefficient (S) has been calculated by using the
following formula:
S ¼ w1 S 1 þ w2 S 2 ; (3)
w1 and w1 are the weights assigned to the similarity between machines and similarity
between modules, respectively, such that w1>w2 and w1þw251.

4.2 Formation of part family

ALCA has been used for part family formation. It has been shown in Figure 2 (Galan et al.,
2007). In this algorithm, two products are grouped together for which similarity coefficient is
the highest. After grouping the two products, these products are treated as a single product
and new similarity index is calculated. This process is repeated until all the products are
grouped. New similarity matrix can be calculated by using the following equation:
PP
j Sij
S i0 j0 ¼
i
; (4)
ni0 3nj0
where ni0 , number of products in i0 th family, and nj0 , number of products in j0 th family.
For example, if there are four products A, B, C, and D. Products A and B are grouped, then
similarity coefficient between (A, B) and C is calculated by:
SðA;CÞ þ SðB;CÞ
SðA;BÞ;C ¼ :
2
Similarity coefficient between (A, B, C) and D can be calculated as:
SðA;DÞ þ SðB;DÞ þ SðC;DÞ
SðA;B;CÞ;D ¼ :
3
 Start
Reconfigurable
manufacturing
system
Group together
products for
Max Sij
1565

No If all the products are

Calculate
new Sij (Si j *) grouped in same product
family

Yes

Create
dendrogram

Figure 2.
Average linkage
Finish cluster algorithm

Similarity coefficient between (A, B) and (C, D) can be calculated as:

SðA;CÞ þ SðA;DÞ þ SðB;CÞ þ SðB;DÞ
SðA;BÞ;ðC;DÞ ¼ :
4
Part family is formed using ALCA and dendrogram is prepared. Dendrogram presents the result
of cluster analysis in the most convenient way. The abscissa of the dendrogram shows the parts
that are manufactured in the manufacturing system. The ordinate shows the similarity
coefficient in percentage. The junction points of stem mean the resemblance of the products at
that similarity coefficient. The dendrogram shows the part family at the different levels. At each
level, part families are scheduled and for each schedule, cost occurred can be calculated.

4.3 Selection of part family

In a manufacturing system, by using the concept of reconfiguration, machines can be reused
by adding/removing some modules of machines. It also saves the floor space by adding/
removing some machines from the system. Therefore, three criteria have been considered:
reconfiguration effort, under-utilization cost and floor space cost.
In the manufacturing system, reconfiguration cost and under-utilization cost are different
for different machines. But for the simplicity of calculation, machines can be grouped in
“Q” types.
4.3.1 Reconfiguration effort. It is the effort for changing its configuration from one type of
product family to another type of product family. Reconfiguration effort can be at three levels:
market-level reconfiguration effort, system-level reconfiguration effort, and machine-level
reconfiguration effort.
The market-level reconfiguration effort (MKRE) is associated with the activities that are
performed outside the boundaries of the manufacturing system such as financial activities,
shipping activities, bidding activities, logistic activities, etc., that are associated with
purchasing new machines or machine modules, selling old machines or modules and renting
machines or modules. System-level reconfiguration effort (SRE) is associated with the
BIJ activities that are performed within the boundaries of the manufacturing system but at a level
28,5 higher than machines. These activities include adding, removing or adjusting the machines in
the system, relocating the machines and changing the material flow path. Machine-level
reconfiguration effort (MRE) is associated with the activities that are performed inside the
boundaries of the manufacturing system and are all within the limits at the machine level.
These activities include the adding, removing or adjusting machine modules and adding,
removing or adjusting operation clusters. For all the activities reconfiguration effort is
1566 calculated separately by considering machines and/or modules added, removed or adjusted.
Total reconfiguration effort (TRE) can be calculated as the weighted sum of the all three level
reconfiguration efforts:
TRE ¼ ψ 1 3MKRE þ ψ 2 3SRE þ ψ 3 3MRE; (5)

