J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185 DOI 10.

1007/s10845-007-0046-4

A methodology to incorporate product mix variations in cellular manufacturing

Amit Bhandwale Thenkurussi Kesavadas

Published online: September 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract The identication of part families and machine groups that form the cells is a major step in the development of a cellular manufacturing system and, consequently, a large number of concepts, theories and algorithms have been proposed. One common assumption for most of these cell formation algorithms is that the product mix remains stable over a period of time. In todays world, the market demand is being shaped by consumers resulting in a highly volatile market. This has given rise to a new class of products characterized by low volume and high variety. To incorporate product mix changes into an existing cellular manufacturing system many important issues have to be tackled. In this paper, a methodology to incorporate new parts and machines into an existing cellular manufacturing system has been presented. The objective is to t the new parts and machines into an existing cellular manufacturing system thereby increasing machine utilization and reducing investment in new equipment. Keywords Group technology Cellular manufacturing Product mix variations

Introduction Group Technology (GT) is a philosophy for identifying and exploiting similarities of product design and manufacturing processes throughout the manufacturing cycle.
A. Bhandwale T. Kesavadas (B) Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo, 1006 Furnas Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA e-mail: kesh@eng.buffalo.edu

One of the objectives is to increase customization leading to a higher product variety with a lower product volume. Cellular Manufacturing (CM) is the application of the GT concept to manufacturing. This involves grouping similar parts together into part families which are to be processed by dedicated clusters of machines/manufacturing processes called cells. The origins of GT/CM can be traced back to as early as 1940 when it was pioneered on a large scale by the Russians, British and Germans. Decades of research have brought this eld to its current state and have helped prove that adoption of CM reduces setup times, in-process inventory, tooling, and enhances product quality. A large number of researchers have put forth numerous concepts, theories and algorithms to solve the Cell Formation (CF) problem. But, there is one aspect of the CF problem which very few researchers have delved into. What if new part families are introduced into an existing CM system? Is it then expedient to alter the existing layout? If yes, how do we assign the new part families into the existing layout? If no, should new cells be formed for the new part families? What if the new part families require new machines? The redesign of such a system involves issues such as reformation of part families and machine groups, relocation expenses for existing machines and investment of new machines and material handling equipment. In this paper, some of these issues have been addressed and a methodology to incorporate product mix changes has been proposed. In this section the problem domain is described and issues associated with product mix variations are discussed. In Sect. Prior work," previous work done and applications developed are discussed. In Sect. A methodology to incorporate product mix variations," a formal methodology to incorporate product mix changes in a CM system is presented.

72

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185

In Sect. Performance evaluation," performance evaluation in the case of product mix variations is discussed. In Sect. Implementation," the proposed methodology is implemented on large datasets with high product mix changes and in Sect. Mathematical computations," the computations involved are described.

Prior work Problems encountered upon introduction of new parts and machines In manufacturing, we come across a variety of part classes; two of which includethe high-volume, lowvariety parts and the medium/low-volume, mid-variety parts. The high-volume, low-variety parts constitute the commodity items for which there typically is a large and steady demand. Alternatively, the medium/low-volume, mid-variety parts tend to be special order items for which the demand is typically unsteady. These parts often result from the need to meet the requirements of a large and varied customer base. For these parts, exibility and production volume is of prime importance (Singh, 1996). One of the implied assumptions in the modeling and development of CM systems is that the product mix remains stable over time. Over the years, there has been a shift of power in the global economy, in shaping the market demand, from producers to consumers. Consequently, manufacturers must continuously respond to market changes. Also, over a period of time, design changes take place and many existing parts are replaced by variants or new parts. This necessitates allocation of resources such as machines, material handling equipment, jigs, xtures, and personnel to manufacture these parts. To incorporate product mix changes in a CM system raises many issues. Review of prior work Very few researchers have addressed issues regarding product mix and their subsequent handling. A syntactic pattern recognition approach has been developed by Wu, Venugopal and Barash (1986). Their method uses operation sequences to determine distances between the part families. Operation sequences on machines are represented by numerical strings. The Levenshtein distance (Fu, 1998) between two such strings x and y is the smallest number of transformations required to derive y from x. Such strings are used to form dendograms which then can be grouped at various threshold levels to give different cell designs. This approach is similar to the Similarity Coefcient Approach (McAuley, 1972). In case of the

