Implementation of a Flexible Manufacturing System in a production cell of the automotive industry: decision and choice

Sellitto, Miguel Afonso; Mancio, Vagner Gerhardt

doi:10.1590/0103-6513.20180092

Brasil

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

Research Article • Prod. 29 • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20180092 linkcopy

Implementation of a Flexible Manufacturing System in a production cell of the automotive industry: decision and choice

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Paper aims The purpose is to decide on the technology for the implementation of an FMS in a manufacturing cell that produces the coil for starting engines in a company of the Brazilian automotive industry.

Originality The mixed use of structured methods to support a semi-structured decision-making problem.

Research method The qualitative-quantitative modeling, relying on four competitive priorities of the manufacturing, cost, quality, flexibility, and delivery. The method considered three technological alternatives A1, a ladder-type layout, conveyor and pneumatic devices, A2, an open field layout and automatic guided vehicles, and A3, a robot-centered layout and robotic arms.

Main findings Two different methods arrived at the same conclusion. The best alternative is A3, which is also better than doing nothing.

Implications for theory and practice The complete description of a real-world case, embracing the decision-making process and the final choice and the difficulties faced by a decision analyst in supporting practitioners in solving a complex problem.

Keywords Flexible Manufacturing System; Automation; Manufacturing strategy; Industrial robots; Analytical hierarchy process

Intensity of importance	Definition	Explanation
1	Equal Importance	Two activities contribute equally to the objective
3	Moderate importance	Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity over another
5	Strong importance	Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity over another
7	Very strong importance	An activity is favored very strongly over another; its dominance demonstrated in practice
9	Extreme importance	The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation
2, 4, 6, 8	Intermediate values	Used for graduation in slightly differences
Reciprocals	An assignment to i compared with j implies the reciprocal to j compared with i

Manager	First scale				Second scale
Manager	Cost	Quality	Flexibility	Delivery	Cost	Quality	Flexibility	Delivery
1	2	4	1	3	1/3	1	1/4	1/2
2	1	4	2	3	1/4	1	1/3	1/2
3	2	4	1	3	1/3	1	1/4	1/2
4	2	3	1	4	1/3	1/2	1/4	1
5	2	4	1	3	1/3	1	1/4	1/2
6	2	4	1	3	1/3	1	1/4	1/2
Total	11	23	7	19	2	5 1/2	1 4/7	3 1/2
Order	Third	First	Fourth	Second	Third	First	Fourth	Second

Feature	A1	A2	A3
Layout	Ladder	Open Field	Robot centered
Materials movement	Conveyor	AGV	Robotic Arm
Materials handling	Pneumatic	AGV	Robotic Arm
Network communication	Field Bus	Wireless	Field Bus
Tool storage	Centralized	Individualized	Centralized
Materials storage	AS/RS	Carrousel	AS/RS, circular conveyor
Particular advantages	Flexibility in processing orders, low cost, low set-up time.	Flexibility in processing parts, accuracy, instant set-up.	Low cost, flexibility in processing parts, low set-up time
Particular disadvantages	Delays in processing orders, complexity in maintenance procedures, greater variability.	Lower reliability due to the excessive dependence on the AGVs, higher cost, delays in load and unload.	Lower storage capacity, delays in processing orders, delay in load and unload.

Manager	Cost %	Quality %	Flexibility %	Delivery %	Sum %
1	15	39	10	37	100
2	27	41	5	27	100
3	15	39	7	39	100
4	15	39	7	39	100
6	36	38	13	13	100
sd	4.0	0.5	1.3	4.3
Average	22	39	8	31

Alternative	Quality		Delivery		Cost		Flexibility
Alternative	Average %	SD %	Average %	SD %	Average %	SD %	Average %	SD %
A1	20	6.2	25	10.5	37	9.7	38	10.5
A2	41	7.7	31	9.7	35	8.8	18	5.8
A3	39	9.2	44	8.8	28	10.5	44	9.8
sum	100		100		100		100

Alternative	Calculation	Merit
A1	$(0.20 x 0.39) + (0.25 x 0.31) + (0.37 x 0.22) + (0.38 x 0.08)$	0.27
A2	$(0 .41 x 0 .39) + (0 .31 x 0 .31) + (0 .35 x 0 .22) + (0 .18 x 0 .08)$	0.35
A3	$(0 .39 x 0 .39) + (0 .44 x 0 .31) + (0 .27 x 0 .22) + (0 .44 x 0 .08)$	0.38

manager		Quality			Delivery			Cost			Flexibility
manager	A1	A2	A3	A1	A2	A3	A1	A2	A3	A1	A2	A3
1	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	1	1	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	0.75	1
2	0.75	1	1	0.75	0.75	1	0.75	0.75	0.5	1	1	1
3	0.75	0.75	0.5	0.5	0.75	1	0.75	0.5	0.5	1	1	1
4	1	1	1	0.75	0.75	1	0.75	0.5	0.5	0.75	0.75	0.75
5	0.75	0.75	1	0.75	0.75	1	0.75	0.75	0.75	1	1	1
6	0.75	1	1	0.5	1	1	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.75	1	1
Average	0.79	0.88	0.92	0.67	0.83	1.00	0.71	0.63	0.58	0.88	0.92	0.96
SD	0.04	0.04	0.08	0.04	0.04	0.00	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.04

	Quality	Delivery	Cost	Flexibility
A1	0.79	0.67	0.71	0.88
A2	0.88	0.83	0.63	0.92
A3	0.92	1	0.58	0.96
Priority	0.39	0.31	0.22	0.08

Alternative	Calculation	Merit	Normalized merit %
A1	$(0.79 x 0.39) + (0.67 x 0.31) + (0.71 x 0.22) + (0.88 x 0.08)$	0.74	31
A2	$(0.88 x 0.39) + (0.83 x 0.31) + (0.63 x 0.22) + (0.92 x 0.08)$	0.81	33
A3	$(0.92 x 0.39) + (1.00 x 0.31) + (0.58 x 0.22) + (0.96 x 0.08)$	0.87	36

Dimension	Priority %	A3	A0
Quality	39	0.92	0.54
Delivery	31	1.00	0.37
Cost	22	0.58	0.71
Flexibility	8	0.96	0.54
Merit		0.87	0.52
SD		0.10	0.11

vertical_align_top file_download show_chart

more_horizclose
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, Travessa 2, 128 - 2º andar - Room 231, 05508-900 São Paulo - SP - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: production@editoracubo.com.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro