production functions in a. - manufacturing company by Allan Hodgson and Gerry Waterlow. Loughborough University of Technology ritish manufacturing industry.
Integrating the engineering and -production functions in a manufacturing company by Allan Hodgson and Gerry Waterlow Loughborough University of Technology
B
ritish manufacturing industry suffer; a number of disadvantages when compared to its Japanese, American and European-based competiton. These disadvantages include higher interest rates, poorer communication with financial institutions, lower national attention to engineering and manufacturing education, and less long-term planningat a govemment level. Nevertheless, a recent CBI report (‘Competing with the worlds best’, Autumn 1991) states that UK manufacturing output has increased annually since 1985 at approximately the same rate as other major economies, with the exception of Japan. It is too easy to blame uncompetitiveperformance on external factor;, such as the above, but there are many forms of improvement which are within the remit of individual manufacturing companies. The rise of Japan as a dominant manufacturer, and the subsequent rise of many other Pacific-basin countries, has required British manufacturing industry to become more productive. To many in the UK, the rapid development of computerbased systems over the last decade, to aid design. planningand control of manufacture, appeared to offer the means to regain lost competitiveness. However, the reality to date has been disappointing. The technology has shown remarkable advances, often producing significant benefits for individual company functions, but in many cases overall company benefits have been limited. The above situation reflects some of the differences between typical British and Japanese companies. In Japan, the company has clear goals and associated business and manufacturingstrategies. The major resource available to the company is people and, by training them appropriately in the company’s philosophy, and in organisational and technical skills, their abilities can be hamessed to work in unison towards the common goals. Computer-aided tools [CAD, CAM, CAE, CAPM etc.) are seen as techniques which can be hamessed if appropriate, not as philosophies or’goals in themselves. 62
Too often these techniques are introduced in the UK and elsewhere in the West as a way round localised problems or symptoms, rather than as part of a co-ordinated set of strategies. Increasingattention is now being paid to the business integration aspects, rather than just the technological aspects, of computer integrated manufacture [CIM). Major research initiatives such as CIM-OSA AMICE, presented in an earlier issue of this Journal [May 1991 C C U ) , are developing architectures and standards for integrated manufacturing systems. CIM-OSA incorporates an organisation ‘dimension’ within its architecture and defines an approach starting from ‘business processes’. However, for those managers dealing with the problems of manufacturingnow, such approaches may be seen at best to represent idealistic solutions to theoretical problems. It is difficult at present to see the relationship between them and the obviously successful Japanese employee-based approaches. There is a need for a pragmatic, incremental approach to business integration which is applicable to small and medium-sized manufacturing companies with limited resourcesand skills. A particular weakness in many British companies is the poor communication between design, engineering and production management functions. This communication tends to be one-way, slow and unreliable. Problems are exacerbated by the installation of computer solutions for individual departments. In order to progress towards the integration of such selfcentred systems, the company needs to address more than just the technical interfacing problems, such as computer communications and database compatibility. It needs also to address the overall business organisationalissues, which may lead to the redistribution of functions between departments. Current integrated CAD/CAM systems offer a local solution to just one aspect of the above communication problem. There still remain the Droblems associated with enabling interaction with the
production environment. Indications of such communication problems can be seen in long product introduction phases and high levels of modification required at the production stage. The aim of this Special Feature is to concentrate in detail on the problems associated with the interface between design engineering and production, and to examine some of their implications for the integration of CAE and CAPM as part of a business strategy. The benefits of integrating these functions as part of a coherent strategy depend on the business context, for example the marketimposed need for frequent design changes. The feasibility of integrating them depends on the manufacturing context, including past investment in computer technology. The four articles address different aspects of the interface and the problems of moving incrementally towards CIM. The first three articles provide practical insights via case studies into problems associated with integration. Each case study is presented separately, in a common format, at the end of the associated article. This enables useful comparisons to be made by the reader across a range of company types. The fourth article discusses the problems of allowing computer technology to increase the organisational complexity of the manufacturing environment. A common message which emerges from these articles and the associated case studies is the necessity to undentand what the real goals and problems of the organisation are. Only in an environment where the objectives of each functional area are consistent with these goals can computer-aided technology be introduced without also introducing additional organisational complexity and long-term difficulties. Perhaps current widespread interest in simultaneous engineering could be extended to ‘simultaneous designthroughdispatch or even ‘simultaneous life-cycle management’? 1992 The authors are with the Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough Universitv of Technoloev. -. Louehboruwh. Leics. LE: 1 3TU, UK. 8 IEE
-
COMPUTING & CONTROL ENGINEERINGJOURNAL MARCH 1992
