2.

1: Characterization of manufacturing operations and their impact on

system design.

Production systems are systems that are structured through a set of related activities and
processes, necessary to obtain goods and services of high added value for the client, with
the use of appropriate means and the use of the most efficient methods.
In companies, whether service or manufacturing, these systems represent the productive
configurations adopted around the process of conversion and/or transformation of inputs
(material, human, financial, informational, energy, etc.) into outputs ( goods and services) to
satisfy the needs, requirements and expectations of customers, in the most rational and, at
the same time, most competitive way possible.
If the business context is studied, it can be found that there are different production systems
in manufacturing and service companies, responding, as is logical, to the characteristics of
their processes and operation. Likewise, if the literature on Production and Operations
Management is appropriately reviewed, you will find a certain diversity of typologies
regarding the way of classifying production configurations. This is fundamentally due to the
variety of approaches with which the authors treat these issues in their works, which, far
from clarifying, add greater complexity to said problem. The great diversity of existing
processes and the potential classification criteria to be considered make it difficult to find an
exhaustive classification that univocally contemplates each specific case.
Woodward (1965) was probably the first author to typify production systems. He discovered
that manufacturing technologies could be classified into three broad categories: artisanal or
unit production (non-repetitive discrete production), mechanized or mass production
(repetitive discrete production), and continuous process production. Each category includes
a different method of obtaining products, the main differences being the degree of
standardization and automation, type of process and the repetitiveness of production.
Woodward's typology distinguishes between unit manufacturing, small batches, large
batches, serial production and continuous flow transformation processes. Woodward's
proposal has set standards in the community of authors. Gousty and Kieffer (1988), based
on other criteria, such as complexity and uncertainty, propose a new typology for industrial
systems, delimiting the main components that make up the problems of production systems.
Hopeman (1991), Companys (1986), Díaz (1993) and Schroeder (1992), among others,
choose to differentiate production systems into two large basic groups: continuous and
intermittent systems. Others, such as Chase, Aquilano and Jacob (2000), Ochoa and Arana
(1996) and Heizer and Render (1997), prefer to classify them as: repetitive and non-
repetitive. The first refer to the continuity of the production process itself, and the second, to
the repetitiveness or recurrence of the product and its process. Monks (1992) proposes
another classification of production systems, identifying the continuous system (flow
operations), intermittent system (flow and batch operations), internal work system (batch or
single jobs) and project (single jobs). ). Furthermore, this author adds that production
systems are frequently classified according to production destination, whether they are
manufacturers of storable goods (such as equipment) or manufacturers of made-to-order
goods. Another very common classification is based on the sector of activity, presenting two
extreme types: manufacturing systems, responsible for the manufacture and/or assembly of
material goods, and service provision systems.
For their part, Womack, Jones and Roos (1991), and Doll and Vonderembse (1992),
propose another classification of production systems: "craft" production (craft system), mass
production (industrial system), and production with minimum waste. (post-industrial
system). This classification is suitable for some purposes, such as explaining the differences
between new production systems (minimum waste systems) and traditional ones
(Miltenburg, 1995). It is also useful to reflect the evolution and paradigm changes that have
occurred in manufacturing from the initial artisanal production model (craft model) to the
most current model called lean manufacturing.
For his part, Gorostegui (1991) offers a classification that differs from the previous ones,
classifying them according to several characteristics, such as: the destination of the product
(made to order/for the market), the reason for producing (for orders/warehouse), the
typification of the product (standard production/serial production) and the temporal
dimension of the product (intermittent/continuous). Along these same lines, Acevedo (1987)
proposes a classification based on a morphological matrix that contemplates the
classification of the production system according to three fundamental characteristics:
production-consumption relationship, which considers the response that the system must
give towards the environment, whether by direct delivery or against warehouse; way
production is executed; and element to optimize. Like Gorostegui, characteristics that refer
to external and internal dimensions are combined.
The fundamental problem with these ways of classifying the production system is that
although they are useful from the point of view of contextualization and characterization of
production units, they are not very useful for carrying out competitive and strategic analysis
in manufacturing, since which, among other things, being too broad and generic, fail to
identify a finite and discrete number of effective options for production systems that reflect
the different existing ways of producing goods and/or services. Furthermore, they do not
address in their procedures the strategic interrelation of the "product-process" binomial, thus
omitting the potential implications that the choice of one or another production system
represents for the company, expressed in terms of the different technical and business
dimensions that they make up a production system.
Very broad classifications do not facilitate the formulation of precise decisions and actions
and the realization of trade-offs between them, much less do they allow the details of the
manufacturing strategy to be specified. In this sense, the manufacturing strategy needs a
different form of classification of the production system, much more disaggregated,
discreet, detailed, which makes it easier to go into details of the internal composition of the
production system, which allows comparing its specific performances and for this Finally,
the classification based on the existing typology of production processes, in addition to
being the most commonly used by researchers and practitioners, is the most appropriate for
the purposes of competitive analysis and manufacturing strategy.
Perhaps the most widespread classification based on the existing typology of production
processes is that proposed by Hayes and Wheelwright (1984; pp. 176–179), which is similar
in many aspects to that established by Woodward (1965), but with a basic emphasis on the
guidelines that work flows follow in the factory. They arrived at five types of well-defined
productive configurations: project, job-shop, batch or decoupled line flow, assembly line
(also called serial, repetitive or mass production) and continuous process. Likewise, they
highlighted that these last four vary between two extremes in terms of material movement,
the configuration oriented towards the product and the configuration oriented towards the
process, whose most obvious difference is the distribution in the plant, by product, for the
first and by processes, for the second.
Buffa (1968) was undoubtedly another of the first authors to offer a typology of production
systems more in line with what was mentioned above. Starting from the existing
dichotomies in relation to the physical layout of production systems, that is, layout by
product vs. process, linear vs. functional or continuous vs. intermittent, Buffa highlights that
most productive systems are really combinations of these extreme states and in this sense,
he offers a classification based on five different types of systems, the first two
corresponding to continuous systems and the rest to intermittent systems, they are : (1)
distribution systems for inventory products, (2) production-distribution systems for high-
volume standardized products, (3) closed job shop for inventory products, (4) open job shop
for custom products and (5) large-scale projects. Each one is distinguished and
differentiated by its own characteristics and specific problems. The first two refer to
products planned for inventories, differing in the scope of their operations and the degree of
managerial control, the remaining three refer to intermittent operations mostly dedicated to
obtaining custom-designed products according to customer requirements. To the above,
Buffa adds that these systems may not appear in their “pure” forms, but rather commonly
appear as “mixed” systems. To this, Hill (1997) adds that, although hybrid systems may
exist, aimed at better reflecting the needs of the factory, they should always be classified by
the one that predominates, the “base process” or also called “root process”.
Along these lines, Miltenburg (1995) highlights that there are two, among others, the main
factors that determine the extent of similarities and differences between existing production
systems; They are: the type of product that is manufactured and the outputs provided to the
market. Each company manufactures a different type of product and provides different
manufacturing outputs to its customers. To this, Hill (1993, 1997) adds that the coincidence
between the market and product dimensions with the characteristics of the process is an
essential requirement to avoid incompatibilities of approach and be competitive in
manufacturing.
Specifying this part, a growing number of authors, among which Buffa (1984), Hayes and
Wheelwright (1984), Miltenburg (1995), Hill (1993,1997), Cribillers (1997), Domínguez et
al. (1998), Hax and Majluf (1999) and Cuatrecasas (1999), have preferred to use, in a
general way, the classification of production systems based on the typology of production
processes. The process is considered the most relevant factor when identifying or
characterizing any manufacturing system. This relevance is based on the fact that each
process is characterized by having a material flow pattern and layout that make it different.
Likewise, there is an indissoluble interrelation between product and process, an essential
binomial for strategic analysis. So much so, that the product and the process go through
similar shared life cycles, in which the process adopts specific configurations depending on
the nature of the product and the phase of its development in the market.
