- Email: [email protected]
Designing Integrated Production Systems
Copyright © IFAC Automated Systems Based on Human Skill (and Intelligence), Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1992
DESIGNING INTEGRATED PRODUCTION SYSTEMS C. Everaere and C. '1ahieu IFRESI-CNRS (Research Institule), 2 rue des canonniers, 59800 Lille, France
: Within the research tor the improvement of adaptability or reactivity of industrial production ~ystems, we often talk about inteRration. This concept is associated with the iIl"plementation of new information technologies (ClM), but it is also linked with the conception of production systems and production activities. But it appears that integration has not always the same meanings. This paper tries to define and to precise the different meanings of integration and to see which one(s) suit(s) to the simultaneous search for flexibility and productivity. Keywords: integration, flexibility, organization, automation h_~~.t':~.t;:t
It is no more necessary to lay stress on the stakes firms are confronted with. D~tferentiati()n, f!exihilit.\" productivity are aims the firms try to reach and problematics scholars try to solve.
But, beyond the statement of fact, solutions to reach these aims are still to be found. Indeed, if there is a huge consensus about the limits of the tayloristic and fordistic organization model, the alternatives do not emerge clearly. Another paradigm is failing on which a lot of hopes were built. This is automation. Obviously automation did not keep its promise. In many cases, automation raises more problems than it is supposed to solve. The integration concept often pushed forward as a contrary of taylorism is significant of the hesitation and contradictions linked with organization issues. Integration is a very common word, but rarely clearly defined. Besides, the word can be found in a same text with some obvious different meanings. Either, for exemple, robots are integrated into an assembly line: either functions are integrated between eachothers : either a subcontractor is integrated by a firm ; either different
l'nits are organized in an inteRrated way. So the word has obviously Gifferent meanings. We will try to define and to precise the different meanings of the integration concept, and to see which one suits better to the simultaneous search for flexibility and productivity.
1. The automated assembl~7 line an "integrated." rigidity The automated assembly line is based on the automatic organization of a continuous flow of product. A conveyor belt makes the product pass L'om a machine to another. The main caracteristic of the automated assembly line is its rigidity. Once set up and r~glllated, the line cannot do anything else but repeat the same operations at the same rate. It is profitable only for ma~s-produced identical goods. 1 his kind of production organization is more dedicated to cut down production tim~ and human work than to adapt production line to short term hazards in ordcr~ and middle term evolution in market demands.
49
the context of a growing production complexity (Capet).
Such a production system requires a perfect synchronization in time operations and in space location of the machines. In a problem occurs in one part of the automated assembly line, the whole line is stopped. This requirement
This movement of externalization.. subcontracting, also called "impartition" is opposed to that of integration in the economic meaning : Joining to the
J.Vl
uwr.
+,__ ,..•• _ .... l.._..... _: ......... : ..... _
.................. ..J ........ : .. 'L.
;;)]IJ.\".U1VUJLOLIVll UQ>:)
LV UV
WIlU
.'L._
lue;
integration concept. Actually, this is a first meaning of integration which correspouds to ih~ ~,jetJtion of a very clltsed interdependence between the parts of a system. In the automated assembly line, the product circulation and the machine operations aft: jutt:grdlt:U. Wt: aiso finu this meanmg assocIated with the idea of continuity (Bouchut). The inderdependence -in this context is mechanical and has a negative connotation. This integration is obtained at the cost of an absolute rigidity of the production process (Coriat). Within the automated assembly line, the machines are integrated in an automated system by the conveyor belt, whose rate is regulated by the micro-electronic and the computer. It is noticeable that the human work is ruled out of the running of such a production system. The ordering or the organization is rigid. The machines and the operations steps are "bolted" between each others by the conveyor belt.
2. Subcontracting a source of flexibility by "disinteg~ation" of production activities. Subcontracting is a source of flexibility. This possibility is all the more interesting as it illustrates another meaning of the integration concept which is not much suitable with the search for flexibility. Subcontracting means flexibility in so far as it allows to push outside the firm the cost and the management of production instability. That is the reason why the subcontractor is given a weak position. Subcontracting is m 0 re profitable than vertical integration when the firm finds subcontractors that are able to produce goods with an equal quality. Subcontracting is necessary in
__ .. .! __ .! .. _.
Ul:U Vuy
_ L-
UJ
_
U
,~
.. ...
J.r,"
4'_
.,.
~
c;
tJcl'ivities linked with thE' manufacturing cycle of t hI:: product. Once more, the search for fle,jbility leads to isolate a particular meaning of integration concept and to reject it. In the economic meaning, integration is not as much a source of flexibiiity as in the meaning of a cioser (mechanical) interdependence. Suhcontracting also means that the search for optimization in the using of productive ressources is no more the exclusive priority. Using subcontracting in a flexible way, that is according to non-predictable constraints, is not only rossible but this is the reason why sub:::ontracting is used. The flexible use of wbcontracting is compatible with closed cooperation between different partners, namely through technology transfert, know-how sharing, common decisions about information system, etc... Aoki calls "quasi-integration" this kind of relation between the simple market transaction and the cl oser rdation within the various units of one fiml. Researches about the "third Italy", the "flexible specialisation" (Piore & Sabel) confirm that flexibility can resuit from the cooperation of different partners working closely together hut in keeping different identities (in contradiction with transaction costs Williamson's theory).
3. Manufacturing planning what about complexity ? Manufacturing planning consists in coordinating transformations stages on material or infonnation flows. The more stages there are, the more difficult the planning of manufacturing operations IS.
Thus, a principle is pushed forward that consists in reducing the number of the material transformation stages so as to reduce the complexity of manufacturing
50
planning. In this problematic, tranformations stages are gathered either in manufacturing "shops", or in more complex machines achieving several consecl'.tive operations, which could be achieved by different specialized and less complex machines.
grinded but the material is reprocessed. And if the hollow machine break:; down, the fact that the machines are separated allows the coating machine not to stop (this machine is very long to start). ~r
L _
J HC
That is the way one more meaning of integration is brought to the fore. It is formulat~d ,:U1Edy ~y Cohendet & Llerena : "011e of the possibilities to diminish complexity is either to cancel some manufacturing stages, either to achieve in one stage what required two Of st;vt:J'al sUl:l:t:ssivt: u~raiiuns. So ii is a matter ot an integnitlon process of the manufacturing stages". This mt:aning given to the integration has to do with the usual definition of integration: combining or merging things so that they form parts of a whole unified system. Integration here means physical compacting, or cutting down the number of the parts to be managed. A lot of examples question this principle of compacting. Bayard talks about the case of the manufacturing of plastic for strengthened pipes in glass fibre. Two manufacturing devices are possible with the same technical process. The traditional solution consists in working in several stages: hollowing the pipes, cutting and stocking them, then a last transformation to coat pipes with glass fiber. The other solution is the integrated one. It implies the combination of the hollowing and the coating in a whole and unified machine. The advantage of this second solution is to rule out the intelmediate stage of the cutting, handling Jnd stocking ; it obviously seems more profitable. However another factory chose the first solution which implies differents and separate stages. This is that solution that . revealed to be more profitable. The reason deals with the breakdowns: If the pipe which gets out the hollow machine is not perfect, it is however coated by the integrated machine. The final product is scrapped and the coat in glass fib~r which is expensive is lost. 10 the traditional solution, i.e. the nonintegrated one, if the pipe is not perfect. the coated is not made, the faulty pipe is
.......
....
~
_
Jlllcgli:111VII
_
.... 1_ _
_ _ _ _
_ r
III
lUC
SCUS
VI
~
compacting-reduction of the number of the parts to be managed is suitable with the search for flexibility as long as it cO~lsists in standardizing the components used in the manufacturing of the product, as it is within the group technology. But it is quite different regarding a technicai manufacturing 5ystem. Achieving by a sin g I c integrated machine what several specialized machines could do sequentially or in the same time is not necessarily a good solution neither in term of productivity nor in term of t1el(ibility. The integrated multioperations machine is more fragile, more complex to handle and more expansive. On the contrary, several different machines can be more easily organized under the condition that the machines are not bolted between each others ; they are easier to handle and less expansive. The way Japan seems to conceive and to organize the production confirms our point of view. Visiting assembly lines in Japanese firms is everything bm ~pectacular (Heran). The industrial tool is not very sophisticated, even late regarding the industrial production system in the western countries. But it is very homogeneous and turned to easy handling. Robots are numerous but not "ery complex. So this is the use of homogeneous industrial machines, which are also shared or separate rather than concentrated, compact, sophisticated, "integrated", associated with skilled. mobile. also homogeneous in a wa~'. that produces a flexible production sysl:em. Thus, it is bett(;r to conceive numerous manufacturing stages, that are reliable and shared. than to conceive fewer. mote compact manufacturing stages witrtin Rn integrated machine or aD integrated line that is also more fragile and that may stop in a whole if a sole pan of the process breaks down.
51
4. The last definition of integration : the physiological meaning Looking for flexibility sources, we met time the !nt~gr!!t!m! ':'')Hl::~1-'L Surprisingly, although integration is a word often used in the context of the so-called m0d.~Tl~a~'0n C'f ~he industrial production system, the meanings we met so far are not sunable with the search for flexibility. Let us recall them briefly: ~I"vl"rnl
First me,mlllg ~ u'ciuilig a cl oser interdependence between the parts of a system. The context is that of a rigid automation without any flexibility. The inderdependence is mechanical, the parts are bolted between each others. Second meaning: joining to the own activity of a firm the activities linked with the manufacturing cycle of the product (economic meaning). The flexibility results from the contrary of this intearation This is the "impartition" I" which is a possible flexibility source. Third meaning: Integration through the combining or the merging of the things so that they form parts of a whole unified system. Integration here means physical compacting, or reducing the number of the parts to be managed. This meaning results from a limited conception of complexity. It leads to promote machines "to do every thing" in which several operations are gathered in a sinole transformation stage. These machin~s are fragile, expansive and cannot stand hazards and variability. Three meanings of integration commonly used do not suit to the search for flexibility. Do we have to give up this word in the context of adaptability requirement? Not, if integration has the following meaning, the physiological one : coordinating the activities of
several organs for a harmonious working. We can notice three applications of this meaning with however some different extents.
4. 1 . Integration means linkage or connection Thi,s is the meaning used within the MAP (Manufacturing Automation Protocol) project. Launched by General Mctors, MAP is an information system uf(hitedufe ailiiiJig at dt:vduppiu!: intcorated production systems. Here, integration means linkage. T h t:. identified problem is that 0 t compartmentalization and the non <:irculation of information. The cure consists in connecting all the <~ompUler syslems and lhe aUlOmaleC. machines within a plant. The idea te· link is good but does not suffice. Physical connection with somt: networks between the machines, the departments and the people is not enough for the organs thus linked tC' work a harmonious way. Before any physical linkage, it i ~ important to make sure that the connected "organs" know what to dQ with the available information, that the organs share the information required for the others, that the organs have clear objl~ctives. These are principles dealing with the organization that have to be solved before implementing physical tools of communication in order to solve the compartmentalization which is firsl of all an organizational problem. Tht: comprehension of the role of the information technology in the shaping of organizations' structure and processes is more and more becom~ng cne of the main stakes of the productiOn system competitivity. Through the experienc~ of conc~ete i'11plementations of information technology, what appears is that the organization can and must be worked out before the technological aspects of infe'rmation and decision systems. The proposed method consi sts in "modellin oo " the organization on an . isolated manufacturing area and then m "a1Ctdelling" a computer system on this experimental organization. In the organization "model", the illfomlation technologies have to be get rid 0f, so as to let people find by
52
themselves the most simple way to work and to "remove the mud" that comes from a too early abstraction, an "automatic" way of thinking to implemente automated systems leaving out the final users.
The Factory ef the Future can be reached by the simplication of the organization (Schonberger). This simplifil~ti(;:1 cl1;:I~I~:; to put the emphasize on mismanagement, unsuitable sharing of decision-making abilities, unavailable information, redundant circulation of materials ... A _"' ..\... I""'.IJV1U\"'1
_ ..:
1
~.3~uuaJ
_
;
L
a.3J-"-\..l • ..., Utal
J...,...
UJ\"'~
...... aJ '"
emphasize shifts from the technological supports of information to the information itself. The question dealt wilh is which information it would be profitable to make available by the "organs" or to be shared by every information users within the firm. About that pr0b!e~, thp '-!~ua! eXfl.mpl~ is the difficulties to transmit information from the design department to the manufacturing because their information systems are not compatible. The CIM-OSA project focuses on transparency. information circulation, ,.. ...... _ ......... _~: ... """ ..;,,_
~"aIJUUluILU .. I V . J ,
hutvu
..... 1~"
U1J"",,,
,..lcu"u"
",nlJ u
the fin..1 users of the manufacturing system who conceive themselves the organization "model" and who determine how they can work efficiently.
ob~ective
The computer "model" is dealt with after the decison making procedures, the information and material flows are examined, simplified and understood in detail by the manufacturing system's users. It is thus possible to think about technological means, and to study in what extent, information technology can be profitable so as to, if need be, accelerate. to make reliable, to optimize ~n organizational working firstly clarified, simplified, understood by the actors. In that case, the organization is c I ear I y
One important aspect regarding this coherence principle is the interest of ;~tandardization. Indeed paradoxically wirhin the search for flexibility and differentiation, standardization can be orofitable as long as it applies to the information systems and to the ,:;onnections between the machines or the computers of the different departments. In the same way, "'egarding the man-machines relations, it is profitable to have identical key-bords or functions so that the people can nandle different machines. Thus, standardization can lead to flexibilitv thanks to a harmonious working lying on the uniformity principle. Flexibiiity and integration are finally gathered.
determinant on the information' technoiogy. Understanding the dynamic of the organizational/technological change appears all the more necessary as the innovation in information technology within the firm has recently accelarated and thm on only the stakes but also the consequences of these technologies are not always examined.
4.2
responsabilities, decision making procedures, coherence both in the content and the form of the information. Here integration means coherence.
However, we are still in a technological conception of integrated organization. The C. for Computer in the C I M ;nduces that the Computer is the main or .he exclusive problem to be dealt with. Yet. a harmonious organi zati on working cannot only rely on computer.
Integration means coherence
Integration is also used with its physiological meaning in a European project called CIM-OSA (Computer Integrated Manufacturing - Ope n System Architecture). The matter is also to defil'e and to validate a computer architecture for integrated production system. But an important difference with the MAP project is that the
4.3. Integration unt eractivity
m e a n s
The integration concept is sometimes used to refer to the relations between different partners. For example, within the search for flexibility, the "time to market", that is to say the time for a new product to be created, concei ved ano. manufactured is one of the main
53
stake of flexi bili ty. In that context, integration means the way the different departments work together and the way each department thi nks about the otherones' constraints in their own activities. For exemple, a new product is industrialized given the ...- ........... f'r._ ....".I.U.1U"""
; __ .I6
,..." •• ;_..-n + ..... 'iu.&y .... .l""'.u ,
... " J'-'
"" ...
u.~
t-_ ,-v
avoid to change the manufacturing tool with the new product. The physiologic:il meaning of integration is here applied. It is about nothing else but how to coordinate different organs (departments) so that .L_ __1_ =__ L :_ __ . '1""\-: : .... ll1llVJ WUI .... 111
a
ualulvulVU:)
waJ.
1111::> I:)
achieved by a dosed interaction between the departments. An integrated concep~ion of the products does not mean that every department necessarily agrees or willingly accepts the others' constraints. The project teams in the auto industry do not work without any conflict. But at least the problems are revealed in a time the project of the new product is not "frozen". This meaning of integration is nothing else but the fashionable concept of con cur r e n t or s i m u I tan e 0 u s en!?ineering. The idea is to conceive together, rather than sequentially, a new product. The three principles of t his physiological integration (linkage, coherence, interactivity) are not opposed. They are complementary. In a first time, there is linka~e against the compartmentalization. In a second time, there is coherence in the information exchan~ And then, there is interactivity in the whole working and the decision making. The interactivity is the ultimate stage of the integration i.e., coordinating the activities of several organs for a harmonious working.
BiblioKraphy
Y. Bouchut, D. Duffourt, H. Jacot, J. Ruffier, Automatisation, Formes anciennes etformes nouvelles, PUL, Lyon, 1980. Y. Bouchut, Organiser et gerer la ,
• •
•
T T
PfUUUCliuU, In n .
T
_..
/.J
~
__ '\
.Ia~Ul \UI1.J
It
~_ ~
vu
fordime au Toyotisme, les voies de la modernisation du systeme automobile ~n France et au Japon, La Documentation Fran~aise, n07-8, fevrier 19JO. M. Capet, Sous-traitance : aspects economiques eT financiers, in P. Joffre et Y. Simon (eds.) Encyclopedie de gestion, volume 3.
P. Cohendet P. Llerena, Productique et rwuvelle representation du processus de production, in P. Cohendet, P. Llerena, P. Pecquet, "La productique, concepts, .;nethodes, mise en oeuvre", Ec~nomica, 1987.
8. Coriat, L'atelier et le rohot, Christian Bourgois Editeur, 1990. f. Heran. Analvse structurale des
sv.~temes integres de production, These
de Doctorat en Sciences de gestion, ULP Strasbourg, octobre 1989. H. Molet, Gerer la complexite de la genion de production, Revue fran~aise de Gestion industrielle. n° 3-1987.
M. Piore C. Sabel, The second industrial devide, Basic Book. ine. New York, 1984. R. Schonberger, Frugal manufacturing, Harvard Business Review, September 1987
O. Williamson, The economic ;nstitutions of capitalism, The Free pre ss, New York, 1987
M. Aok;, Economie japonaise, Informations, motivations et /1U1rchandage, Econornica, 1991. D. Bayart, Les pannes, Gerer et comprelldre, Revue des Annales des Mines, n° special: Pour une automatisation raisonnable de I'i ndustrie, janvier 1988.
54
DESIGNING INTEGRATED PRODUCTION SYSTEMS C. Everaere and C. '1ahieu IFRESI-CNRS (Research Institule), 2 rue des canonniers, 59800 Lille, France
: Within the research tor the improvement of adaptability or reactivity of industrial production ~ystems, we often talk about inteRration. This concept is associated with the iIl"plementation of new information technologies (ClM), but it is also linked with the conception of production systems and production activities. But it appears that integration has not always the same meanings. This paper tries to define and to precise the different meanings of integration and to see which one(s) suit(s) to the simultaneous search for flexibility and productivity. Keywords: integration, flexibility, organization, automation h_~~.t':~.t;:t
It is no more necessary to lay stress on the stakes firms are confronted with. D~tferentiati()n, f!exihilit.\" productivity are aims the firms try to reach and problematics scholars try to solve.
But, beyond the statement of fact, solutions to reach these aims are still to be found. Indeed, if there is a huge consensus about the limits of the tayloristic and fordistic organization model, the alternatives do not emerge clearly. Another paradigm is failing on which a lot of hopes were built. This is automation. Obviously automation did not keep its promise. In many cases, automation raises more problems than it is supposed to solve. The integration concept often pushed forward as a contrary of taylorism is significant of the hesitation and contradictions linked with organization issues. Integration is a very common word, but rarely clearly defined. Besides, the word can be found in a same text with some obvious different meanings. Either, for exemple, robots are integrated into an assembly line: either functions are integrated between eachothers : either a subcontractor is integrated by a firm ; either different
l'nits are organized in an inteRrated way. So the word has obviously Gifferent meanings. We will try to define and to precise the different meanings of the integration concept, and to see which one suits better to the simultaneous search for flexibility and productivity.
1. The automated assembl~7 line an "integrated." rigidity The automated assembly line is based on the automatic organization of a continuous flow of product. A conveyor belt makes the product pass L'om a machine to another. The main caracteristic of the automated assembly line is its rigidity. Once set up and r~glllated, the line cannot do anything else but repeat the same operations at the same rate. It is profitable only for ma~s-produced identical goods. 1 his kind of production organization is more dedicated to cut down production tim~ and human work than to adapt production line to short term hazards in ordcr~ and middle term evolution in market demands.
49
the context of a growing production complexity (Capet).
Such a production system requires a perfect synchronization in time operations and in space location of the machines. In a problem occurs in one part of the automated assembly line, the whole line is stopped. This requirement
This movement of externalization.. subcontracting, also called "impartition" is opposed to that of integration in the economic meaning : Joining to the
J.Vl
uwr.
+,__ ,..•• _ .... l.._..... _: ......... : ..... _
.................. ..J ........ : .. 'L.
;;)]IJ.\".U1VUJLOLIVll UQ>:)
LV UV
WIlU
.'L._
lue;
integration concept. Actually, this is a first meaning of integration which correspouds to ih~ ~,jetJtion of a very clltsed interdependence between the parts of a system. In the automated assembly line, the product circulation and the machine operations aft: jutt:grdlt:U. Wt: aiso finu this meanmg assocIated with the idea of continuity (Bouchut). The inderdependence -in this context is mechanical and has a negative connotation. This integration is obtained at the cost of an absolute rigidity of the production process (Coriat). Within the automated assembly line, the machines are integrated in an automated system by the conveyor belt, whose rate is regulated by the micro-electronic and the computer. It is noticeable that the human work is ruled out of the running of such a production system. The ordering or the organization is rigid. The machines and the operations steps are "bolted" between each others by the conveyor belt.
2. Subcontracting a source of flexibility by "disinteg~ation" of production activities. Subcontracting is a source of flexibility. This possibility is all the more interesting as it illustrates another meaning of the integration concept which is not much suitable with the search for flexibility. Subcontracting means flexibility in so far as it allows to push outside the firm the cost and the management of production instability. That is the reason why the subcontractor is given a weak position. Subcontracting is m 0 re profitable than vertical integration when the firm finds subcontractors that are able to produce goods with an equal quality. Subcontracting is necessary in
__ .. .! __ .! .. _.
Ul:U Vuy
_ L-
UJ
_
U
,~
.. ...
J.r,"
4'_
.,.
~
c;
tJcl'ivities linked with thE' manufacturing cycle of t hI:: product. Once more, the search for fle,jbility leads to isolate a particular meaning of integration concept and to reject it. In the economic meaning, integration is not as much a source of flexibiiity as in the meaning of a cioser (mechanical) interdependence. Suhcontracting also means that the search for optimization in the using of productive ressources is no more the exclusive priority. Using subcontracting in a flexible way, that is according to non-predictable constraints, is not only rossible but this is the reason why sub:::ontracting is used. The flexible use of wbcontracting is compatible with closed cooperation between different partners, namely through technology transfert, know-how sharing, common decisions about information system, etc... Aoki calls "quasi-integration" this kind of relation between the simple market transaction and the cl oser rdation within the various units of one fiml. Researches about the "third Italy", the "flexible specialisation" (Piore & Sabel) confirm that flexibility can resuit from the cooperation of different partners working closely together hut in keeping different identities (in contradiction with transaction costs Williamson's theory).
3. Manufacturing planning what about complexity ? Manufacturing planning consists in coordinating transformations stages on material or infonnation flows. The more stages there are, the more difficult the planning of manufacturing operations IS.
Thus, a principle is pushed forward that consists in reducing the number of the material transformation stages so as to reduce the complexity of manufacturing
50
planning. In this problematic, tranformations stages are gathered either in manufacturing "shops", or in more complex machines achieving several consecl'.tive operations, which could be achieved by different specialized and less complex machines.
grinded but the material is reprocessed. And if the hollow machine break:; down, the fact that the machines are separated allows the coating machine not to stop (this machine is very long to start). ~r
L _
J HC
That is the way one more meaning of integration is brought to the fore. It is formulat~d ,:U1Edy ~y Cohendet & Llerena : "011e of the possibilities to diminish complexity is either to cancel some manufacturing stages, either to achieve in one stage what required two Of st;vt:J'al sUl:l:t:ssivt: u~raiiuns. So ii is a matter ot an integnitlon process of the manufacturing stages". This mt:aning given to the integration has to do with the usual definition of integration: combining or merging things so that they form parts of a whole unified system. Integration here means physical compacting, or cutting down the number of the parts to be managed. A lot of examples question this principle of compacting. Bayard talks about the case of the manufacturing of plastic for strengthened pipes in glass fibre. Two manufacturing devices are possible with the same technical process. The traditional solution consists in working in several stages: hollowing the pipes, cutting and stocking them, then a last transformation to coat pipes with glass fiber. The other solution is the integrated one. It implies the combination of the hollowing and the coating in a whole and unified machine. The advantage of this second solution is to rule out the intelmediate stage of the cutting, handling Jnd stocking ; it obviously seems more profitable. However another factory chose the first solution which implies differents and separate stages. This is that solution that . revealed to be more profitable. The reason deals with the breakdowns: If the pipe which gets out the hollow machine is not perfect, it is however coated by the integrated machine. The final product is scrapped and the coat in glass fib~r which is expensive is lost. 10 the traditional solution, i.e. the nonintegrated one, if the pipe is not perfect. the coated is not made, the faulty pipe is
.......
....
~
_
Jlllcgli:111VII
_
.... 1_ _
_ _ _ _
_ r
III
lUC
SCUS
VI
~
compacting-reduction of the number of the parts to be managed is suitable with the search for flexibility as long as it cO~lsists in standardizing the components used in the manufacturing of the product, as it is within the group technology. But it is quite different regarding a technicai manufacturing 5ystem. Achieving by a sin g I c integrated machine what several specialized machines could do sequentially or in the same time is not necessarily a good solution neither in term of productivity nor in term of t1el(ibility. The integrated multioperations machine is more fragile, more complex to handle and more expansive. On the contrary, several different machines can be more easily organized under the condition that the machines are not bolted between each others ; they are easier to handle and less expansive. The way Japan seems to conceive and to organize the production confirms our point of view. Visiting assembly lines in Japanese firms is everything bm ~pectacular (Heran). The industrial tool is not very sophisticated, even late regarding the industrial production system in the western countries. But it is very homogeneous and turned to easy handling. Robots are numerous but not "ery complex. So this is the use of homogeneous industrial machines, which are also shared or separate rather than concentrated, compact, sophisticated, "integrated", associated with skilled. mobile. also homogeneous in a wa~'. that produces a flexible production sysl:em. Thus, it is bett(;r to conceive numerous manufacturing stages, that are reliable and shared. than to conceive fewer. mote compact manufacturing stages witrtin Rn integrated machine or aD integrated line that is also more fragile and that may stop in a whole if a sole pan of the process breaks down.
