Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Maccarthy and Fernandes 2000
Maccarthy and Fernandes 2000
To cite this article: Bart L. Maccarthy & Flavio C. F. Fernandes (2000) A multi-dimensional classification of
production systems for the design and selection of production planning and control systems, Production Planning &
Control: The Management of Operations, 11:5, 481-496, DOI: 10.1080/09537280050051988
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability
for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions
and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of
the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,
demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution
in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL, 2000, VOL. 11, NO. 5, 481 ± 496
Keywords production systems, classi® cation, production of the production planning and control area: it tends to inter-
planning and control, analysis and design of production systems face with all functional areas of the enterprise. An important
objective of the classi® cation system proposed here is to provide
a tool to assist in undertaking this di cult task. Real production
Abstract. A primary requirement for improved understanding systems are becoming more hybrid in order to be able to cope
of the management of production systems is an appropriate with change. We show that our classi® cation can successfully
classi® cation of such systems. This paper proposes a classi® ca- deal with such systems.
tion that facilitates a better understanding of real production
systems. It combines all the essential features, e.g. the ¯ ow of
materials with new classi® cation perspectives with respect to 1. Introduction
response time, repetitiveness and work organization. As much
previous work has in¯ uenced the approach proposed here, the Scienti® c knowledge is based on classi® cation. It has
paper also presents a review of relevant literature. The classi® -
cation has four groups of characteristics, comprising eight
been asserted for instance that expert systems are, in gen-
dimensions of descriptors, encompassing 12 variables. Choosing eral, classi® cation systems (Jain 1988). It is not surprising
or designing an appropriate production planning and control therefore that a classi® cation of classi® cations has been
system ( PPCS) is a di cult task due to the integrative character given. Good (1965) proposed the following classes based
F L A VIO C. F. F ERNANDE S has been an Assistant Professor at the Federal University of SaÄo Carlos
in Brazil since 1991. He has authored more than 30 papers on production planning and control and
operations research, and refereed for several academic and professional journals. During 1988 he
has been a visiting scholar in the Division of Manufacturing Engineering and Operations
Management of the University of Nottingham in the UK. One of his principal current interests
is how to reduce the gap between theory and practice in the production planning and control ® eld.
Production Planning & Control ISSN 0953± 7287 print/ISSN 1366± 5871 online # 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
482 B. L. M acCarthy and F. C. F. Fernandes
on the purposes of producing classi® cations: (i) for men- classi® cations of production subsystems in 2.2. In section
tal clari® cation and communication; (ii) for discovering 2.3 we highlight the limitations of existing classi® cations,
new ® elds for research; (iii) for planning an organiza- especially from the perspective of PPCS. In particular we
tional structure or machine; (iv) as a check list; (v) for outline the major de® ciencies that need to be addressed
fun. The classi® cation we propose in this paper falls prin- with respect to contemporary manufacturin g enterprises
cipally into the third group but, as our classi® cation in section 2.4.
argues a new point of view, it is also useful for mental
clari® cation and communication.
Burbidge (1985) noted that when an engineer designs a 2.1. A review of production system classication
machine, laws of physics and metallurgy help to produce
an e cient design, but there is not a set of scienti® c laws 2.1.1. Pioneering classications
to help a production engineer faced with the problem of
designing an e cient production system. We contend The pioneering classi® cations are well known. Mallick
that this situation has not changed signi® cantly in the and Gaudreau (1951) identi® ed three types of produc-
intervening years. One of the reasons for this is that tion: (i) continuous process (with disintegration, e.g.
there is not an appropriate classi® cation of real produc- petrol re® ning; or with integration, e.g. synthetic rubber
tion systems. Existing classi® cations are oversimpli® ed, processing) ; (ii) mass production; and (iii) intermittent
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 10:19 05 January 2015
only consider a limited number of aspects or take a spe- process. Wild (1971) splits the last type, names some of
ci® c perspective. These classi® cations tend to be of little the classes di erently and presents the following similar
or limited value for analysing complex real production classi® cation: (i) process manufacture; (ii) mass produc-
systems or for aiding operations managers in selecting or tion; (iii) batch production ; (iv) jobbing manufacture
designing appropriate production planning and control (unitary production) . Many textbooks have followed
systems (PPCSs). Selecting or designing an appropriate this type of scheme.
PPCS is a di cult task due to the integrative character of Burbidge (1962) de® ned the following production
the production planning and control function: it tends to types: (i) line production [batch quantity (BQ) : 1; type
interface with all functional areas of the enterprise. A key of ¯ ow (TF) : line] ; (ii) batch production (BQ: more than
aspect of designing or selecting an e ective PPCS is the 1; TF: functional) ; (iii) jobbing production (BQ: same as
ability to classify production systems. This paper focuses order quantity, generally small; TF: functional) ; (iv) pro-
on this area, as we believe it constitutes a signi® cant gap cess batch production (BQ: more than 1; TF: line) ; (v)
between theory and practice in operations management. process jobbing production (BQ: same as order quantity,
It would be pretentious to propose a totally watertight generally small; TF: line). The following types of layout
classi® cation. Moreover, any such claim is likely to be were presented : (i) functional layout; (ii) group layout;
easily contradictable. In practice any classi® cation is a and (iii) line layout. Burbidge (1971), relating these types
trade-o between the level of detail needed for usefulness of layout and some characteristics of production control,
and the level of aggregation desirable for usability. We de® nes seven types of production systems: (i) line produc-
believe our classi® cation here will be a signi® cant con- tion; (iii) line batch production; (iii) group batch produc-
tribution for understanding complex real production tion; (iv) functional batch production; (v) line jobbing
systems, and for aiding design or selection of production production; (vi) group jobbing production; (vii) func-
planning and control systems in practice. tional jobbing production.
This paper has been in¯ uenced by much previous Insu cient attention has been given to empirical data
work. Therefore, a literature survey is presented in sec- on real production systems. Woodward (1965, 1980) con-
tion 2. The multi-dimensional classi® cation is presented ducted research on manufacturing ® rms in a region in the
in section 3. Section 4 shows how to apply the approach. UK. From information collected from 92 ® rms their pro-
The ® nal section presents the conclusions. duction systems were then classi® ed into 11 categories: (i)
production of units to requirements; (ii) production of
prototypes ; (iii) fabrication of large equipment in stages;
2. Review of literature on the classi cation of (iv) production of small batches to customers’ orders; (v)
production systems production of large batches; (vi) production of customers’
large batches on assembly lines; (vii) mass production;
Here we survey the most important literature directly (viii) intermittent production of chemicals in multi-pur-
relevant to the aim of this paper. We have selected refer- pose plant; (ix) continuous ¯ ow production of liquids,
ences that are illustrative of approaches taken to the gases and crystalline substances; (x) production of stan-
subject. We present a review of classi® cations of produc- dardized components in large batches subsequently
tion systems in section 2.1 and a fairly brief review of assembled diversely; (xi) process production of crystalline
M ulti-dimensional classication of production systems 483
substances, subsequently prepared for sale by standard- equipment being linked by a material ¯ ow and an infor-
ized production methods. Eight ® rms did not ® t any of mation ¯ ow. He presented two equivalent classi® cations
the categories, a further four were extremely mixed and on the basis of features of useÐ a parallel classi® cation
the other two were in transition. and a morphological block classi® cation.
The classi® cation of Conway et al. (1967) should also Schmidt et al. (1985) proposed classes derived from the
be noted as it is used particularly in operational research: relationship between task divisibility, routing restrictions
(i) single machine; (ii) parallel machines; (iii) ¯ ow-shop; and production rate uniformity. Frizelle (1989) presents
and (iv) job-shop. As noted by Botta et al. (1997), this a categorization for plants by means of three letters (V, A
was expanded by Lenstra to include hybrid organizations and T) that resemble the `shape’ of the plant. The `V
characterized by parallel machines at any processing plant’ `is characterized by few raw materials subdividing
stage. into many ® nished products’. The `A plant’ presents
`many raw materials being assembled into few ® nished
products’ . The `T plant’ has a number of components
2.1.2. Classi cations derived by attributes that `can be assembled in a multiplicity of ways’ .
Sipper and Shapira (1989) classify production systems
Here we consider classi® cations based on attributes in accordance with the inventory control policy as: (i)
that are perceived as important in production systems
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 10:19 05 January 2015
state that it is su cient to dene ve levels for a description of a system; (iv) multi-product single-machine system ; (v)
given shop. mixed-product sequential ¯ ow line I, where all the prod-
ucts have the same sequence of operations and there is no
necessity for machine resetting; (vi) multi-product
2.1.3. D escriptive classications sequential ¯ ow line where products have the same opera-
tional sequence but they have to be produced separately
These are classi® cations based on a description of the in batches; (vii) mixed-product bypass ¯ ow line I where
attributes of ® rms or production systems in a ® nite num- some products are not processed in all machines and
ber of classes. Ingham (1971) de® ned eight types of busi- equipment resetting is not necessary ; (viii) mixed-prod-
ness according to the relationships between marketing uct bypass ¯ ow line II, where some products are not
and production. From his work, it is possible to identify processed in all machines and equipment resetting is
the following classi® cation: make to stock; customize to necessary; (ix) multi-product backtracking ¯ ow line
order, i.e. the client can specify its needs in terms of where equipment resetting occurs, production is in
design of certain class of products; make to order, i.e. batches and the variation in operational sequences is
the items among a wide range of options are manufac- due to omitted and/or backtracked operations and the
tured after the con® rmation of customers’ orders; make to product ¯ ow is bidirectional; and (x) multi-product
order and to stock, i.e. make from orders for a wide range multidirectional backtracking system where the products
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 10:19 05 January 2015
of products and make for stock in the case of standard are batched, the operational sequences are so varied that
products with considerable and continual demand; make ¯ ow is multidirectional, and therefore, line production is
products to order and major components to stock (this not feasible.
class corresponds to what is now known as assemble to Burbidge (1970) identi® ed four categories of group
order) ; totally customized to order, i.e. `the ® rm does not technology systems: (i) single-machine system; (ii)
o er a range of products but a production service within group layout system; (iii) total group layout system
the limits of its equipment’ . (group layout plus classi® cation and coding system,
Barber and Hollier (1986a, 1986b) developed a classi- value analysis, variety reduction, standardization ) ; and
® cation of engineering batch manufacturin g companies (iv) line ¯ ow system, with characteristics between class
based on questionnaire evidence. They propose six (iii) and mass production.
groups according to the level of production control com- Many classi® cations of ¯ exible manufacturing systems
plexity. It is clear that several of the measures have been (FMS) have been presented, e.g. Groover (1980), Kusiak
di cult to estimate or interpret for many ® rms and (1985), and Maimon and Nof (1986). Browne et al.
responses were necessarily subjective. (1984) classi® ed FMSs as: ¯ exible machining cells, ¯ ex-
McCarthy et al. (1997) consider the evolution of manu- ible machining systems, ¯ exible transfer lines and ¯ exible
facturing changes in order to show how to construct a transfer multi-lines. Stecke and Browne (1985) added the
classi® cation based on cladistics (Kitching et al. 1998) descriptor `type of material handling system’ to the pre-
and give an example using the automotive sector. They vious classi® cation, so the resulting classi® cation is based
emphasize that with cladistics `it is possible to examine on the ¯ ow pattern of parts and more speci® cally on the
the way in which characters change within groups over routing ¯ exibility. MacCarthy and Liu (1993) and Liu
time, the direction in which characters change, and the and MacCarthy (1996 ) presented a classi® cation scheme
relative frequency with which they change . . . Thus, for FMSs based on a consistent set of de® nitions. They
organizational cladograms can be used as a tool for distinguished between : (i) a single ¯ exible machine
achieving successful organizational change’. Un- (SFM) ; (ii) a ¯ exible manufacturing cell (FMC) ; (iii)
fortunately, other sectors are not nearly as well documen- a multi-machine ¯ exible manufacturing system
ted in the literature as the automotive sector. (MMFMS) ; and (iv) a multi-cell ¯ exible manufacturing
system (MCFMS) , and show the relationship between
them.
2.2. Classications of production subsystems
Important contributions were made by Petrov (1966 ), 2.3. General comments on existing classications
Wild (1972) and Carrie (1975). Aneke and Carrie (1984)
integrated existing classi® cations of simple ¯ ow lines The only signi® cant previous paper that we have found
(mass production) and group technology ¯ ow line using that has reviewed production system classi® cations is that
six criteria. The classi® cation reduces to: (i) single-prod- by McCarthy (1995) with 14 references. He noted that
uct single-machine system; (ii) single-product multi- previous classi® cations, with the exception of Barber and
machine system; (iii) mixed-product single-machine Hollier (1986a), were subjective and that cladistics pro-
M ulti-dimensional classication of production systems 485
vided a way of making an objective classi® cation. We . Consider assembly as a process related only to
would argue however that all classi® cations are necess- assembly lines, ignoring the fact that other types
arily subjective and that the important issue is not the of installations may also carry out assembly opera-
subjectivity of the classi® cation but rather its usefulness. tions.
Classi® cation has to be subjective because it represents an
author’ s perspective on production systems. Although Many further issues are crucial in contemporary
Barber and Hollier (1986a) use a quantitative approach manufacturing organizations and need to be addressed
in arriving at their classi® cation scheme, it is also sub- in e ective classi® cations. In the past, changes in business
jective because the number of groups, the characteristics needs occurred at low speeds and simple classi® cations of
the system may possess and the factors utilized to measure production systems were appropriate as a basis for
the characteristics are all chosen. Moreover, McCarthy designing a production system. In today’ s environments,
et al. (1997) also present an essentially subjective classi® - in order to accommodate more rapid changes, manu-
cation, e.g. there are many subjective choices in the facturing systems have become more and more hybrid.
chosen clade. There is a real need for a classi® cation that treats hybrid
All attempts at classi® cation are necessarily approxi- production systems in depth. A further issue is that of
mations and can always be criticized on this basis. Any work organization . Previous classi® cations do not con-
classi® cation involves choosing between the level of detail sider this issue but it is vital in contemporary organiza-
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 10:19 05 January 2015
and the level of aggregation. However, if the perspective tions. Response time and repetitiveness are also critical
and the rationale are clear then the bene® ts of a good variables from a control viewpoint and an e ective clas-
classi® cation are many. Some of the classi® cations dis- si® cation must address them. It is not su cient just to
cussed here are useful in providing insight and under- add a new variable to an existing classi® cation. The over-
standing of production systems, and some have clearly all scheme must be coherent in order to be applied e ec-
demonstrate d their usefulness in particular domains. tively.
We argue, however, that there is a real need for classi® - The classi® cation we present in the remainder of this
cations with de® ned objectives and areas of application. paper addresses these issues and most of the points noted
Unfortunately this is not the case in many of the classi® - above in a rational way. Our principal objective is to aid
cations above. the design and selection of production planning and con-
trol systems. The previous classi® cations that were most
in¯ uential to us are: Wild (1971) , Burbidge (1971),
Ingham (1971), Johnson and Montgomery (1974),
2.4. D eveloping a classication for the design or selection of Constable and New (1976 ), Black (1983) and Aneke
PPCS and Carrie (1984).
E/F/G/H). Where appropriate, important variables cases it may also be necessary to consider it under pro-
within some of the dimensions have also been identi® ed. cessing characteristics.
The four groups and their associated dimensions are as Table 1 illustrates the structure of the classi® cation
follows. scheme. We use the forward slash symbol …=† to separate
the dimensions and the underscore symbol …¡† to sepa-
(1) General characterization: encompasses the follow- rate the variables. Letters and numbers are used as short-
ing dimensions: enterprise size (A) ; response time hand notation for levels or categories of each within each
(B) ; repetitiveness (C) ; and automation level (D) . dimension.
(2) Product characterization: encompasses the prod-
uct description (E) .
(3) Processing characterization: encompasses the pro-
cessing description (F). 3.2. D imensions and variables of the classication system
(4) Assembly characterization: encompasses the
dimensions: types of assembly (G) and types of 3.2.1. General characterization
work organization (H).
3.2.1.1. First dimension ( A) : enterprise size
Several descriptors may de® ne the size of an enterprise:
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 10:19 05 January 2015
Figure 1. Response time (RT) of a production system. . C ˆ PC: pure continuous system, e.g. petroleum
re® ning.
ment of response time is central to the achievement of . C ˆ SC: semi-continuous system, e.g. each pro-
competitive advantage. In the extreme case where the cessing unit is a pure continuous system and there
enterprise maintains stocks of all purchased materials are combinations of routes through processing units.
and all ® nal products, RT equals DL. Essentially In the process industries these are sometimes known
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 10:19 05 January 2015
response time is a policy decision in¯ uenced by techno- as batch processing production systems.
logical and operational constraints, marketing, and . C ˆ MP: mass production system. Almost all items
customers’ requirements and strategy. are repetitive.
We identify the following values for the parameter B of . C ˆ RP: repetitive production system. At least 75%
the classi® cation: of the items are repetitive. In the case of the metal/
mechanical parts sector, a typical RP production
. B ˆ SL ‡ PL ‡ DL if the system produces by order; system is the cellular manufacturing system with
. B ˆ DLa (P%) if the system produces for stock and ¯ ow-shop pattern of ¯ ow.
the service level is equal to P%; . C ˆ SR : semi-repetitive production system. There
. B ˆ DLb (P%) if the system does not produce (only are a considerable number of both repetitive and
buys, stocks, sells and delivers items) and the service non-repetitive items. In the case of the mechanical
level is equal to P%; parts sector, a typical SR production system is the
. B ˆ PL ‡ DL if the system produces to order but cellular manufacturing system with job-shop pat-
maintains stocks of raw materials; tern of ¯ ow.
. B ˆ SL ‡ DL if the system does not produce but it . C ˆ NR : non-repetitive production system. The
sells to order. majority (at least 75%) of items are not repetitive.
. C ˆ LP: large projects.
nology. Here we distinguish between ¯ ow-shop ¯ ex- SL_4, ML_1, ML_2, ML_3, ML_4). The case SL_3
ible manufacturing system (FMS1 ) and job-shop (single level and `mushroom’ customization ) is not poss-
¯ exible manufacturing system (FMS2 ). ible.
. R. Rigid automation is the type found in transfer
lines with highly specialized and dedicated auto-
matic equipment.
. M. Mixed automation occurs where the production 3.2.3. Processing characterization
system has processing units with di erent automa-
tion levels. For example it could be composed of a 3.2.3.1. Fifth dimension ( F) : processing description
manufacturing cell with normal level of automation This important aspect of production systems is repre-
and a FMS (¯ exible automation) . sented by three variables.
4.2. Using the classication to choose the overall structure of a not work well in non-repetitive situations. For some cases
PPCS there is the possibility to choose OPT type systems. For
large projects, PERT/CPM may be the most appropriate
All the 12 variables considered in our multi-dimen- choice.
sional classi® cation have direct impact on the complexity While the level of repetitiveness has a strong impact on
of the production planning and control (PPC) activities. the choice of basic PPCS, the other variables have sig-
Table 2 indicates the typical impact of each variable on ni® cant impact on the complexity of the detailed system
the complexity of PPC activities and the relationship to be de® ned. For example, MRP may be chosen as the
between each variable and the level of repetitiveness. basic system but the parametrizati on of the system
Repetitiveness is an important variable in our classi® ca- depends on the complexity of the PC activities. These
tion and we believe it to be the key variable for choosing are related to the variables in table 2 and also the con-
the overall structure of the PPCS. Table 2 also indicates straints that are restricting the production system.
the relationship between the variables and the choice of a
PPCS. The last line of table 2 is justi® ed by the following
reasoning: for discrete items the more repetitive the pro- 4.3. Applying the scheme
duction system is the more likely that the simplest of all
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 10:19 05 January 2015
PPCSÐ the kanbanÐ can be chosen; for intermediate Table 3 gives a complete view of the attributes of the
situations period batch control (PBC; Burbidge 1996 ) is multi-dimensional classi® cation scheme.
likely to be appropriate and for non-repetitive situations If the production system is composed of one set of
an MRP-based approach is likely to be necessary. homogenous products and one processing unit and/or
Kanban and PBC due to their logic and procedures do one assembly unit, the application of the multidimen-
Enterprise size For all levels of repetitiveness, the larger the enterprise the greater the complexity of production planning and
control ( PPC) activities
Response time DL(a7P%) DL(a7P%) DL( a7P%) DL( a7P%) PL ‡ DL PL ‡ DL or SL ‡ PL ‡ DL
SL ‡ PL ‡ DL
Automation level Rigid Rigid Rigid Normal or Normal or Normal or Normal
¯ exible ¯ exible ¯ exible
Product structure For all level of repetitiveness, the PPC activities for multi-level products are much more complex than for single-
level products
Level of Standard Standard Standard Standard Mushroom Semi- Customized
customization products or mushroom or mushroom or mushroom or semi- customized
customized or customized
Number of products For all levels of repetitiveness, the PPC activities for multi-products are much more complex than for single-
product
Types of layout Product Product Product Group Group Functional Fixed
layout layout layout layout layout layout position
Types of bu er (i) and ( iii) (i) , ( ii) (i) , ( ii) (i) , ( ii) (i), ( ii) (i), ( ii) Without
and ( iii) and ( iii) and ( iii) or ( i) or (ii) bu ers
Types of ¯ ow The complexity of PPC activities increases from (F1) in direction to (F12)
Types of assembly (A1) or (A1) or (A5) or ( A6) (A5) or ( A6) (A7) or ( A8) (A3) or ( A4) (A2)
disassembly disassembly or ( A7) or or ( A7) or or ( A9) or or no
no assembly no assembly no assembly assembly
Types of work If there is assembly, the type of work organization has
organization a direct impact on the way you will balance the work
in the assembly
Basic production A spread- A spread- Kanban Kanban or PBC or MRP PERT/
control system sheet to sheet to PBC OPT CPM
possible to be control the schedule
chosen rate of ¯ ow the work
492 B. L. M acCarthy and F. C. F. Fernandes
sional classi® cation is straightforward. Otherwise, we (2) If the level of automation is mixed (dimension
must consider the following general approach (® gure 8) . B ˆ M) then we have to specify for each pro-
We have to make the following explicit. cessing unit the level of automation (ALi ) and
other descriptors (type of layout, type of bu er
(1) The number n i of products in each case i …n1 ˆ and type of ¯ ow).
jSL_1j;. . . ; n7 ˆ jML_4j; where the modulus sym- (3) An assembly characterization (dimensions G and
bol indicates the number of elements in the set). H) for each assembly unit …1;. . . ; n†.
M ulti-dimensional classication of production systems 493
(4) Depending on the complexity of the production ¯ ow-shop ¯ ow pattern. The fourth and ® fth processing
system, we may need to show the relationship units are ¯ exible manufacturin g systems with job-shop
between the processing units and bu ers. A direc- type ¯ ow patterns and bu er after the last stage. There
ted graph may be an appropriate approach. is one assembly unit of the unpaced type where the con-
veyor always moves and the worker only attaches the
Here we ® rst present a concise illustrative example and product to the conveyor when he ® nishes his tasks with
then apply the approach to four examples from the normal level of automation operated by work groups.
literature. Figure 9 shows the classi® cation for this production
A production system manufactures machines utilized system and ® gure 10 uses a directed graph to show the
in the construction of roads. There are 2000 employees. relationship between the units and the bu ers.
There are processing units with ¯ exible levels of automa- We have also applied the approach to four production
tion and others with normal levels of automation. The systems described in recent literature in production plan-
system produces to order but maintains stocks of raw ning and control. Obviously the amount of detail given in
materials. It is a semi-repetitive production system. The each source is limited and variable, and the results are
products are complex, standard, multilevel ones. There necessarily incomplete, but it was felt to be an objective
are ® ve processing units. The ® rst one has a functional test of the applicability of the approach. Table 4 sum-
layout with bu ers between the intermediate stages, marizes the major characteristics of each of the systems
before the ® rst and after the last stage, a normal level from the information provided in the source.
of automation and a multi-directional multi-stage ¯ ow Artiba (1994) gives more detail for the processing char-
pattern with non-identical machines in parallel. The sec- acteristicsÐ a production system composed of six pro-
ond and third processing units are manufacturing cells cessing units all with ¯ ow pattern (F4) and the
with normal levels of automation. The second one has a transport of the materials between adjacent workstations
bu er before the ® rst stage and a uni-directional ¯ ow is made through pipes. The relationships among the six
pattern with identical machines in parallel. The third units are shown in ® gure 11 [e.g. the products that pass
one has a bu er after the last stage and a unidirectional processing unit 1 (PU1) follow through to PU4 or PU5].
494 B. L. M acCarthy and F. C. F. Fernandes
Figure 11. The relationships among the six units (based on Artiba 1994).
References
5. Conclusions are very super® cial whilst others disregard important ele-
ments. The lack of useful classi® cations is one reason that
Di erent classi® cations and taxonomies are necessary we believe underlies the lack of progress in operations
for di erent purposes as di erent perspectives on manu- management generally and production planning and
facturing systems are important for di erent aspects of control in particular.
analysis and design. However, many previous classi® ca- The classi® cation scheme described here can be suc-
tions have limited application: some are not explicit cessfully applied to real production systems because it
about the purpose of the proposed classi® cation and/or can treat in-depth the typical hybrid cases that arise in
M ulti-dimensional classication of production systems 495
practice. Each speci® c production system demands a BUFFA , E. S., and M IL LE R , J . G., 1979, Production-Inventory
speci® c, if not unique, production control system. For Systems Planning and Control ( US: Richard D. Irwin).
