OCTOBER 19-20, 2012 - YMCA University of Science & Technology

Proceedings of the National Conference on
Trends and Advances in Mechanical Engineering,
YMCA University of Science & Technology, Faridabad, Haryana, Oct 19-20, 2012
4. FMS problems.
That there are so few FMS implementations and that, more significantly, the growth rate of FMS
implementations is so slow should give some pause for thought. This is especially so in light of the benefits
allude to in earlier sections. The seemingly consensus opinions in literature for the lack of any real growth in
FMS implementation are problems associated with technical viability, cost and the resultant justifiability
4.1 Technical viability and cost
As indicated in the previous section, some industries are experiencing a degree of success with flexible systems:
“Aerospace companies, the defense industry, and , of course, many machine tool builders have already installed
highly sophisticated FMS’s that for the most part are operating successfully…… Vought Aerospace, for
example has been operating an FMS in Dallas since 1984 that is now capable of economically producing lot
sizes of one….. The system has already paid for itself.” [10]
However, opposing viewpoints are not uncommon. For example, in reference to the FMS at the John Deere,
Waterloo, Indiana site, Jim Lardner, Vice president of Deere’s components group, had this to say about FMS:
“Given the history of manufacturing industries that have embraced computers and computer system, there is
substantial anecdotal evidence that we computerized utter confusion and inefficiency……what with the start up
costs, the support system, the programmers, the automatic transfer devices, and so on.”[10]
Lardner’s comments tend to suggest there are still many aspects of true flexible automated manufacturing
systems that need to be worked out. Bergstrom [18] addresses the issue this way “FMS did seem to hold out
promise on a grand scale …… But then something happened. Some of the luster began to fade. Stories about
downtime and software nightmares rose to the surface.[18]
4.2 Justification
Just as with discerned technical difficulties, problems in economic justification of FMS have also slowed the
growth of FMS. Justifying the investment in the FMS is central to the growth of FMS implementations and
Dornan [12] comments on the importance of appropriate automation procedures. It has now become a longargued
point that traditional cost accounting techniques are simply inadequate for use in automation technology
justification- particularly when there is an element of flexibility involved. Indeed many accounting systems
revolve around labor savings. [19]
There has been much written on how to better evaluate automation technology costs and savings Rohan [23]
recommends an overall strategy for justification that takes all company goals into consideration rather than just
engineering and accounting concerns. Dornan [12] emphasizes the importance of developing an overall corporate
plan. She offers a three-tiered approach to business planning based on:
1.Strategic plan: Outlines generic survival tactics.
2.Business plan: Develops strategies to compete globally.
3.Manufacturing plan: Identifies activities in support of the business and strategies plans.
One of the basic problems of FMS justification is quantifying the intangible benefits of increased quality and
increased flexibility. Dornan [12] suggests that some of the data that is more difficult to quantify can be obtained
from the FMS already implemented. She further suggests that one further benefit that could be included is the
potential value of significantly extended capital equipment and capital investment life cycles.
5. FMC versus FMS-Present trends
We have seen that flexible automated manufacturing systems, although possessing the potential for being
extremely valuable, have associated technical, cost and justification problems. As a result, much attention has
begun to be focused on FMC’s .Steven E. Klabunde, vice president of manufacturing systems at Giddings &
Lewis in Janesville, Wisconsin says.
“What we’re seeing is something rethinking. People are beginning to recognize the complexity of the full- blown
systems and they’re having second thoughts. They look at the complexity, the dollar investment, and they’re
looking at their needs. Many companies can’t handle an FMS –certainly the smaller ones. So they are looking to
something else, and something else is the cell.” [18] Bushong [8] concurs with this view. He goes on to suggest
that a cell can be bought for the first 78% of what a system costs and without the problems associated with
implementing a full FMS. The approach now being taken appears to bee invest in cells, get them working and
then working, then worry about integrating the resultant islands of automation into a system later when
technology makes it affordable. Droy[20]. Recognizing the trend toward cell manufacturing, offers some basic
guidelines for cell development. He also provides a list of substantial cost reductions associated with a well
planned cell.
426