where ψ 1, ψ 2, ψ 3 are the weights assigned to the all three types of reconfiguration effort
and ψ 1þψ 2þψ 351.
In the present case, only two types activities have been considered: addition/removal of
machines (system level) and addition and removal of modules (machine level) system-level
reconfiguration effort can be calculated as:
No: of machines added No: of machines removed
SREgroup−1=2=3 ¼ α þβ
Tota no: of machines Total no: of machines
No: of machines readjusted
þγ ; (6)
Total no: of machines
where, α, β, γ are constants; αPβPγ and αþβ þγ 51. SRE is the weighted sum of SREgroup1,
SREgroup2, SREgroup3$$$
SRE ¼ ζ 1 SREgroup−1 þ ζ 2 SREgroup−2 þ ζ3 SREgroup−3 ; (7)

where, ζ 1, ζ 2, ζ 3 are constants; ζ 1>ζ 2>ζ 3 and ζ 1þζ 2þζ351.

MRE can be calculated as:
No: of modules added No: of modules removed
MRE ¼ α0 þ β0
Tota no: of modules Total no: of modules
No: of modules readjusted
þ γ0 ; (8)
Total no: of modules
where, α0 , β0 , γ 0 are constants; α0 Pβ0 Pγ 0 and α0 þβ0 þγ 0 51.
Total no of modules ¼ Total no of modules added
þ Total no of modules removed (9)
þ Total no of modules readjusted:

If, for level schedule s, products are manufactured as A→B→C→D→A, then reconfiguration
effort for schedule s is calculated as:
REs ¼ REAB þ REBC þ RECD þ REDA :

In general form, reconfiguration cost for schedule s:

X
REs ¼ REi−j ; (10)
s
P
where sREij5summation of all the reconfiguration cost for schedule s.
 4.3.2 Under-utilization cost. In a multi-product line, a manufacturing system requires the Reconfigurable
machines for the all the products. When one type of product is manufactured, the machines manufacturing
and modules which are required for that product is used and other machines and modules are
not used. Therefore, under-utilization cost is calculated for each family formation and it is
system
same for all schedules for that family. Under-utilization cost has been divided in the under-
utilization cost of machines and under-utilization cost of modules. Under-utilization cost of ith
machine can be calculated by following formula:
1567
UðmachineÞi ¼ pi 3βi ; (11)

pi is the number of products not using ith machine; βi is the under-utilization cost for ith
machine.
Under-utilization cost for modules for ith module can be calculated as:
0 0
UðmoduleÞi ¼ pi 3βi ; (12)
0 0
where pi is the number of products not using ith module; βi is the under-utilization cost for ith
module:
X
N X
N0
Us ¼ UðmachineÞi þ UðmoduleÞi ; (13)
i¼1 i¼1

where N is total number of the machines; N0 is total number of the modules.

4.3.3 Floor space cost. It can be calculated by multiplying the total workstations used in the
manufacturing system for the schedule to the unit cost of floor space:
Fs ¼ ðTotal number of work stations in scheduleÞ3γ 00 ; (14)

where γ 00 is the unit cost floor space per work station.

In the problem-integrated approach of AHP and reference ideal method have been used.
Weights of each criterion have been determined by using AHP and ranking of the alternatives
has been obtained by reference ideal method. The structure of the decision matrix can be
expressed as shown in Table III.

5. Reference ideal method (RIM)

RIM is proposed by Cables et al. (2016). The basic principle of this technique is that ideal
solution is not always strictly the maximum value and/or the minimum value, but rather the
ideal solution is a value (or a set of values) that lies somewhere in between and its another
advantage is that it avoids rank reversal problem (Cables et al., 2016). Rank reversal is the
problem that if any new alternative is added, ranking of the alternative changes. Sometimes,
the worst alternative becomes the best (Saaty and Sagir, 2009; Wang and Luo, 2009; Garcıa-
Cascales and Lamata, 2012). In this problem, criteria used prefer the extreme valves but RIM
is beneficial because it avoids the rank reversal problem. RIM has following steps:

Table III.
Notes: xij = Performance value of alternative i when it is evaluated in Structure of decision
terms of criterion j; i =1, 2, …, m and j = 1, 2, …, n matrix
BIJ Step 1: define the work context.
28,5 In this step, the conditions in the work context are established, and for each criterion the
following aspects are defined:
 The range: this is any interval, labels set or simple set of values between which
performance values of each alternative vary.
 The reference ideal: this is an interval, labels set or simple values that represents the
1568 maximum importance or relevance in a given range. The reference ideal can be any set
between the minimum value and the maximum value.
 The weight wj associated to the criterion.
Step 2: obtain the valuation matrix, in correspondence with the defined criteria.
Step 3: normalize the valuation matrix with the reference ideal.
If (A, B) is the range, where A is the lower limit and B is the upper limit of range. (C, D) is the
reference ideal. C is the lower limit and D is the upper limit of the range such that xij∈(A, B); (C,
D)⊂(A, B):
8 1; if xij ∈ ðC; DÞ
>
>
>
>
>
< 1  dmin ðxij ; ½C; DÞ; if x ∈ ðA; CÞ; A ≠ C
ij
yij ¼ jA  Cj ;
>
>
>
>
: 1  dmin ðxij ; ½C; DÞ; if xij ∈ ðB; DÞ; B ≠ D
>
jD  Bj

where, dmin (xij, [C, D])5min(jxijCj, jxijDj).

Step 4: calculate the weighted normalized matrix y0 , through:
0
yij ¼ yij 3wj :

Step 5: calculate the variation to the normalized reference ideal I þ −

i , I i for each alternative Ai:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi r ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
þ
Xn  0 2
−
Xn  0 2
Ii ¼ j¼1
yij  wj ; I i ¼ j¼1
yij :

Taking the above into account, the vector that represents the reference ideal will be the vector
(1, 1, . . ., 1); also, the reference ideal would be weighted, then the reference ideal coincides with
the vector of weight w.
Step 6: calculate the relative index Ri of each alternative Ai:
I−
Ri ¼ þ i − ; 0 < Ri < 1
Ii þ Ii
Step 7: rank the alternatives Ai in descending order. The alternatives that are at the top
constitute the best solutions.

6. Validation by case study

In case study, system is needed to reconfigure for short period of time (one or two days). In
such systems, when reconfiguration occurs, the heavy machines are not preferred to add/
remove. Relocation of work stations is not preferred. The machines have been divided into
three groups:
(1) Group 1 consists of light machines or equipment which can easily be placed in
another place shown in Table I.
 (2) Group 2 consists of heavier machine than Group 1, which are more difficult to add or Reconfigurable
remove shown in Table I. manufacturing
(3) Group 3 consists of the heaviest machines, which are the most difficult to add or system
remove shown in Table I.
In this manufacturing system, since heavy machines are not preferred to relocate, machine
module and group 1 machines are added and removed.
1569
6.1 Similarity coefficient
From Table I, it can be seen that for Products A, B, C and D, total machines required are
26, 22, 24 and 24. For products A and B, the machines which are common are 16 (4:
Group 3, 11: Group 2 and 1: Group 1). The total machines which are visited by either A
or B is 32 (4: Group 3, 16: Group 2, and 12: Group 1) (Table I). Importance for Group 1,
Group 2 and Group 3 has been considered as 1, 2, and 3, respectively. From Equation (2)
S1 for (A, B):
P24
Nk θk xABk
S1A;B ¼ Pk¼1
24
;
k¼1 Nk θ k yABk