BURBIDGE , J . L., 1962, T he Principles of Production Control (® rst
example, under the general heading of assembly lines, edition) (London: MacDonald & Evans).
there are in reality, several di erent types, each of BURBIDGE , J . L. ( ed.), 1970, Final Report, International Seminar on
which requires a di erent production control system. Group T echnology ( Turin: Turin International Centre) .
Our classi® cation highlights the essential characteristics BURBIDGE , J . L., 1971, T he Principles of Production Control (third
that enable a better understanding of production systems edition) (London: MacDonald & Evans).
BURBIDGE , J . L., 1975, T he Introduction of Group T echnolog y
and their relationship with the production planning and
( London: William Heinemann).
control function. In future research, we intend to demon- BURBIDGE , J . L., 1985, Automated production control. In
strate further its utility for aiding in the selection or P. Falster and R. B. Mazumder (eds) M odelling Production
design of appropriate production planning and control M anagement Systems ( North-Holland: Elsevier Science BV )
systems. More generally it may be used for research, pp. 19± 35.
particularly in studying the gap between practice and BURBIDGE , J . L., 1996, Period Batch Control ( Oxford: Clarendon
Press).
theory in the production planning and control area. It C A RRIE , A. S., 1975, The layout of multi-product lines.
may also be used for teaching in operations management International J ournal of Production Research, 13, 541 ± 557.
and industrial engineering. We see it being used to C ONSTA B LE , C. J ., and N EW , C. C., 1976, Operations M anagement,
help students in classifying systems from detailed a Systems Approach T hroug h T ext and Cases (London: Wiley).
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 10:19 05 January 2015
descriptions and in classifying production systems studied C ONW A Y , R. W., M A XW EL L , W. L., and M IL LER , L. W., 1967,
T heory of Scheduling (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
in the ® eld.
DE T ONI, A., and P A NIZZOLO, R., 1992, Repetitive and
intermittent manufacturing: comparison of characteristics.
Integ rated M anuf acturing Systems, 3, 23± 37.
A cknowledgement
DUL MET , M., L HOTE , F., and O RTIZ -H ERNANDEZ , J ., 1997, A
processes classi® cation for the representation of production
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the systems. Fifth International Conference on Factory 2000. T he
FAPESP in funding this work. T echnolog y Exploitation Process. IEE Conference Publication
no. 435, pp. 496 ± 500.
F RIZE LL E , G. D. M ., 1989, OPT in perspective. A dvanced
M anuf acturing Engineering, 1, 74± 80.
References GOOD, I . J ., 1965, Categorisation of classi® cation. In
M athematics and Computer Science in M edicine and Biolog y
A NEKE , N. A. G., and C A RRIE , A. S., 1984, A comprehensive ( London: HMSO), pp. 115± 128.
¯ owline classi® cation scheme. International J ournal of Production GROOVE R , M ., 1980, A utomation, Production Systems and Computer
Research, 22, 281± 297. A ided Manuf acturing (Englewood Cli s, NJ: Prentice-Hall) .
API CS R E P E TITIVE M A NUFA CTURING G ROUP , SECOND I NGHA M, H., 1971, Balancing Sales and Production (London: British
Q UA RTE R 1982, Repetitive manufacturing. Production and Institute of Management).
Inventory M anagement, 23, 78± 86. J A IN, A. K., 1988, EX PSYS: o shore structures’ expert system.
BA NERJ EE , S. K., 1997, Methodology for integrated manu- Proceedings of the 5th ASCE ( A merican Society of Civil Eng ineering)
facturing planning and control systems design. In A. Artiba Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, USA, pp. 25± 27
and S. E. Elmaghraby (eds) T he Planning and Scheduling of J ICHA O, X., 1996, Variability detection and robustness design in
Production Systems (London: Chapman & Hall), pp. 54± 88. complex production system. Computers & Industrial Engineering ,
BA RBE R , K. D., and H OLL IER , R. H., 1986a, The use of numer- 31, 775± 778.
ical analysis to classify companies according to production J OHNSON, L. A., and M ONTGOMERY , D. C., 1974, Operations
control complexity. International J ournal of Production Research, Research in Production Planning, Scheduling and Inventory Control
24, 203± 222. ( New York: Wiley) .