Each production system, essentially characterized by its production process, carries a set of
implications for the company, regarding the appropriate behavior of the different
manufacturing and business dimensions (Hill, 1997). According to this approach, and doing
a more detailed analysis of the different works and literature consulted, it has been found
that the authors have generally accepted the existence of eight typologies of well-defined
productive systems or configurations: Project, Job Shop, Batch, Equipment-paced Line,
Worker-paced Line, Continuous Configuration, Just in Time and Flexible Manufacturing
System.
Project Configuration. Generally production of unique products of a certain complexity that
require a large amount of inputs. These must be manufactured in a defined location because
it is difficult or almost impossible to transport them once finished. As a result, and unlike
any other production process, the resources it comprises must be transferred to the place of
operation, since here there is no flow of the work object, but rather the technical and human
resources who go to the workplace. Activities and resources are managed as a whole. Their
coordination becomes critical. There is a notable interest in controlling costs and completion
dates.
Workshop Configuration (Job-shop). The Job-Shop production system manufactures many
different products in volumes that vary between one unit and a few units of each product. It
consists of non-serial manufacturing, small batches, for single orders or small quantities. It
usually involves adapted products, designed to suit the client and of a very non-repetitive
nature. Little specialized operations are required, which are carried out by the same worker
or by a small group of them, who have the responsibility of finishing all or almost all of the
product. Because very different products are manufactured, resources are flexible and
versatile. Material flow is irregular, random and varies considerably from one order to the
next. The manufacturer is required to interpret the design and job specifications, as well as
apply high-level capabilities in the conversion process. In Job-Shop production what it is
about is obtaining a “tailored product” for the client.
Batch Configuration. The batch flow system produces less variety of product at higher
volumes than the previous case. The increased volume is due to an increase in repetitiveness
in certain items that become dominant. These products are manufactured in batches,
representing a few months of customer requirements. In this case, more operations are
required, and these are more specialized, so it is difficult for the same operator to master
them all with acceptable efficiency. In this sense, the work is divided into different
technological stages, in which the batches undergo different operations. Thus, the
installation is usually divided into sections or workshops, in which equipment with similar
functions is grouped. A combination of cellular and functional layouts is usually used.
Cellular layouts are used when it is cost-effective to arrange equipment in cells to produce
product families. As there are many products, the equipment and tooling are mostly flexible,
general purpose. The material flow is disconnected, although regular, variable from one
order to another, although there are flow guidelines for product families and for large
batches. It is the most used system.
Online Configuration Accompanied by the Equipment (LAE). The equipment and processes
are organized into a specialized line or lines to produce a small number of different products
or product families. These systems are used only when the product design is stable and the
volume is high enough to make efficient use of a specialized line with dedicated
capabilities. It is manufactured at a constant rate, with an automated and capital-intensive
flow. Operators perform relatively simple tasks at a pace determined by the speed of the
line. The control of the production cycle is automated, there is high standardization and high
efficiency throughout the process.
Online Configuration Accompanied by Operators (LAO). It is used when the number of
different products is too high and the production volumes are too variable for the online
system with flow controlled by the equipment. In this system, the line is more flexible than
in the previous case, and can operate at a variety of speeds. The production rate depends on
the particular product being manufactured, the number of operators assigned to the line, and
the effectiveness of the operators' teamwork. Although the products are somewhat different,
they are technically homogeneous, using the same installation, personnel and the same
sequence of workstations, although some of them may not go through one that is not
necessary. The production cycle is controlled by the operators, unlike the LAE where said
control is automated, this makes it more flexible and versatile than the previous one.
Continuous Flow Configuration. This system is similar to the line system in flow controlled
by the equipment. However, it is more automated, more capital intensive and less flexible.
Each machine and equipment is designed to always perform the same operation and
prepared to automatically accept the work supplied by the preceding machine. It is designed
to manufacture one product or a limited family of products in very high volumes. The
product design is very stable, often a generic or commodity product. The material flow is
continuously synchronized, integrated throughout the entire installation as if it were a great
technological process. This rigid system is based on a highly automated, expensive and
specialized process in obtaining a standard product, where homogeneity is total and
absolute, functioning continuously with minimal intervention from line personnel. It
generally requires working 24 hours a day to ensure a cost-effective and efficient system.