introduction of a new part family, Levenshtein distances are calculated between the new part family and the existing cells. The new part family is assigned to that cell with which it shares the minimum Levenshtein distance. This method does not address introduction of multiple new parts and new machines. A large number of machines will result in larger operation sequences (strings) and a large number of parts will increase the number of comparisons that are required between two such operation sequences. Tam (1990) has proposed an operation sequence based weighted similarity coefcient for drawing on similar patterns of operation sequences, not on machine requirements, for part family formations. This similarity coefcient is also based on the Levenshtein distance measure of two sequences. These distance measures are then converted to a similarity coefcient which is used to group parts by applying the k-Nearest-Neighbor clustering procedure (Wong & Lane, 1983), a density linkage clustering technique based on nonparametric probability density estimates. The new part is assigned to the part family with which it shares the least distance or most similarity. A threshold value can be decided upon to aid the planner in decision making. If the distance between the new part and its closest group exceeds the threshold value, a new group is created for the new part. This approach is not concrete enough. Why to create a new family for a part which is visiting a cell also visited by some other part family? A better approach would have been to create a new part family when the new part has no operations on any of the existing machines. Seifoddini (1990) developed a probabilistic model to overcome assumptions of deterministic demand for parts. A variety of product mixes with different probabilities of occurrence is used to give different part machine incidence matrices, which are then used as input to an existing grouping algorithm. Rajamani and Szwarc (1994) presented a mathematical programming model for maximizing the prot associated with reduced intercellular movement. The model takes into account production data such as machine consumption rates (labor, energy, and maintenance) and costs associated with material handling, relocation, and sale of parts. A computerized procedure was developed and examples of machine relocation have been provided. But, machine relocation is still impractical if frequent product mix changes occur and the demand associated with the new parts is not stable. The model has a high input data requirement and needs to be solved each time a product mix change occurs. Harhalakis, Harhalakis, Ioannou, Minis, and Nagi (1994) have presented a methodology that aims to obtain robust shop decompositions with satisfactory perfor-

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185

73

mance over a certain range of demand variation. Their method takes into account the independent demand, production capacity and operation sequences and tries to minimize the material handling cost. The intermediate steps are mathematical formulations within themselves which renders the method as robust but complex. Also, the method seems more suited for solving a CF problem under random product demand rather than incorporating a random product mix into an existing CM system. Seifoddini and Djasemmi (1997) have performed sensitivity analysis of the performance of a CM system with respect to changes in product mix. They dened a exibility range, calculated with a simulation model, which represents the capability of the system in dealing with product mix changes. They showed that changes in product mix lead to the deterioration of the performance of a CM system in terms of mean ow time and work In Progress (WIP) inventories. Wei and Gaither (1990) argued that CM is relatively inexible to changes in product mix and volumes. They indicated that CM is restricted to parts that are of moderate and stable volume and thus not subject to great variation. But, with improved process planning and part standardization, a cellular setup should be able to accommodate introduction of new products. Akright and Kroll (1998) presented various performance measures, which gauge the potential effects the addition of new part families on the overall cost of the layout, to decide whether or not to change an existing layout to incorporate a new part family. The decision is related to the prot target of the particular machine cell in question and, therefore, the addition of a new part family is expected have a signicant impact on the Prot Margin (PM). According to this method, if the new part family results in incremental revenue to the machine cell, the layout should be changed. If, in spite of the incremental revenue, the PM decreases, the layout should not be changed and outsourcing should be considered as an alternative. This method has been explained with the help of only one new part and the possibility of the introduction of new machines has not been considered. Kao and Moon (1998) proposed a different approach for part family formation and multiple-application set (machine cells, cutting tool sets, and canned cycle sets) formation using feature-based memory association performed by neural networks. New and modied parts can be assigned to the correct part family without having to repeat the whole part clustering algorithm again. Wicks and Reasor (1999) formulated the CF problem that addresses the dynamic nature of the production environment by considering a multi-period forecast of

product mix and demand during the formation of part families and machine cells. The goal of the multi-period formulation is to obtain a cellular design that continues to perform well with respect to the design objectives as the part population changes with time. This method addresses both product mix as well demand but again during the CF stage rather than incorporating it into an existing CM system. Ko and Egbelu (2003) proposed a concept known as Virtual Cellular Manufacturing System (VCMS) which is suitable for production environments subjected to frequent product mix changes. In VCMS, the shop oor conguration is changed in response to changes in the product mix over time. In addition, virtual manufacturing cells are simply logical cells in which the machines belonging to the same cell need not occupy the same contiguous area. But, the CF process has to be repeated each time the product mix changes or when the changes are sufciently signicant to warrant a new cell layout. There is no cost measure associated with all the machine relocation that takes place upon changes in the product mix.

A methodology to incorporate product mix variations When new part families are introduced, two cases arise 1. The new part family has all its operations on existing machines, i.e., no new machines are introduced. Such a case can be observed when a company introduces a variant of an existing design. The new part family has some operations on machines not in the existing layout, i.e., new machines need to be introduced. Such a case can be observed when a company introduces a new technology in the design.

2.

According to Shafer and Rogers (1991), there are four fundamental design objectives associated with CM: (1) Setup time reduction, (2) Production of mutually separable clusters, (3) Minimize investment in new equipment, and (4) Maintain acceptable machine utilization levels. In the method presented here, we try to conform to some of the above objectives. Objectives and features To form mutually separable clusters (cells), if they exist or keep any existing ones intact thereby adhering to the second design objective.

74 Table 1 Nomenclature

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185

m n A B B

Number of rows (machines) Number of columns (parts) [aij ] Machine-part incidence matrix, where i = 1, 2, , m, j = 1, 2, , n [bij ] = [AT X A] i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n matrix multiplication of AT and A [bij ] = [AT * A] i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n matrix dot product of AT and A

Existing part families are not to be altered. Existing machine groups are also not to be altered. This will help in achieving the third and fourth design objectives viz. minimizing investment in new equipment and maintaining acceptable machine utilization levels. If the introduction of new parts calls for the introduction of new machines, the machines are to be assigned to the existing cells before the parts. This is because assigning new machines to existing cells, as opposed to the creation of a new cell, will help reduce costs associated with investment in new equipment and labor. Case 1 involves only new part assignment and can be considered as a single problemPart Assignment Problem (PAP). Case 2 handles new machine assignment as well as new part assignment and can be divided into two problemsMachine Assignment Problem (MAP) and PAP. The methodology presented here incorporates the concept of the matrix dot product (Venugopal & Narendran, 1993). Referring to Table 1, consider matrix A having m rows and n columns. The transpose of A, denoted by AT will have n rows and m columns. Dot Product is dened as the matrix multiplication of the transpose (AT ) and the input matrix (A) or vice-versa, where all elements greater than 0 are interpreted as 1s. The resulting matrix (B) will be a 01 binary matrix of order nby n(if AT *A) ormby m (if A * AT ). Table 2 illustrates the dot product concept. The product B and the dot product B contain valuable information. The diagonal elements [bii ] of B indicate the maximum number of operations on each part. Every other element [bij ] represents the number of common operations for parts i and j. Each element of B can be interpreted as the similarity between row i of A and column j of AT . It indicates whether part i has a relationship with part j based on their visiting the same machine. For a part to qualify as a non-bottleneck part there should be at least one other part with which it shares the same number of operations (Nair & Narendran (1997)). B, in Table 2, can be considered as a modied form of a conventional similarity coefcient matrix.

Table 2 Concept of matrix dot product

A
Machine 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 0 1 1 0 Part 2 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 Part 1 2 3 4

AT
1 1 0 1 0 Machine 2 3 4 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 1 0 1

B = AT X A
Part 1 2 3 4 1 3 1 2 0 Part 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 0 4 0 2 0 2 Part 1 2 3 4

B = AT * A
1 1 1 1 0 Part 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 0 1 0 1

Table 3 PAPinitial groups Cell 1 Machines Parts 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3, 4 Cell 2 4, 5 5, 6, 7 Cell 3 6, 7, 8 8, 9, 10, 11

The part assignment problem (PAP) Consider an existing CM system consisting of eight machines and 11 parts forming three cells (Table 3). Parts 12, 13, 14, and 15 are to be incorporated into the system. Step 1The input matrix is a typical machine-part matrix representing the current cellular layout. It is in a block-diagonalized form, i.e., with the 1s (operations) clustered along the matrix diagonal. The new parts (12, 13, 14, and 15) are appended as shown in Table 4. Rows represent machines and columns represent parts. Step 2Calculate the transpose (interchanging row and column elements) of the input matrix as shown in Table 5. Now, the rows represent parts and columns represent machines. Step 3The dot product of the transpose and the input matrix is calculated. This will yield a symmetric matrix with 15 rows and 15 columns (Table 6) which represents

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185 Table 4 PAPinitial cell layout

parts

75 Table 6 PAPdot product

parts
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 1

2 1 1

3 1 1

4 1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

Table 5 PAPtranspose

machines
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 13 14 15 1

machines

1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 1

3 1 1 1 1

4 1 1 1 1

parts

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 7 PAPoperations sort

parts
15 1 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 2 5 6 7 14 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 8 1 9 10 11 12 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 6 7 14

parts

parts

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

the relationship between parts based on the machines they visit. Step 4In the matrix obtained after Step 3, if all columns of row i have a 1 (and therefore all rows of column j because of symmetry), it indicates that part i has a relationship with every other part in the dataset (with respect to their visiting the same machine). Part i hinders the formation of mutually separable clusters and hence warrants removal of the ith row and column from further consideration. Part i is referred to as an exceptional part. Ignoring bottleneck machines/exceptional parts during block diagonalization is a common practice and has been adopted by King and Nakornchai (1982). In this method, it is accomplished by making all its elements 0 so that after the succeeding operations sort (see Step 5), it gets pushed to the last row and column of the matrix. This serves a dual purpose in that the part is no more involved in following steps but its presence in the matrix is a reminder that it needs to be dealt with after initial part families and machine groups have been

formed. From Table 6, we see that there are no such parts and hence, we go to Step 5. Step 5The rows of the matrix obtained from Step 4 are arranged in decreasing order of the number of operations, i.e., 1s, from top to bottom. Next, the columns are arranged in decreasing order of the number of operations from left to right. These two operations result in the formation of an ordered matrix with the 1s collecting across and around the diagonal. This is called an Operations Sort and is carried out so as to group parts with the same number of operations (Table 7). Step 6At this stage, the blocks of 1s in the matrix may not result in mutually separable clusters. This is because the parts were sorted based only on the number of operations without considering the similarity between them. The mutually in-separable clusters is a result of

76 Table 8 PAPexceptional part identication and removal Table 9 PAPprecedence sort

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185

parts
1 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 1 13 2 1 5 6 7 14 15 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 7 14 15
1 3 4 12 2 10 11 8 13 9 5 6 7 14 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 2 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

parts
11 8 13 9 5 6 7 14 15

parts

1 1

1 1 1

parts

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 0

exceptional elements which were not detected in Step 4 simply because they have a relationship with most of the other parts, but not all, i.e., they have operations on most of the machines and hence require processing in multiple cells. There is an easy way to identify these exceptional parts. The user has to inspect the matrix at the end of Step 5. If there is an exceptional part, it will collect at the topmost row and leftmost column in the matrix. This is so because that part has more operations (1s) than any other part and hence, after an operations sort, will end up at the top of the matrix. This part is eliminated from further consideration by making all its elements 0 (Table 8). Then, an operations sort is carried out again. These two steps, exceptional part identication/removal and operations sort are repeated for every exceptional part. Step 7The dataset at the end of the recursive Step 6 is inspected. If there are a number of parts with similar number of operations, the algorithm will give a partially ordered matrix as shown in Table 9. Parts 2, 4 and 12 should have collected below parts 1, 3 and 11. But, as parts 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 2, 4 and 12 share the same number of operations, the algorithm cannot distinguish between them. Hence, a Precedence Sort is performed to group similar parts together. The matrix is scanned from left to right, two rows at a time and every element is compared. If both rows have a 1 or 0, the scan proceeds to the next element. If the rst row in the pair has a 0 and the second one has a 1, the second row has precedence over the rst and hence the positions of both rows and their elements are swapped. Here, there is no need to compare the remaining elements and hence the procedure is like a very quick sort. As the matrix is symmetric, a Precedence Sort on the rows is enough because the columns

Table 10 PAPprocess based layout

parts
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 12 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 7 14 10 11 8 13 9 15

get arranged automatically. Table 10 represents Table 9 after a precedence sort. Step 8Output the part families. From Table 9, these are {1, 2, 3, 4, 12}, {8, 9, 10, 11, 13}, {5, 6, 7, 14}, and the exceptional set is {15}. Step 9At the end of Step 8, the part families and machine groups are known. But, which part family visits which machine group is still to be determined i.e., the part families have to be assigned to the machine groups to form the cells. This is taken care of by the algorithm which re-arranges the columns of the machine-part incidence matrix according to the order in Table 9 (i.e., 1 3 11 2 4 12 8 10 5 6 7 9). This way, the solution of the part assignment problem can be represented as a machinepart matrix. After assigning part families to the machine groups, part 9 appears as the last column. This part has to be dealt with and is usually assigned to the cell in which it has the maximum number of its operations. Step 10Exceptional elements will be treated according to nature of the layout desired. For a process based layout, part 15 is assigned to part family {8, 9, 10, 11, 13}

machines

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185 Table 11 PAPprocess based groups Cell 1 Machines Parts 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3, 4, 12 Cell 2 4, 5 5, 6, 7, 14 Cell 3 6, 7, 8 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 Machines Parts Table 14 MAPinitial groups Cell 1 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3, 4 Cell 2 4, 5 5, 6, 7 Cell 3

77

6, 7, 8 8, 9, 10, 11

Table 12 PAPproduct based layout

Table 15 MAPinitial cell layout

parts
1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2* 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 12 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 7 14 10 11 8 13 9 15
1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6

parts
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

machines

machines
1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Table 13 PAPproduct based groups Cell 1 Machines Parts 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3, 4, 12 Cell 2 4, 5 5, 6, 7, 14 Cell 3 6, 7, 8, 2 8, 9, 10, 11, 13

and routed to the other cell for operation on machine 2 (Table 11). For a product based layout, another machine of type 1 is assigned to Cell 2 so that part 11 is completely processed in a single cell (Table 12). The decision regarding exceptional elements needs careful deliberation. Duplicating machine 2 just for the sake of one operation on part 15 might not be economically feasible (Table 13). On the other hand, if part 15 is a high revenue part, the cost associated with duplicating machine 2 might be recovered over a period of time. Otherwise, the best option would be to assign the part to the cell where most of its operations will be performed and route it to the other cell(s) for the remaining operations. The machine assignment problem (MAP) Consider an existing cellular layout consisting of 8 machines and 11 parts forming three cells. Parts 12, 13, 14 and 15 are to be incorporated into the above layout. But, these parts have operations on machines not present in the existing layout (Table 14). The new machines 9 and 10 have to be assigned to the cells before incorporating the new parts.

Step 1The input matrix is a typical machine-part matrix representing the current cellular layout. The new parts (12, 13, 14, and 15) are appended as shown in Table 15. Rows represent machines and columns represent parts. Step 2The machines are assigned using the Average Linkage Clustering (ALC) approach (Seifoddini, 1989a). This method denes the similarity coefcient between a single machine and a machine group as the average of the similarity coefcients of the single machine with all members of the machine group. S[B,Cell(AD)] = {S[B,A] + S[B,D] }/2 (4.1)

where S[B,Cell(AD)] is the similarity coefcient between machines B and Cell AD; S[B,A] is the similarity coefcient between machines B and A; S[B,D] is the similarity coefcient between machines B and D
N

Sij =

k=1 N k=1

Xijk (4.2)

Yik + Zjk Xijk

where Xijk = operation on part k performed on both machine i and j; Yik = operation on part k performed on machine i; Zjk = operation on part k performed on machine j Cell 1 S(9, 1) = 1/(5 + 1 1) = 0.2 S(9, 2) = 1/(5 + 1 1) = 0.2

78 Table 16 MAPnew machine assignment Table 17 MAPtranspose

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185

parts
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 9 4 5 6 7 8 10 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1 1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 9