BA RBE R , K. D., and H OLLIE R , R. H., 1986b, The e ects of J OHNSON, R. V., 1991, Balancing assembly lines for teams and
computer-aided production control systems on de® ned work groups. International J ournal of Production Research, 29,
company types. International J ournal of Production Research, 24, 1205 ± 1214.
311± 327. K ITCHING, I . J ., F OREY , P. L., H UMP HRIES, C. J ., and
BLA CK, J . T., 1983, Cellular manufacturing systems reduce W IL L IA MS, D. M ., 1998, Cladistics–the T heory and Practice of
setup time, make small lot production economical. Industrial Persimony Analysis ( 2nd edition) (Oxford: Oxford University
Eng ineering, 15, 36 ± 48. Press).
BOTTA , V., G UINET, A., and BOUL LE , D., 1997, Object-oriented K USIA K, A., 1985, Flexible manufacturing systems: a structural
analysis with structured and integrated speci® cations and approach. International J ournal of Production Research, 23, 1057±
solutions (OASISS) for production system control. J ournal 1073.
of Intelligent M anufacturing , 8, 3± 14. L IU, J ., and M A CC A RTHY , B. L., 1996, The classi® cation of
BRIGHT , J . R., 1958, Automation and M anagement ( Boston: FMS scheduling problems. International J ournal of Production
Harvard University Press) . Research, 34, 647± 656.
BROW NE , J ., D UBOIS, D., R A THMIL L , K., SETHI , S. P., and M A CC A RTHY , B. L., and L IU, J ., 1993, A new classi® cation
STECKE , E., 1984, Classi® cation of ¯ exible manufacturing scheme for ¯ exible manufacturing systems. International
systems. FM S M agazine, 2, 114± 117. J ournal of Production Research, 31, 299 ± 309..
496 B. L. M acCarthy and F. C. F. Fernandes
M A IMON , O., and N OF , S. Y., 1986, Analysis of multi-robot P Y OUN, Y. S., C HOI, B. K., and P A RK, J . C., 1995, Flexibility
systems. IIE T ransactions ( Institute of Industrial Eng ineers) , 18, value as a tool for improving decision making in ¯ exible
226 ± 234. automation. Eng ineering Economist, 40, 267 ± 282.
M A LL ICK, R. W., and G A UDREA U, A. T., 1951, Plant Layout SCHMITT, T. G., K L A STORIN , T., and SHTUB , A., 1985,
( New York: Wiley). Production classi® cation system, concepts, models and
M A THE R , H., 1988, Competitive M anuf acturing (Englewood Cli s: strategies. International J ournal of Production Research, 23, 563±
Prentice Hall). 578.
M CC A RTHY , L., 1995, Manufacturing classi® cation: lessons SIP P ER , D., and SHA P IRA , R., 1989, JIT vs. WIPÐ a trade-o
from organizational systematics and biological taxonomy. analysis. International J ournal of Production Research, 27, 903± 914
Integrated M anufacturing Systems, 6, 37± 48. STE CKE , K. E., and BROW NE , J ., 1985, Variations in ¯ exible
M CC A RTHY , I ., L ESE URE , M., R IDGW A Y , K., and F IEL L ER , N., manufacturing systems according to the relevant types of
1997, Building a manufacturing cladogram. International automated materials handling. M aterial Flow, 2, 179 ± 186.
J ournal of T echnology M anagement, 13, 269 ± 286. W IL D, R., 1971, T he T echniques of Production M anagement
N Y S, D. A., 1984, Classi® cation of machine tool equipment used ( London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston) .
for machining housing type components. Soviet Eng ineering W IL D, R., 1972, M ass Production M anagement (London: Wiley) .
Research, 4, 39± 43. W IL D, R., 1995, Production and Operations M anagement ( 5th edi-
P ETROV , V. A., 1966, Flowline Group Production Planning (London: tion) (London: Cassell Eductional).
Business Publications). W OODW A RD, J ., 1965, Industrial OrganizationÐ T heory and Practice
P UTNA M, A. O., 1983, MRP for repetitive manufacturing shops: ( 1st edition) ( Oxford: Oxford University Press).
a ¯ exible kanban system for America. Production and Inventory W OODW A RD, J ., 1980, Industrial OrganizationÐ T heory and Practice
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 10:19 05 January 2015