N1 θ1 xAB1 þ N2 θ2 xAB2 þ    þ N24 θ24 xAB24

S1A;B ¼ ;
N1 θ1 yAB1 þ N2 θ2 yAB2 þ    þ N24 θ24 yAB24

xAB, 1 for 4 Group 3 machines, 11 Group 2 machines, and 1 Group 1 machine; yABk, 1 for
4 Group 3 machines, 16 Group 2 machines, and 12 Group 1 machines (Table I). θk for
Group 3 products53, θk for Group 2 products52, and θk for Group 1 products51,
therefore:
334 þ 2311 þ 131
S1A;B ¼ ¼ 0:63:
334 þ 2316 þ 1312
Similarly, S1 is calculated for (A, C), (A, D), (B, C), (B, D) and (C, D) shown in Table IV. From
Table II, S2 has been calculated. For products A and B, modules which are used for both
products52, modules which are used for either A or B56 (Table II). Importance given to each
module51. Therefore:
132
S2A;B ¼ ¼ 0:33:
136
Similarly, S2 is calculated for (A, C), (A, D), (B, C), (B, D) and (C, D) shown in Table V.
Similarity coefficient S has been calculated using Equation (3). For w150.7 and w250.3;
similarity coefficient S for (A, B) (A, C), (A, D), (B, C), (B, D) and (C, D) has been shown in
Table VI.

Product B Product C Product D

Product A 0.63 0.72 0.60 Table IV.

Product B 0.66 0.66 S1 for product A, B
Product C 0.64 and C
BIJ 6.2 Formation of part family
28,5 ALCA, used for part family formation, has been shown in Figure 2. In initial matrix shown in
Table VI, max Sij50.61, among products A and C, thus they are grouped in a family. Sij are
recalculated and shown in Table VII:

SððA;CÞ;BÞ ¼ ðSðA;BÞ þ SðB;CÞ Þ 2 ¼ ð0:54 þ 0:51Þ=2 ¼ 0:53;

SððA;CÞ;DÞ ¼ ðSðA;DÞ þ SðC;DÞ Þ 2 ¼ ð0:42 þ 0:45Þ=2 ¼ 0:44;
1570
SðB;DÞ ¼ 0:46:

The new maximum value of the matrix is 0.53 corresponding to products A, C and B. These
products are grouped and similarity coefficient between (A, C, B) and D has been calculated
and shown in Table VIII:

SððA;C;BÞ;DÞ ¼ ðSðA;DÞ þ SðC;DÞ þ SðB;DÞ Þ 3 ¼ ð0:42 þ 0:45 þ 0:46Þ=3 ¼ 0:44:

The resulting dendrogram is shown in Figure 3. It shows four levels of part family, each for
different part family. It shows that products can be grouped as (A, B, C, D) (AC, B, D), (ACB, D)
and (ACBD).
For effective working of RMS, one part family is produced in the manufacturing system
and then the system is reconfigured for another part family. Here, there are four levels of part
family, thus four families can be produced. For each family, products are scheduled. For the
problem considered, the schedules will be as described below.

Product B Product C Product D

Table V. Product A 0.33 0.33 0

S2 for products A, B Product B 0.14 0
and C Product C 0

Product B Product C Product D

Table VI.
Similarity coefficient Product A 0.54 0.61 0.42
(S) for products A, B, C Product B 0.51 0.46
and D (initial matrix) Product C 0.45

Product B Product D
Table VII.
Sub-matrix for Product (A, C) 0.53 0.44
similarity coefficient Product B 0.46

Table VIII. Product D

Final matrix for
similarity coefficient Product (A, C, B) 0.44
 For, part family level 1, there will be six schedules A→B→C→D→A, A→B→D→C→A, Reconfigurable
A→C→B→D→A, A→C→D→B→A, A→D→B→C→A, and A→D→C→B→A. For part manufacturing
family level 2, there will be two schedules, and for part family level 3 and part family level 4,
there will be only one schedule shown in Table X.
system
For each schedule at each level, the summation of reconfiguration cost, under-utilization
cost and floor space cost have been calculated and for minimum cost, the schedule is selected.
It will provide the optimum solution.
1571
6.3 Selection of product family
For calculations of reconfiguration effort, α0 50.6, β0 50.4, γ 0 50, α50.5, β50.5, γ50, ψ 150,
ψ 250.4, ψ 350.6. For the calculation of under-utilization cost of machines for each part family,
unit cost has been assumed and shown in Table IX. Unit floor space cost is considered 1 for all
the workstations. Calculated values of reconfiguration effort, under-utilization cost and floor
space cost have been shown in Table X.

7. Results and discussion

Table X shows criteria, reconfiguration effort, under-utilization cost, and floor space cost
for all levels of part families formation. It becomes a multi-criteria decision-making

Products
A C B D
100%
L =1
61%
L =2
53%
L =3 Figure 3.
44% Dendrogram
L =4
0%

Modules/machine not in use Under-utilization cost

A module is not used 1 Table IX.

A machine of Group 1 is not in use 4 Under-utilization cost
A machine of Group 2 is not in use 7 for the machine/
A machine of Group 3 is not in use 12 module

S. No. Schedule Reconfiguration effort Under-utilization cost Floor space cost

1 A→B→C→D→A 0.82 441 120

2 A→B→D→C→A 0.78 441 120
3 A→C→B→D→A 0.82 441 120
4 A→C→D→B→A 0.78 441 120
5 A→D→B→C→A 0.82 441 120
6 A→D→C→B→A 0.82 441 120
7 AC→B→D→AC 0.63 537 142 Table X.
8 AC→D→B→AC 0.64 537 142 Reconfiguration effort,
9 ACB→D→ACB 0.46 633 176 under-utilization cost,
10 ACBD 0.00 825 216 and floor space cost
BIJ problem, which has three criteria and ten alternatives. Salient points related to results
28,5 are as following:
(1) Since each machine is different, therefore, it has different reconfiguration effort,
under-utilization and floor space cost. But for simplicity of calculations, machines
have been grouped into three types: Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3.
(2) Level of reconfiguration depends on the time period of configurations. If it is less,
1572 heavy machines are not reconfigured. In the case study, there are 24 Group 1
machines (≈52 percent) which can be easily added or removed. Thus, in any industry
it is not necessary to use the concept of reconfiguration for all the machines, but it can
be used selectively.
(3) Weighted Jaccard similarity index has been used for the calculation of similarity.
Jaccard similarity index most used similarity index because of its simplicity. Weights
provide better results. Table VI provides the similarity coefficient between part
families A, B, C, and D. While Tables VII and VIII provides the similarity between AC,
B, and D, and ACB and D.
Literature shows that ALC algorithm gives better results.
(4) Reconfiguration effort has been calculated using relative weights. Whether it is for
system level or machine level. It provides a better understanding that how much
importance has been given to which type of effort.
(5) Weights of criteria have been calculated by the AHP method. For this purpose, under-
utilization has been given six times importance than reconfiguration effort and three
times to floor space cost. Floor space cost has been given two times importance than
reconfiguration cost. Comparison matrix has been formed. Weights have been calculated
by using R program. Weights have been calculated as 0.1111, 0.6667, and 0.2222.
(6) Ranking of the alternatives has been calculated using the reference ideal method.
Ranking has been calculated manually and with R program. It can be seen that
schedule A→B→D→C→A has first rank.
(7) The question arises the system should be designed for the all the products (ABCD) or
the concept of reconfiguration should be used. The answer is that in present conditions,
the concept of reconfiguration is useful but for families (A, B, C, D). But if floor space
cost or under-utilization cost changes then it can be designed for other families.

7.1 Managerial implications

RMS is designed for the part family. This paper provides the insight to the managers for
designing of a manufacturing system for a part family. It will help them for decision making
that manufacturing system should be designed for one part family or more than one. It
provides answers to the questions related to the part family formation. These questions are:
when it should be chosen for reconfiguration? How to group the families? Which are the
criteria that will affect the part family formation? How to calculate reconfiguration effort?
How to select the alternatives? The decision will also affect the required number of machines
because if the system is designed for the entire product, more machines will be required and it
will also acquire more floor space. With the increase of product variety, it is not possible to
design a cell for single product, therefore, reconfiguration is required.

8. Conclusions
Since the variety of products is increasing very fast, therefore, it has become important to use
the concept of reconfiguration. In a manufacturing system, by using the concept of
reconfiguration, machines can be reused by adding/removing some modules of machines. It Reconfigurable
also saves the floor space by adding/removing some machines from the system. The concept manufacturing
of reconfiguration becomes more useful when it is implemented with lean manufacturing.
Lean manufacturing techniques Jidoka and Poka-yoke are used to increase the diagnosability
system
of the system. Since each machine has different importance, therefore machines are divided
into groups. In this paper, a methodology has been used for assessment of the reconfiguration
in manufacturing system. Weighted Jaccard function has been used for the calculation of
similarity index. Levels of part families have been identified using the ALC algorithm. Level 1573
of part families has been selected for reconfiguration effort, under-utilization cost, and floor
space cost. The methodology for calculation of reconfiguration effort, under-utilization cost,
and floor space cost has been presented. Weights of the criteria have been calculated using
AHP. For the problem considered weights are 1,111, 0.6667, and 0.2222. Ranking of
alternative has been obtained using the reference ideal method. For the problem considered
best choice is; part family formation as (A, B, C, D) and schedule A→B→D→C→A. If the
weight of reconfiguration effort is increased, the part family formation (ABCD) becomes the
best choice.

8.1 Limitations and future work

The problem considered is based on industrial case study. Similarity index has been
calculated within one layout. It is needed to calculate between two or more systems. Work is
needed related to automation and reconfiguration process plan.