parts
4 5 6 7 8 10

machines

1 1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

parts

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

S(9, 3) = 0/(3 + 1 0) = 0 S(9, Cell1) = {S(9,1) + S(9,2) + S(9,3) }/3 = (0.2 + 0.2 + 0)/3 = 0.133 Cell 2 S(9, 4) = 0/(4 + 1 0) = 0 S(9, 5) = 0/(4 + 1 0) = 0 S(9, Cell 2) = {S(9,4) + S(9,5) }/2 = 0 Cell 3 S(9, 6) = 0/(5 + 1 0) = 0 S(9, 7) = 0/(4 + 1 0) = 0 S(9, 8) = 0/(4 + 1 0) = 0 S(9, Cell 3) = {S(9, 6) + S(9, 7) + S(9, 8) }/3 = 0 As, S(9, Cell 1) > S(9, Cell 2) and S(9, Cell 3) , machine 9 is assigned to Cell 1. Similarly, S(10,Cell 3) > S(10,Cell 1) and S(10,Cell 3) . Hence, machine 10 is assigned to Cell 3. The input matrix is modied by appending machines 9 and 10 below machines 3 and 8 respectively (Table 16). Step 3Calculate the Transpose of the input matrix (AT ) as shown in Table 17. Step 4Take the Dot Product of the transpose and the input matrix (AT * A). The resulting matrix (B) will be of order 11 11 matrix and represents part families (Table 18). Step 5Identify rows (and by symmetry, columns) which have 1s in all columns (rows). These are the exceptional parts as they have a relationship with every other part in he dataset. Remove these parts from the data set. Step 6In the modied matrix, sort rows in decreasing order of the number of operations from top to bottom. Repeat the process for the columns (Table 19). Step 7Inspect the data set at the end of Step 6. If a block diagonal structure is obtained, go to Step 9, else check for exceptional elements. Part 15 is an exceptional part as it has a relationship with most of the parts in the

Table 18 MAPdot product

parts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

parts

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

Table 19 MAPoperations sort

parts
15 1 3 4 8 9 11 12 13 2 10 5 6 7 14 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 8 1 9 11 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 2 10 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 7 14

parts

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185 Table 20 MAPexceptional element identication and removal Table 22 MAPprocess based layout

79

parts
1
1 3 4 8 9 11 12 1 13 2 1 10 5 6 7 14 15 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 8 9 11 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 2 10 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 7 14 15

parts
3 1 1 4 12 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 7 14 11 8 13 9 10 15

parts

1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 0

Table 23 MAPprocess based groups Cell 1 Machines Parts 1, 2, 3, 9 1, 2, 3, 4, 12 Cell 2 4, 5 5, 6, 7, 14 Cell 3 6, 7, 8, 10 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15

Table 21 MAPprecedence sort

parts
1 1 1 3 1 4 1 12 1 2 1 11 8 13 9 10 5 6 7 14 15 3 1 1 1 1 1 4 12 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 13 9 10 5 6 7 14 15

Table 24 MAPproduct based layout

machines

1 1 1

1 2 3 9 4 5 6 7 8 10

1 1 1

parts
1 1 2 3 9 4 5 6 7 8 10 2* 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 12 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 6 7 14 11 8 13 9 10 15

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

Table 25 MAPproduct based groups Cell 1 Cell 2 4, 5 5, 6, 7, 14 Cell 3 6, 7, 8, 10, 2 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15

dataset and is hence removed (Table 20). This is followed by another Operations Sort. Step 8Inspect the dataset at the end of Step 7. If a block diagonal structure is not obtained, sort the rows (columns) by precedence of 1s from left to right (top to bottom). This is called a Precedence Sort (Table 21). Step 9Part families and exceptional parts obtained Part families {1, 2, 3, 4, 12} {8, 9, 10, 11, 13} {5, 6, 7, 14} Exceptional part {15} Step 10Arrange the columns (part families) of the modied input matrix according to the part families obtained from Step 9 keeping the rows (machines) unchanged (Table 22).

Machines Parts

machines

parts

1, 2, 3, 9 1, 2, 3, 4, 12

Step 11Exceptional elements are treated according to the nature of layout desired. If a process based layout is needed, the corresponding part is assigned to the cell where it has the maximum number of operations. Hence, part 15 is assigned to Cell 3 (Table 23). If a product based layout is desired, machine 2 is duplicated and assigned to Cell 3 (Tables 24 & 25). This method will also work if machine groups and part families need to be formed afresh due to the necessity for machine relocation. The machine-part incidence matrix

80 Table 26 Introduction of new parts into an existing cellular system

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185

is modied using the new machine locations and solved using the PAP.

adopted to show that assigning machines to existing cells helps save investment in new equipment as well as material handling costs rather than placing new machines in a separate cell and routing the parts between cells.

Performance evaluation For the PAP, visual identication is one way of checking the results obtained from the methodology. As long as the existing setup is not disturbed and there is no signicant increase in the number of exceptional elements, we can say that the results obtained are correct. There are no standard examples or any in published literature to test on as the papers which have addressed product mix variations have not tried it out on a large dataset. For the MAP, introduction of new parts calls for introduction of new machines. These are visited only by the new parts due to which the number of operations maybe signicantly less than that on the existing machines. When these new machines are assigned to the existing cells, the number of voids in the cells will mostly increase (exception would be introduction of a large number of parts and few machines so that number of operations of the new and old machines are nearly equal). Hence, any grouping measure will give a low value for the new groupings implying that the new layout is worse than the original. Our objective is to incorporate new machines and parts into an existing cellular layout thereby minimizing investment in new equipment, avoiding relocation of existing machines and avoiding intercellular movement of parts by forming mutually separable clusters. Hence, a grouping measure will not reect quality of the solution accurately. A cost based measure can be Implementation This section tests the solutions on large datasets to demonstrate its effectiveness and capability in handling large product mix variations. Here, the methodology has been implemented on systems with high product mix changes. The examples in Sects. Example 1" and Example 2" have been taken from cell formation problems that appeared in the literature with new parts and machines introduced to suit the case at hand. PAP Example 1 Consider an existing CM system consisting of 20 machines and 35 parts forming four cells. Seven new parts are introduced signifying a 20% increase in product mix (Table 26). This problem has been adopted from Chandrasekharan and Rajagopalan (1986). From the solution obtained (Table 27), it can be seen that the new parts have been incorporated into the existing system without altering the existing part families and machine groups. Comparing the solution (Table 28) with the input (Table 29), it can be seen that the parts

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185 Table 27 New cellular manufacturing system

81

Table 28 New groups Machines Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 35, 39 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 36 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 38, 40 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 41

MAP Example 1 Consider the same CM system as before consisting of 20 machines and 35 parts forming four cells. Seven new parts are introduced signifying a 20% increase in product mix (Table 33). But, these parts have some operations which cannot be carried out on the existing machines and hence new machines are also introduced. This problem has been adopted from Chandrasekharan and Rajagopalan (1986). From the solution obtained (Tables 34 & 35), it can be seen that the new parts and machines have been incorporated into the existing system without altering the existing part families and machine groups. Example 2 Consider an existing system consists of 12 machines and 23 parts forming four cells. Eleven new parts are introduced which have some operations on machines not present in the existing layout (Table 36). So, four new machines are introduced and three of the new parts have operations only on the new machines. The new groups and layout are as shown in Tables 37 and 38, respectively. Mathematical computations For PAP, the machine-part matrix processing comprises the main computational part. The method consists of

Table 29 Initial groups Machines Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34

are assigned to the part families without disturbing the existing setup. Example 2 Consider a randomly generated problem involving 22 parts and 14 machines forming four cells. There are two machines of type 8, one in Cell 2 and the other in Cell 3. Eight new parts (36% increase in product mix) have been introduced which have to be assigned to the existing cells (Table 30). From the solution obtained (Tables 31 & 32), it can be seen that the new parts have been incorporated into the existing system without altering the existing part families and machine groups.

82 Table 30 Introduction of new parts into an existing cellular system

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185

Table 31 New cellular manufacturing system

straightforward multiplication of Boolean matrices. If A = [aij ] is an m n matrix and B = [bjk ] is an n p matrix, then their matrix product C = AB is the m p matrix C = [cik ]. Consider the scenario of square matrices giving m = n = p. To multiply n n matrices a simple matrix multiplication algorithm performs n3 multiplications and n2 (n 1) additions giving a running time of (n3 ) (Cormen, Leiserson, and Rivest, 1990). The sorting operations are of exchange type and work by exchanging pairs of items until the sequence is sorted. The Bubble Sort is one of the simplest exchange type sorting methods. It works by comparing each element in the sequence with the element next to it, and swapping them if the second one is greater than the rst. This process is repeated until it makes a pass all the way through the sequence without swapping any item i.e.,

Table 32 New groups Machines Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6, 8 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12, 13 Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 26, 27, 32 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 24, 30, 31 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 28, 29 20, 21, 22, 33, 34

all elements are in the correct order. This results in the larger values bubbling to the end of the list, while smaller values sink towards the beginning of the list. The worst case scenario occurs when elements have to be swapped at every iteration giving a running time of (n2 ). The bubble sort is very easy to understand and implement and works very well on partially sorted sequences. The

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185 Table 33 Introduction of new parts and machines

83

Table 34 New cellular manufacturing system

84 Table 35 New groups Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185

Machines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 22 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 24 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 35, 39 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,36 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 38, 40 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 41

Table 36 Introduction of new parts and machines

Table 37 New groups Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4

Machines 1, 2, 3, 13 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16 10, 11, 12

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 24, 34 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 28, 29 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 31, 32, 33 21, 22, 23, 30

Table 38 New cellular manufacturing system

J Intell Manuf (2008) 19:7185

85 McAuley, J. (1972). Machine grouping for efcient production. The Production Engineer, 52, 5357. Nair, J. G., & Narendran, T. T. (1997). On the use of the asymptotic forms of the boolean matrix for designing cellular manufacturing systemsAn improved approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 100, 429440. Rajamani, D., & Szwarc, D. (1994). A mathematical model for multiple machine replacement with material handling and relocation consideration. Engineering Optimization, 22(2), 213229. Seifoddini, H. (1989a) Single linkage versus average linkage clustering in machine cells formation applications. International Journal of Production Research, 16(3), 419426. Seifoddini, H. (1990). A probabilistic model for machine cell formation. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 9(1), 6975. Seifoddini, H., & Djasemmi, M. (1997). Determination of a exibility range for cellular manufacturing systems under product mix variations. International Journal of Production Research, 35(12), 33493366. Shafer, S., & Rogers, D. (1991). A goal programming approach to the cell formation problem. Journal of Operations Management, 10, 2843. Singh, N. (1996). Systems approach to computer-integrated design and manufacturing. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Tam, K. Y. (1990). An operation sequence based similarity coefcient for part families formations. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 9(1), 5568. Venugopal, V., & Narendran, T. T. (1993). Design of cellular manufacturing systems based on asymptotic forms of a boolean matrix. European Journal of Operational Research, 67, 405 417. Wicks, E. M., & Reasor, R. J. (1999). Designing cellular manufacturing systems with dynamic part populations. IEEE Transactions, 31, 1120. Wei, J. C., & Gaither, N. (1990). An optimal model for cell formation decisions. Decision Sciences, 21(2), 416433. Wong, M. A., & Lane, T. (1983). A kth nearest neighbor clustering procedure. Journal of Royal Statistical Society B, 45(3), 362368. Wu, H. L., Venugopal, R., & Barash, M. M. (1986). Design of cellular manufacturing systems: a syntactic pattern recognition approach. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 5, 8188. 1 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/ycart/mst/mst031/Group10/ rst.html 2 http://people.cs.uct.ac.za/bmerry/manual/algorithms/sorting. html

Quicksort is another exchange type sorting algorithm which works in a divide-and-conquer style solving a given problem by splitting it into two or more smaller sub-problems, recursively solving each of the sub-problems, and then combining the solutions to the smaller problems to obtain a solution to the original one. This algorithm is faster than a bubble sort but is fairly tricky to implement and debug and is highly recursive. Also, it is not very efcient on partially sorted sequences. A detailed comparison of Bubble Sort and Quicksort can be found in [1] and [2]. The Operations Sort and Precedence Sort can be considered as bubble sorts. As the dataset is partially sorted to begin with, a worst case situation never arises. Hence, the running time will always be less than (n2 ). References
Akright, W. T., & Kroll, D. E. (1998). Cell formation performance measuresDetermining when to change an existing layout. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 34(1), 159171. Chandrasekharan, M. P., & Rajagopalan, R. (1986). MODROC: An extension of rank order clustering for group technology. International Journal of Production Research, 24(5), 12211233. Cormen, T. H., Leiserson, C. E., & Rivest, R. L.(1990) Introduction to algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Fu, K. S. (1998). Syntactic pattern recognition and applications. Computers in Industry, 35, 101108. Harhalakis, G., Ioannou, G., Minis, I., & Nagi, R. (1994). Manufacturing cell formation under random product demand. International Journal of Production Research, 35(1), 4764. Kao, Y., & Moon, Y. B. (1998) Feature-based memory association for group technology. International Journal of Production Research, 36(6), 16531677. King, J. R., & Nakornchai, V. (1982). Machine-component group formation in group technology: review and extension. International Journal of Production Research, 20(2), 117133. Ko, K.-C., & Egbelu, P. J. (2003). Virtual cell formation. International Journal of Production Research, 41(11), 23652389.