51
4. The last definition of integration : the physiological meaning Looking for flexibility sources, we met time the !nt~gr!!t!m! ':'')Hl::~1-'L Surprisingly, although integration is a word often used in the context of the so-called m0d.~Tl~a~'0n C'f ~he industrial production system, the meanings we met so far are not sunable with the search for flexibility. Let us recall them briefly: ~I"vl"rnl
First me,mlllg ~ u'ciuilig a cl oser interdependence between the parts of a system. The context is that of a rigid automation without any flexibility. The inderdependence is mechanical, the parts are bolted between each others. Second meaning: joining to the own activity of a firm the activities linked with the manufacturing cycle of the product (economic meaning). The flexibility results from the contrary of this intearation This is the "impartition" I" which is a possible flexibility source. Third meaning: Integration through the combining or the merging of the things so that they form parts of a whole unified system. Integration here means physical compacting, or reducing the number of the parts to be managed. This meaning results from a limited conception of complexity. It leads to promote machines "to do every thing" in which several operations are gathered in a sinole transformation stage. These machin~s are fragile, expansive and cannot stand hazards and variability. Three meanings of integration commonly used do not suit to the search for flexibility. Do we have to give up this word in the context of adaptability requirement? Not, if integration has the following meaning, the physiological one : coordinating the activities of
several organs for a harmonious working. We can notice three applications of this meaning with however some different extents.
4. 1 . Integration means linkage or connection Thi,s is the meaning used within the MAP (Manufacturing Automation Protocol) project. Launched by General Mctors, MAP is an information system uf(hitedufe ailiiiJig at dt:vduppiu!: intcorated production systems. Here, integration means linkage. T h t:. identified problem is that 0 t compartmentalization and the non <:irculation of information. The cure consists in connecting all the <~ompUler syslems and lhe aUlOmaleC. machines within a plant. The idea te· link is good but does not suffice. Physical connection with somt: networks between the machines, the departments and the people is not enough for the organs thus linked tC' work a harmonious way. Before any physical linkage, it i ~ important to make sure that the connected "organs" know what to dQ with the available information, that the organs share the information required for the others, that the organs have clear objl~ctives. These are principles dealing with the organization that have to be solved before implementing physical tools of communication in order to solve the compartmentalization which is firsl of all an organizational problem. Tht: comprehension of the role of the information technology in the shaping of organizations' structure and processes is more and more becom~ng cne of the main stakes of the productiOn system competitivity. Through the experienc~ of conc~ete i'11plementations of information technology, what appears is that the organization can and must be worked out before the technological aspects of infe'rmation and decision systems. The proposed method consi sts in "modellin oo " the organization on an . isolated manufacturing area and then m "a1Ctdelling" a computer system on this experimental organization. In the organization "model", the illfomlation technologies have to be get rid 0f, so as to let people find by
52
themselves the most simple way to work and to "remove the mud" that comes from a too early abstraction, an "automatic" way of thinking to implemente automated systems leaving out the final users.
The Factory ef the Future can be reached by the simplication of the organization (Schonberger). This simplifil~ti(;:1 cl1;:I~I~:; to put the emphasize on mismanagement, unsuitable sharing of decision-making abilities, unavailable information, redundant circulation of materials ... A _"' ..\... I""'.IJV1U\"'1
_ ..:
1
~.3~uuaJ
_
;
L
a.3J-"-\..l • ..., Utal
J...,...
UJ\"'~
...... aJ '"
emphasize shifts from the technological supports of information to the information itself. The question dealt wilh is which information it would be profitable to make available by the "organs" or to be shared by every information users within the firm. About that pr0b!e~, thp '-!~ua! eXfl.mpl~ is the difficulties to transmit information from the design department to the manufacturing because their information systems are not compatible. The CIM-OSA project focuses on transparency. information circulation, ,.. ...... _ ......... _~: ... """ ..;,,_
~"aIJUUluILU .. I V . J ,
hutvu
..... 1~"
U1J"",,,
,..lcu"u"
",nlJ u
the fin..1 users of the manufacturing system who conceive themselves the organization "model" and who determine how they can work efficiently.
ob~ective
The computer "model" is dealt with after the decison making procedures, the information and material flows are examined, simplified and understood in detail by the manufacturing system's users. It is thus possible to think about technological means, and to study in what extent, information technology can be profitable so as to, if need be, accelerate. to make reliable, to optimize ~n organizational working firstly clarified, simplified, understood by the actors. In that case, the organization is c I ear I y
One important aspect regarding this coherence principle is the interest of ;~tandardization. Indeed paradoxically wirhin the search for flexibility and differentiation, standardization can be orofitable as long as it applies to the information systems and to the ,:;onnections between the machines or the computers of the different departments. In the same way, "'egarding the man-machines relations, it is profitable to have identical key-bords or functions so that the people can nandle different machines. Thus, standardization can lead to flexibilitv thanks to a harmonious working lying on the uniformity principle. Flexibiiity and integration are finally gathered.
determinant on the information' technoiogy. Understanding the dynamic of the organizational/technological change appears all the more necessary as the innovation in information technology within the firm has recently accelarated and thm on only the stakes but also the consequences of these technologies are not always examined.
4.2
responsabilities, decision making procedures, coherence both in the content and the form of the information. Here integration means coherence.
However, we are still in a technological conception of integrated organization. The C. for Computer in the C I M ;nduces that the Computer is the main or .he exclusive problem to be dealt with. Yet. a harmonious organi zati on working cannot only rely on computer.
Integration means coherence
Integration is also used with its physiological meaning in a European project called CIM-OSA (Computer Integrated Manufacturing - Ope n System Architecture). The matter is also to defil'e and to validate a computer architecture for integrated production system. But an important difference with the MAP project is that the
4.3. Integration unt eractivity
m e a n s
The integration concept is sometimes used to refer to the relations between different partners. For example, within the search for flexibility, the "time to market", that is to say the time for a new product to be created, concei ved ano. manufactured is one of the main
53
stake of flexi bili ty. In that context, integration means the way the different departments work together and the way each department thi nks about the otherones' constraints in their own activities. For exemple, a new product is industrialized given the ...- ........... f'r._ ....".I.U.1U"""
; __ .I6
,..." •• ;_..-n + ..... 'iu.&y .... .l""'.u ,
... " J'-'
"" ...
u.~
t-_ ,-v
avoid to change the manufacturing tool with the new product. The physiologic:il meaning of integration is here applied. It is about nothing else but how to coordinate different organs (departments) so that .L_ __1_ =__ L :_ __ . '1""\-: : .... ll1llVJ WUI .... 111
a
ualulvulVU:)
waJ.
1111::> I:)
achieved by a dosed interaction between the departments. An integrated concep~ion of the products does not mean that every department necessarily agrees or willingly accepts the others' constraints. The project teams in the auto industry do not work without any conflict. But at least the problems are revealed in a time the project of the new product is not "frozen". This meaning of integration is nothing else but the fashionable concept of con cur r e n t or s i m u I tan e 0 u s en!?ineering. The idea is to conceive together, rather than sequentially, a new product. The three principles of t his physiological integration (linkage, coherence, interactivity) are not opposed. They are complementary. In a first time, there is linka~e against the compartmentalization. In a second time, there is coherence in the information exchan~ And then, there is interactivity in the whole working and the decision making. The interactivity is the ultimate stage of the integration i.e., coordinating the activities of several organs for a harmonious working.
BiblioKraphy
Y. Bouchut, D. Duffourt, H. Jacot, J. Ruffier, Automatisation, Formes anciennes etformes nouvelles, PUL, Lyon, 1980. Y. Bouchut, Organiser et gerer la ,
• •
•
T T
PfUUUCliuU, In n .
T
_..
/.J
~
__ '\
.Ia~Ul \UI1.J
It
~_ ~
vu
fordime au Toyotisme, les voies de la modernisation du systeme automobile ~n France et au Japon, La Documentation Fran~aise, n07-8, fevrier 19JO. M. Capet, Sous-traitance : aspects economiques eT financiers, in P. Joffre et Y. Simon (eds.) Encyclopedie de gestion, volume 3.
P. Cohendet P. Llerena, Productique et rwuvelle representation du processus de production, in P. Cohendet, P. Llerena, P. Pecquet, "La productique, concepts, .;nethodes, mise en oeuvre", Ec~nomica, 1987.
8. Coriat, L'atelier et le rohot, Christian Bourgois Editeur, 1990. f. Heran. Analvse structurale des
sv.~temes integres de production, These
de Doctorat en Sciences de gestion, ULP Strasbourg, octobre 1989. H. Molet, Gerer la complexite de la genion de production, Revue fran~aise de Gestion industrielle. n° 3-1987.
M. Piore C. Sabel, The second industrial devide, Basic Book. ine. New York, 1984. R. Schonberger, Frugal manufacturing, Harvard Business Review, September 1987
O. Williamson, The economic ;nstitutions of capitalism, The Free pre ss, New York, 1987
M. Aok;, Economie japonaise, Informations, motivations et /1U1rchandage, Econornica, 1991. D. Bayart, Les pannes, Gerer et comprelldre, Revue des Annales des Mines, n° special: Pour une automatisation raisonnable de I'i ndustrie, janvier 1988.
54