JIT Production System. It is important to distinguish between the JIT production system and
JIT techniques. The techniques called JIT include statistical quality control, reduction of
tool change times (SMED), versatility of workers, versatility of equipment, standardization
of operations, the approach to production through "carryover" (Kanban). , cellular layout,
autonomous maintenance, involvement of all staff in management decisions, continuous
problem resolution, automatic defect control, etc. These techniques are used in the JIT
production system, but are also used in other systems. The JIT production system is much
more than an aggregate of JIT techniques. Originating from Toyota Motor Co., it is a linear
flow system (virtual or physical) that manufactures many products in low to medium
volumes. By design, the JIT system forces the elimination of all unnecessary (“waste”), and
from there, it imposes continuous improvement. This naturally leads to lower costs, quality
improvements and faster deliveries. The JIT system is the most difficult to design,
implement and manage of all, and there may be different levels of implementation of it.
Flexible Manufacturing System (FMS). The FMS system consists of a group of computer-
controlled machines and automatic material handling, loading and unloading systems, all
controlled by a supervisory computer. An FMS can operate without staff attention for long
periods. The machines, material handling system and computers are very flexible, versatile,
allowing an FMS system to manufacture many different products in low volumes. Because
it is extremely expensive, it is commonly used in situations where simpler and cheaper
flow-line production systems cannot be used. It is typically developed in a CIM (computer
integrated manufacturing) environment.
The first six types of production systems have been called traditional or classic systems and
are based on craft management and mass production approaches, which range from the
search for individual skills and capabilities based on the functionality of the process and the
expertise of the operator. , until achieving high productivity and efficiency through the
optimization of operations and economies of scale. The last two, Just in Time (JIT) and
Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS), have emerged as a result of a new production
management approach called "lean production", which emerged in recent years and is based
on production with minimal waste, which seeks the elimination of those activities that do
not add value, as well as unnecessary consumption of resources, which are considered
waste. This approach has given rise to these new production systems, aimed at obtaining
small to medium volumes with a high variety of products, using a linear flow layout (instead
of functional), which is more effective and efficient. It is an appropriate combination of the
benefits of its predecessors. Both systems, hybrid by nature, are endowed with efficiency
and flexibility, and their basic differences lie in the degree of technological intensity used in
their operations and processes.
Other authors, such as Hill (1997), describe additional modalities of hybrid production
systems that, although not as complete as those described above, do contribute equally to
companies offering a manufacturing process that better reflects their needs in terms of
power. support the characteristics of their markets. Among these hybrid systems, Cellular
Manufacturing (based on group technology), Transfer Lines (or transfer lines) and
Machining Centers stand out.
The emergence of hybrid configurations, resulting from combining aspects of basic or
classic systems, has been a natural evolutionary process in production management in a
competitive economy. In general, and much more so in current times of high competitive
rivalry, companies tend to present a combination of processes and configurations in
manufacturing in order to try to better reflect and cover the diverse needs and requirements
of the products they provide and sell. Of course, close attention must be paid to these
combinations of characteristics to avoid incompatibilities and operational dysfunctions, and
also due to the fact that the choice they can make will always be limited by the engineering
dimension (the process must be able to meet the specifications of the product) and by the
technical, technological and business limitations that restrict the possible options.
These production systems, classic and modern, differ from each other by the behavior
described in the various technical and business dimensions, typical of the design of the
system as well as its operation, such as, and to cite some examples: the repetitiveness of
operations and jobs, the level of continuity or intermittency in the material flow, the
predominant type of production, the product mix with which it operates (volume-variety),
the spatial structure used, the temporal structure of production, the very nature of the
product that is manufactured and marketed (standard, special or adapted), the level of
specialization of the capabilities, level of standardization of products, the degree of
automation incorporated, as well as the dimensions of competition / market that are
provided to the end customer, among others.
This work has not attempted to address, by any means, all the existing types of classification
of production systems, but rather to offer a terminological overview of the topic and a
conceptual framework that constitutes a reflection and starting point for future research in
this field.

Characterization of manufacturing operations

Production processes and technology plans
It is essential to the operations strategy, it is determining the way in which the products will
be manufactured, which involves planning all the details of the production processes and
facilities.
Allocation of resources to strategic alternatives
Resources are limited: Capital, workers, machines, materials, capacity, laboratories, etc.
This deficiency impacts production systems more severely.
These resources must be distributed among, or assigned to, products, business units,
projects; so that the achievements and objectives of operations are maximized.
Operations Priorities
Skinner (Harvard) and Hill (London BS) identified the following basic priorities in
manufacturing operations: Cost, quality, product reliability, speed of delivery, reliability of
delivery, ability to cope with changes in demand, flexibility and speed of introduction of
new products, after-sales support, and others. Manufacturing operations strategy.
Operations strategy cannot be developed in a vacuum. It must be vertically linked to the
client and horizontally to other parts of the company.
The general process is that customer-based requirements for new products, or existing
products, give rise to performance priorities that then become the required priorities for
operations.
These priorities are business capabilities, which include, for example, technology, systems
and people. Much of the operational capacity is subject to the “make or buy” decision. How
to develop a manufacturing strategy?
Manufacturing operations strategy
The objectives of developing a manufacturing strategy are:
a) Translate required priorities into specific performance requirements for operations
b) Design the necessary plans to ensure that operational (and business) capabilities are
sufficient to meet them.
The stages to develop priorities are:
• Segment the market according to product group
• Identify product requirements, demand patterns, and profit margins for each group.
• Determine the order getters and order qualifiers for each group

IMPACT ON THE DESIGN OF THE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM

The production function includes from the acquisition of raw materials, their
transformation, until obtaining the finished product.
In the competitive environment that currently exists, no company can afford not to use all its
resources. If the operations function is not allowed to contribute (or is not expected to
contribute) to the development of the company's objectives, the chances of long-term
success are not very good (Chase & Aquilano, 1994). Manufacturing can play various roles
and/or strategic roles in the context of a company's growth. Robert H. Hayes & Steven C.
Wheelwright (1985) have described four stages or sequential levels in the strategic function
of manufacturing operations to globally support the objectives of the corporation.
LEVEL 1:
Internally neutral Minimize the negative potential of manufacturing Hiring external experts
to make decisions regarding strategic manufacturing issues. Internal management control
systems are the primary means of monitoring manufacturing results. Manufacturing is kept
in a flexible and reactive (neutral) position.
LEVEL 2: Externally neutral
Achieve parity with competitors in the sector Monitoring of sector practices. The planning
horizon of manufacturing investment decisions is expanded with a view to constituting a
continuous economic cycle. Capital investment is the main means to achieve a situation of
parity and achieve a competitive position.
LEVEL 3: Support or internal support
Provide reliable and appropriate support to business strategy / Business studies
manufacturing investments to ensure they are coherent and consistent with business
strategy. Formulation, implementation and monitoring of a manufacturing strategy.
Systematic study of long-term manufacturing course and trends.
LEVEL 4: Support or external support
Pursue a competitive advantage based on the resources and capabilities of the
manufacturing function. Intensive work is done to foresee and/or anticipate the potential of
new manufacturing practices and technologies. Manufacturing is actively involved in major
marketing and engineering decisions (and vice versa). Long-term programs are followed to
obtain sufficient means, resources and capabilities before needs arise or manifest.

Bibliography
Acevedo Suárez, JA (1987). Complementary material on general organizational scheme. City of
Havana: CUJAE Editions.
Buffa, ES (1968). Operations Management: Problems and Models. Westwood, California: John
Wiley.
Buffa, ES (1984). Meeting the Competitive Challenge. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin.
Chase, R.B., Aquilano, NJ & Jacobs, F.R. (2000). Production and operations management.
Manufacturing and services (8th edition9). Santa Fe de Bogotá: McGraw-Hill.