References
Askin, R.G. and Zhou, M. (1998), “Formation of independent flow-line cells based on operation
requirements and machine capabilities”, IIE Transactions, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 319-329.
Baroni-Urbani, C. and Buser, M.W. (1976), “Similarity of binary data”, Systematic Biology, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 251-259.
Benderbal, H.H., Dahane, M. and Benyoucef, L. (2018), “Modularity assessment in reconfigurable
manufacturing system (RMS) design: an archived multi-objective simulated annealing-based
approach”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 94 Nos 1/4,
pp. 729-749.
Bettaieb, C., Telmoudi, A.J., Sava, A. and Nabli, L. (2017), “Reconfigurable manufacturing system:
Overview and proposition of new approach”, IEEE International Conference on Control,
Automation and Diagnosis (ICCAD), pp. 534-539.
Cables, E., Lamata, M. and Verdegay, J. (2016), “Rim-reference ideal method in multicriteria decision
making”, Information Sciences, Vol. 337, pp. 1-10, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0020025515009007
Carrie, A. (1973), “Numerical taxonomy applied to group technology and plant layout”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 399-416.
ElMaraghy, H.A. (2005), “Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms”,
International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 261-276.
Galan, R., Racero, J., Eguia, I. and Canca, D. (2007), “A methodology for facilitating reconfiguration in
manufacturing: the move towards reconfigurable manufacturing systems”, The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 33 Nos 3/4, pp. 345-353.
Garcıa-Cascales, M.S. and Lamata, M.T. (2012), “On rank reversal and TOPSIS method”,
Mathemematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 123-132.
Goyal, K.K., Jain, P. and Jain, M. (2013a), “A comprehensive approach to operation sequence similarity
based part family formation in the reconfigurable manufacturing system”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1762-1776.
BIJ Goyal, K.K., Jain, P.K. and Jain, M. (2013b), “A novel methodology to measure the responsiveness of
RMTs in reconfigurable manufacturing system”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 32
28,5 No. 4, pp. 724-730.
Irani, S.A. and Huang, H. (2000), “Custom design of facility layouts for multiproduct facilities using
layout modules”, IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 259-267.
Jaccard, P. (1908), “Nouvelles Recherches Sur la Distribution Florale”, Bulletin de la Societe Vaudoise
des Sciences Naturelles, Vol. 44, pp. 223-270, doi: 10.5169/seals-268384.
1574
Koren, Y., Heisel, U., Jovane, F., Moriwaki, T., Pritschow, G., Ulsoy, G. and Van Brussel, H. (1999),
“Reconfigurable manufacturing systems”, CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 48
No. 2, pp. 527-540.
Lameche, K., Najid, N.M., Castagna, P. and Kouiss, K. (2017), “Modularity in the design of
reconfigurable manufacturing systems”, IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 3511-3516.
Lee, G.H. (1997), “Reconfigurability consideration design of components and manufacturing systems”,
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 376-386.
Lee, S., Ryu, K. and Shin, M. (2017), “The development of simulation model for self-reconfigurable
manufacturing system considering sustainability factors”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 11,
pp. 1085-1092.
Li, X., Bayrak, A.E., Epureanu, B.I. and Koren, Y. (2018), “Real-time teaming of multiple reconfigurable
manufacturing systems”, CIRP Annals, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 437-440.
McAuley, J. (1972), “Machine grouping for efficient production”, Production Engineer, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 53-57.
Maganha, I., Silva, C. and Ferreira, L.M.D. (2018), “Understanding reconfigurability of manufacturing
systems: an empirical analysis”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 48, pp. 120-130.
Mittal, K.K., Jain, P.K. and Kumar, D. (2017), “Configuration selection in reconfigurable manufacturing
system based on reconfigurability”, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 363-379.
Mortensen, S.T., Chrysostomou, D. and Madsen, O. (2017), “A novel framework for virtual
recommissioning in reconfigurable manufacturing systems”, IEEE International Conference on
Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), pp. 1-4.
Mosier, C. and Taube, L. (1985), “Weighted similarity measure heuristics for the group technology
machine clustering problem”, Omega, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 577-579.
Prasad, D. and Jayswal, S.C. (2017a), “Case study of a reconfigurable manufacturing industry”, in
Chauhan, A.K. (Ed.), International Conference on Innovations and Developments in Mechanical
Engineering (IDME’17), KNIT, Sultanpur, pp. 32-36.
Prasad, D. and Jayswal, S.C. (2017b), “Design of reconfigurable manufacturing system”, in Jayswal,
S.C. and Prasad, R.B. (Eds), National Conference on Futuristics in Mechanical Engineering
(FME-2016), Madan Mohan Malviya University of Technology, Gorakhpur.
Prasad, D. and Jayswal, S.C. (2017c), “Reconfigurability consideration and scheduling of products in a
manufacturing industry”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 19,
pp. 6430-6449.
Prasad, D. and Jayswal, S.C. (2018a), “Scheduling in reconfigurable manufacturing system for
uncertainty in decision variables”, Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 5 No. 9, pp. 18451-18458.
Prasad, D. and Jayswal, S.C. (2018b), “Scheduling of products for reconfiguration effort in reconfigurable
manufacturing system”, Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 4167-4174.
Prasad, D. and Jayswal, S.C. (2018c), “A review on flexibility and reconfigurability in manufacturing
system”, in Chattopadhyay, J., Singh, R. and Prakash, O. (Eds), Innovation in Materials Science
and Engineering-Proceedings of ICEMIT, Vol. 2, Amity University, Ranchi, pp. 187-200.
Rogers, G. and Bottaci, L. (1997), “Modular production systems: a new manufacturing paradigm”,
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 147-156.
Saaty, T.L. and Sagir, M. (2009), “An essay on rank preservation and reversal”, Mathematical and Reconfigurable
Computer Modelling, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 1230-1243.
manufacturing
Sarker, B.R. and Islam, K.M.S. (1999), “Relative performances of similarity and dissimilarity
measures”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 769-807.
system
Seifoddini, H. and Wolfe, P.M. (1986), “Application of the similarity coefficient method in group
technology”, IIE Transactions, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 271-277.
Seifoddini, H.K. (1989), “Single linkage versus average linkage clustering in machine cells formation 1575
applications”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 419-426.
Shaik, A.M., Rao, V.K. and Rao, C.S. (2015), “Development of modular manufacturing systems – a
review”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 76 Nos 5/8,
pp. 789-802.
Taylor, F.W. (2004), Scientific Management, Routledge, London, available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203498569
Wang, Y.-M. and Luo, Y. (2009), “On rank reversal in decision analysis”, Mathematical and Computer
Modelling, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 1221-1229.
Witte, J.D. (1980), “The use of similarity coefficients in production flow analysis”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 503-514.
Youssef, A.M. and El-Maraghy, H.A. (2006), “Assessment of manufacturing systems reconfiguration
smoothness”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 30 Nos 1/2,
pp. 174-193.
Youssef, A.M. and ElMaraghy, H.A. (2007), “Optimal configuration selection for reconfigurable
manufacturing systems”, International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 67-106.

Corresponding author
Durga Prasad can be contacted at: dp.mmmut@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com