A New Decision-Making Model for Manufacturing Line Designs in Vietnamese Manufacturing Plants

A New Decision-Making Model for Manufacturing Line Designs in Vietnamese Manufacturing Plants

Minh D. Nguyen (University of Economics and Business, Vietnam National University, Vietnam)
Copyright: © 2020 |Pages: 16
DOI: 10.4018/IJITPM.2020070102
OnDemand PDF Download:
Available
$37.50
No Current Special Offers
TOTAL SAVINGS: $37.50

Abstract

The research aims to introduce a new decision-making model for designing a manufacturing line (ML) project in Vietnamese manufacturing plants. The new model has been built from the theory of made-in-Vietnam lean decision-making model and authenticated via multitude of practical methods (observation, surveys, in-depth interviews, and case studies). This model pursues the method of optimal thinking to make the most effective decision in designing manufacturing lines. The proposed model has been confirmed by practical application. The model would be used not only for Vietnamese enterprises but also for other enterprises in both developing and developed countries.
Article Preview
Top

Introduction

The Manufacturing line (ML) design plays a critical and valuable role in today’s manufacturing system. Developing and realizing an efficient ML is the main task of ML designers, which consist of firstly designing a new ML and then modifying the current manufacturing line when the given production volume exceeds the current line capacity.

Over the years, there have been many supporting tools developed to help designers to better assess the efficiency of their designs. “Design for X” (DFX) is one of the best-known tools. The ‘X’ in DFX represents any parameters of design considerations occurring throughout the product life cycle, such as quality, manufacturing, production, or environment (Jeffrey et al., 2004). DFX method can be presented in a variety of forms such as a procedure, a set of guidelines on a paper, or a computer program. Each form will be used to optimize the performance of a specific type of analysis in cost, manufacturability, or performance to support the designers in making decisions. “Design for Manufacturing” (DFM) and “Design for Assembly” (DFA) are two of the most common and popular DFX tools (Jeffrey et al., 2004). Several papers about DFA and DFM can be found in the literature such as Bralla (1986), Anderson (1990), Yu (1993), and Boothroyd et al. (2002), which provide detailed discussion on manufacturability and design. Others such as Ehresman (1992), Parmer & Laney (1993), Singh (1996), and Fagade & Kazmer (1998) focus on design guidelines. Other literature mostly focuses on the determinants of ML design’s performance. These studies examine several factors including: takt time (Duanmu & Taaffe, 2007), breakdowns (Elleuch et al., 2007), bottlenecks (Roser et al., 2001), equipment replacement (Sullivan et al., 2002), e-commerce application (Beck et al., 2005) and information and communication technologies (ICTs) (Grant & Yeo, 2019).

Besides, another approach to design manufacturing system is simulation. Nguyen & Takakuwa (2008) introduced a framework in manufacturing line designs in Japanese manufacturing plants to show the contribution of a simulation study in the design process. Nguyen (2009) combined a lean production model and simulation investigation to support ML designs in dealing with the ML modification tasks. Schniederjans and Hoffman (1999), Masmoudi (2006), and Grimard and Marvel (2005) also used simulation as a method to size the ML design.

However, the previous analyses mainly focused DFX tools and provided some specific approaches in practice without modeling and building the optimal decision-making models for manufacturing design. Therefore, this is the gap in best practice and research related to decision-making in manufacturing design.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Reset
Open Access Articles
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2022): 1 Released, 3 Forthcoming
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing