The Third World Congress on Intelligent Manufacturing Processes & Systems

Cambridge, MA – June 28-30, 2000

EQUIPMENT EVALUATION TOOL BASED ON THE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM DESIGN

DECOMPOSITION
Deny D. Gomez Daniel C. Dobbs David S. Cochran
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Graduate Research Assistant Graduate Research Assistant Assistant Professor

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

77 Massachusetts Ave. Room 35-135.
Cambridge, MA 02139

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an evaluation tool that can be used to determine how well the physical characteristics of a particular piece of
equipment (or set of machines) satisfy the functional requirements of the manufacturing system design. This evaluation tool for equipment
is based on the Manufacturing System Design Decomposition v5.1 (MSDD). The MSDD identifies a series of goals for a manufacturing
organization called Functional Requirements (FRs) and how each one of these helps to achieve the high-level business goals. The
requirements from the MSDD that affect equipment design and operation have been identified, and the evaluation tool presented here can
be used to evaluate how well a particular piece or set of equipment conforms to these requirements. This evaluation tool can be used to
ensure that equipment designs better align with overall manufacturing system objectives. The tool can also be used to identify problems
with existing equipment and to set goals for the equipment to be improved to better satisfy the requirements placed on it by the MSDD.

Keywords: Equipment Design, Machine Design, Cell Design, Production System Design Decomposition, Lean Production

A very important aspect of any manufacturing system

INTRODUCTION
is its equipment, regardless of whether a company’s
equipment consists of complicated automated machinery
Competitiveness in today’s business environment
or simple hand tools. The design and selection of
requires the use of a structured approach to ensure that its
equipment is a critical factor that can determine the
manufacturing system is designed to achieve the business
capability of a manufacturing system to meet high-level
objectives. The connection between every aspect of the
business goals. Whether a company designs and builds or
manufacturing system and how it helps to achieve the
buys its equipment, it is important that the equipment be
business goals must be established. The lack of such a
designed to follow a prescribed set of requirements to
connection can place the manufacturing enterprise at risk
achieve the business enterprise goals. A subset of the
of engaging in practices that lead to waste in the form of
requirements identified in the MSDD influences the
poor quality and poor ability to trace problems, excessive
selection, design and operation of equipment. The
inventory, long throughput times, poor ergonomics
connection of these requirements to the business goals is
(wasted motions of operators), etc. An effective approach
clearly stated in the decomposition. The specific
to establish the connection between the elements of a
Functional Requirements that affect equipment design and
manufacturing system and the business objectives of an
operation are identified below [Arinez and Cochran, 1999].
enterprise is the Manufacturing System Design
This paper presents an Evaluation Tool that can be used
Decomposition v5.1 (MSDD) [Production System Design
to determine how well a particular piece or set of
Laboratory, 2000], which is briefly introduced below. The
equipment conforms to those Functional Requirements
MSDD is based on the Axiomatic Design methodology
associated with equipment design and operation that are
[Suh, 1990]. Axiomatic Design is a process of making
identified by the MSDD.
decisions about what a design intends to achieve and how it
intends to achieve it. The MSDD identifies this thought
process and these decisions for the design of a MOTIVATION
manufacturing system. A manufacturing system designed
using the MSDD will achieve the principles of the Toyota Since the equipment is such an integral part of any
Production System (TPS) [Monden, 1993 and Shingo, manufacturing system and it can determine the way that a
1989], which are also commonly known as the principles system performs, it is important to ensure that the
of lean manufacturing. equipment will enable the achievement of the enterprise
1
 Equipment Evaluation Tool Based on The Manufacturing System Design Decomposition
The Third World Congress on Intelligent Manufacturing Processes & Systems
Cambridge, MA – June 28-30, 2000

goals. The MSDD identifies a series of Functional DECOMPOSITION

Requirements (FRs) for the design of a manufacturing
system, and a subset of these requirements influences the Production systems have traditionally been designed in
design and operation of equipment. To ensure that the isolation from business objectives through a process in
equipment conforms to the FRs established in the MSDD, which individual subsystems are optimized independent of
one must know what the physical attributes of the each other and of the overall system [Cochran, Kim and
equipment are to fulfill such FRs. The Equipment Kim, 2000]. The resulting systems often are difficult to
Evaluation Tool presented here is intended to provide the control and do not meet the enterprise’s objectives. The
connection between the physical attributes of a machine design of manufacturing systems using a comprehensive
and how those attributes fulfill the FRs from the MSDD. and coherent methodology has traditionally been practiced
only very rarely.
The Equipment Evaluation Tool identifies the FRs
that affect equipment design and operation and then One recent approach to the design of manufacturing
describes the physical attributes that equipment must have systems is the Production System Design (PSD)
to satisfy these FRs to different levels of achievement. Six framework [Cochran, 1999 and Carrus and Cochran,
levels of accomplishment have been identified, from 1998]. The centerpiece of the PSD framework is the
failure-to-achieve (Level 1) to full-achievement (Level 6) of Manufacturing System Design Decomposition (MSDD)
the Functional Requirements from the MSDD. A shown in Figure 1. The MSDD uses the Axiomatic
rationalization of each one of the six levels of achievement Design methodology [Suh, 1990] to develop a design of a
and which systems typically fall into each level will be production system that satisfies the ideals of the Toyota
provided below. The important point to note is that the Production System. Axiomatic design is a methodology
Equipment Evaluation Tool can be used to assess a that establishes two fundamental axioms to be followed
particular piece or set of equipment to test how well it throughout the design process: maintain the independence
satisfies the FRs from the MSDD. The user can simply of the functional requirements and minimize the
compare the physical attributes of the equipment with information content of the design. The first axiom
those described on the different levels of achievement emphasizes that to the extent possible each design
presented in the evaluation tool. This immediately parameter should satisfy only one functional requirement,
establishes the connection between the attributes of the and the second axiom seeks to produce as simple a design
equipment and the goals of the manufacturing system. as possible. Using axiomatic design and its two
Based on the comparison of physical attributes of a fundamental axioms to design production systems can lead
machine against those described on the Equipment to simple, easy to operate systems that achieve business
Evaluation Tool, a particular equipment design can be objectives.
evaluated according to the following objectives:
The MSDD uses axiomatic design methodology to
1. Evaluate the current status of the design and identify high-level Functional Requirements (FRs) for a
operation of equipment by evaluating how well it satisfies manufacturing enterprise. Also, in the MSDD a Design
the FRs from the MSDD. Parameter (DP) is chosen for each FR as the physical
2. Identify areas for improvement where the current implementation that best satisfies it. The quantitative
equipment does not fully satisfy the FRs from the MSDD, relationship between the FRs and the DPs is derived using
and therefore focus the efforts to improve the design matrices. Once the relationship has been
manufacturing system on the areas that need it the most.
3. Indicate how equipment can fully satisfy the FRs
from the MSDD, and therefore set the objectives to be
achieved by the equipment design and improvement
Investment

efforts.
4. Provide a method to track the progress of
improvements in terms of equipment design and
operation.
5. Align equipment design with the business Quality Time Delay Operating
objectives identified by the MSDD. Variation Reduction Costs

Figure 1: Manufacturing System Design Decomposition

THE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM DESIGN

2
 Equipment Evaluation Tool Based on The Manufacturing System Design Decomposition
The Third World Congress on Intelligent Manufacturing Processes & Systems
Cambridge, MA – June 28-30, 2000

• FR-Q13 Eliminate method assignable causes (of

variation).
• FR-Q123 Ensure that operator human errors do
not translate to defects.
• FR-R111 Identify disruptions when they occur.
• FR-R112 Identify disruptions where they occur.
• FR-R113 Identify what the disruption is (when
Figure 2: FRs from MSDD that Affect Equipment Design
one occurs).
and Operation
• FR-R121 Identify correct support resources (to
established at one level, FRs are decomposed into as many resolve a disruption when one occurs).
lower level requirements as needed. Following this • FR-R122 Minimize delay in contacting correct
process repeatedly and comprehensively produces a series support resource (to resolve a disruption when one
of FRs and DPs that identifies the thought process behind occurs).
the design of each subsystem within the manufacturing • FR-R123 Minimize time for support resource to
enterprise. The importance of the MSDD is not only that understand disruption (when one occurs).
it establishes FRs and DPs for the design of each • FR-P121 Ensure that equipment is easily
subsystem, but also that it clearly links those FRs and DPs serviceable.
(through design matrices) with the high-level objectives of • FR-T221 Ensure that automatic cycle time is less
the enterprise. than or equal to the minimum takt time.
• FR-T222 Ensure that manual cycle time is less
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS FROM MSDD than or equal to the minimum takt time.
THAT AFFECT EQUIPMENT DESIGN AND • FR-T32 Produce in sufficiently small run sizes.
OPERATION • FR-T51 Ensure that support resources don’t
interfere with production resources.
The MSDD, in addition to serving as a general tool • FR-T52 Ensure that production resources (people
for the design of production systems, also provides a / automation) don’t interfere with one another.
method to effectively communicate design requirements to • FR-T53 Ensure that support resources (people /
subsystems like the equipment, the information system, automation) don’t interfere with one another.
etc. Of particular interest in the context of this paper is
• FR-D11 Reduce time operators spend on non-
the equipment used in the manufacturing enterprise as a
value added tasks at each station.
subsystem of the production system. In the process of
conveying the requirements for the design of a • FR-D21 Minimize wasted motion of operators
manufacturing system, the MSDD has identified a series between stations.
of FRs that affect the design and operation of equipment. • FR-D22 Minimize wasted motion in operators’
Figure 2 highlights the FRs from the MSDD that influence work preparation.
the design and operation of equipment in a production • FR-D23 Minimize wasted motion in operators’
system. work tasks.
• FR123 Minimize facilities cost.
The specific Functional Requirements that affect • FR13 Minimize investment over production
equipment design and operation are listed below: system lifecycle.

• FR-Q11 Eliminate machine assignable causes (of

variation). EQUIPMENT EVALUATION TOOL

3
 Equipment Evaluation Tool Based on The Manufacturing System Design Decomposition
The Third World Congress on Intelligent Manufacturing Processes & Systems
Cambridge, MA – June 28-30, 2000

The objective of the equipment evaluation tool is to sub-FRs of a particular FR affect equipment design, then
assess how well the physical attributes of a particular piece the evaluation tool will use the parent FR as the evaluation
or set of equipment satisfy the FRs from the MSDD that criteria instead of using all of its sub-FRs. The use of this
affect equipment design and operation. The previous rationale allows us to reduce the number of criteria to be
section identified the FRs from the MSDD that relate to evaluated from 22 FRs that influence Equipment design
the equipment, and those will be used as the evaluation (from the previous section) to only 13 FRs, without
criteria in the Equipment Evaluation Tool. However, in sacrificing the effectiveness of the evaluation. Figure 3
the spirit of reducing the information content of the illustrates how the FRs that affect equipment design were
evaluation tool without sacrificing its effectiveness, some consolidated into a smaller number of evaluation criteria
of the criteria were consolidated to reduce the overall using the rationale described above. It also shows how
number of FRs to be considered. The rationale used to these criteria appear in the Equipment Evaluation Tool
consolidate the FRs was: when all (or at least most) of the and how each of the criteria relates to the FRs from the

Investment
Facilities Cost
Time Delay Direct
Quality Variation Reduction Labor

FR: Maximize long-term return on investment / DP: Manufacturing system design

FR: Maximize sales revenue / DP: Production to maximize customer satisfaction FR: Minimize production costs / DP:
Elimination of NVA sources of cost
FR: Manufacture products to target FR: Deliver products on time / DP: FR: Meet customer expected lead-time / FR: Reduce waste in
design specifications / DP: Production Throughput time variation reduction DP: Mean throughput time reduction direct labor / DP:
Upper level PSD Decomposition (FRs/DPs)

processes with minimal variation Elimination on NVA tasks

FR: Stabilize Process / DP: Elimination FR: Respond rapidly to FR: Minim. FR: Reduce FR: Reduce FR: Elimin.
of assignable causes of variation production disruptions / production process run size ops. waiting
DP: Procedure for disruptions / delay / DP: delay / DP: on eqpmnt.
detection and response to DP: Predict. Production Prod’n of DP: Human-
production disruptions production balanced to desired mix machine
resources takt time and quantity separation
FR: Elimin. FR: Ensure
op. assig. predictable
causes / equipment
DP: Stable output / DP: Reduce time
output from Maint. of operators Minimize
Ensure that
operators equipment spend on investment
production
Eliminate Eliminate Ensure op. Rapidly Communic. Ensure that cycle time is Produce in Reduce non-value Eliminate over
Criteria

machine method errors don’t recognize problems to equipment balanced sufficiently systematic added tasks wasted Minimize production
assignable assignable translate to production the right is easily with takt small run operational at each motion of facilities system
causes causes defects disruptions people serviceable time sizes delays station operators cost lifecycle

FRs used as evaluation criteria FRs driving equipment design and operation but not
directly evaluated (evaluated using their parent FRs)
Figure 3: Derivation of Criteria for Equipment Evaluation Tool from MSDD

4
 Equipment Evaluation Tool Based on The Manufacturing System Design Decomposition
The Third World Congress on Intelligent Manufacturing Processes & Systems
Cambridge, MA – June 28-30, 2000

illustrated by Figure 4. Figure 4 shows a gradient of six

Level achieved by a Job Shop
1 or Departmental Layout
levels of DPs corresponding to six levels of achievement
relative to a given FR.
Level achieved by Departments
2 Arranged by Product Flow Level 1 represents a traditional manufacturing system,
characterized by a job shop or departmental layout and not
Level achieved by Assembly
3 Line or Transfer Line
designed from a system perspective. Level 2 represents a
system characterized by a departmental or product flow
Level achieved by Pseudo-Cell layout. Level 3 represents a system consisting of assembly
4 and transfer lines. Level 4 represents a system where cells
have started to be implemented in certain areas of the
Level achieved by Assembly or
5 Machining Cells
plant but they are still not designed to fully achieve the
FRs from the MSDD. Level 5 represents a system
Level achieved by Linked-Cell characterized by the presence of cells in a majority of the
6 Manufacturing System areas. Level 6 represents the ultimate level of achievement
of a manufacturing system designed based on the MSDD,
Figure 4: Evaluation Scheme for Equipment characterized by linked cells.
Evaluation Tool
In order to evaluate a piece or set of equipment, the
MSDD. actual physical characteristics are matched to the
descriptions under each category of the Evaluation Tool.
Notice that the FRs being considered as evaluation Since it is unlikely that all machines or stations in a set of
criteria in the Equipment Evaluation Tool do not all equipment will have uniform characteristics that all fall
correspond to a particular level in the MSDD because the within the same level of achievement, it may be necessary
FRs that affect equipment design appear throughout all to score part of the equipment being considered in one
levels of the decomposition. It would be unrealistic to try level and another portion of it at another level. The pie
to evaluate the equipment by selecting FRs at a particular charts provide a method in which a portion of the
level since the equipment design and operation affects equipment can score at a high level of achievement and
various parts of the system that are defined at different another portion can score at a low level for a particular
levels of the MSDD. Also, it is important to note that a FR. For each FR, or column, the scores from the pie
single machine or piece of equipment can, and generally charts at all six levels should add up to 100%. Figure 4
will, be affected by several different FRs from the MSDD. shows the pie charts used in this scoring method. By
Physical attributes to achieve different FRs can be using this approach, it is immediately evident which
combined (physical integration) and still achieve separate percentage of the equipment being evaluated has a high
FRs (functional independence). The distinction between level of achievement and which percentage has a low level
physical integration and functional independence is an of achievement.
important one in Axiomatic Design methodology and
applies thoroughly when designing equipment using the
MSDD. Quantitative Evaluation

In addition to the qualitative evaluation just described,

Qualitative Evaluation the Equipment Evaluation Tool also allows a quantitative
evaluation of the criteria being considered. For each FR
To evaluate a piece or set of equipment, the FRs have evaluated, a performance metric has been identified that
already been identified based on the discussion above and allows a quantitative evaluation of that particular FR. This
in Figure 3. The evaluation and grading scheme is now set of performance metrics is shown in Figure 5. The
developed. Consistent with the evaluation approach used figure also shows the performance metrics for the higher
for the Production System Design Evaluation Tool [Chu level FRs, up to Return on Investment (ROI), which is the
and Cochran, 2000], the Equipment Evaluation Tool highest level metric, as a way to demonstrate the
defines six levels of achievement for each FR being connection between the FRs being evaluated and the
considered. For each FR in the Equipment Evaluation enterprise-wide objectives. Notice that no target values
Tool, the descriptions at the six levels of achievement are have been set for any of the performance metrics indicated
consistent with a mental model of a system design as here since they may vary widely between industries and

5
 Equipment Evaluation Tool Based on The Manufacturing System Design Decomposition
The Third World Congress on Intelligent Manufacturing Processes & Systems
Cambridge, MA – June 28-30, 2000

# of defects # of defects # of defects Time Time Time Production Actual run Production % of % of Facilities Investment
per n parts per n parts per n parts between between id required to cycle time - size - target time lost operators’ operators’ Cost over
assignable assignable caused by occurrence of what the service takt time run size. due to time spent time spent production
to to the human error of disruption disruption is equipment Ratio of interference on NVA on wasted system
equipment process and and support #, length of changeover among tasks while motions lifecycle
# of defects
identification resource time to takt resources waiting at a
per n parts unplanned
of what the knowing time station
Metrics

assignable equipment
disruption is what it is
to operators downtime
# of defects per n parts with an Time between occurrence #, length of Inv. due to Inv. due to % of time
assignable cause and resolution of problems disruptions process run size waiting on
delay delay equipment
Process Capability % on-time deliveries Difference between mean throughput % of op. time spent on
time and customers’expected lead-time NVA motions and waiting
Sales revenue Production Costs
Return on Investment

Figure 5: Performance Metrics for the Equipment Evaluation Tool

even between different applications within the same the performance metrics for each FR to allow a
system, setting the targets is left to the user considering quantitative evaluation. Finally, the Equipment Evaluation
the particular application. Tool includes the motivation, the derivation of the FRs
being evaluated from the MSDD and the instructions and
example of evaluating a column, to make it a self-
Structure of the Equipment Evaluation Tool
contained document.
The complete Equipment Evaluation Tool is shown in
Figure 6 in a reduced view to present its format and Quality
structure. Notice that the Equipment Evaluation Tool
consists of 13 columns, each one corresponding to one of The 3 FRs from the quality branch on the MSDD that
the evaluation criteria, and they are used to assess the level affect equipment design are:
of achievement of the 22 FRs from the MSDD that relate
to the equipment. Each column describes the physical • FR-Q11 Eliminate machine assignable
characteristics of equipment at each of the six levels of causes:
achievement. The document also has a comments section Refers to the quality reliability of the equipment.
to clarify the purpose and scope of each column, as well as Assignable causes are those that cause the process to go
Equipment out of control and may be: tool wear/breakage, bearing
failures, etc. Equipment design should strive to maintain
FR: Maximize long term return on investment / DP: Manufacturing system design
FR: Maximize sales revenue / DP: Production to maximize customer satisfaction FR: Minimize prod’n costs / DP: Elimination of non-value adding sources of cost
Upper level PSD Decomposition

FR: Manufacture products to target design specifications / DP: Production FR: Reduce waste in direct labor / DP: Elimination on
FR: Deliver products on time / DP: Throughput time variation reduction FR: Meet customer expected lead time / DP: Mean throughput time reduction
processes with minimal variation from the mean non-value adding manual tasks
FR: Minimize production FR: Reduce process delay FR: Reduce run size delay FR: Eliminate operators
(FRs/DPs)

FR: Respond rapidly to production disruptions / DP:

the quality of the output, as opposed to just preventing

disruptions / DP: (caused by Ra > Rs) DP: Production of the waiting on machines
FR: Stabilize Process / DP: Elimination of assignable causes of variation Procedure for detection and response to production
Predictable production DP: Production balanced desired mix and quantity DP: Human-
disruptions
resources according to takt time each demand interval machine separation
FR: Eliminate operator FR: Ensure predictable
assignable causes / DP: equipment output / DP:
Stable output from Maintenance of equipment

breakdowns.
operators reliability
Ensure that production Reduce time operators Minimize investment
Evaluation Ensure operator human
Eliminate machine Eliminate method Rapidly recognize Communicate problems to Ensure that equipment is cycle time is balanced Produce in sufficiently Reduce systematic spend on non-value added Eliminate wasted motion over production system
Criteria errors do not translate to
assignable causes assignable causes production disruptions the right people easily serviceable with takt time small run sizes operational delays tasks at each station of operators Minimize facilities cost lifecycle
(FRs) defects
Poor quality output from Methods call for excessively Equipment relies solely on Production disruptions are When a disruption is Access to service locations Equipment designed without Equipment can not be Equipment design forces Equipment forces operator Equipment width and Equipment is very large and Equipment dedicated to a
equipment due to unknown low tolerances/ unnecessary operator judgement/training generally not promptly identified, it is not clear to is severely limited. Many regard to takt time. changed over and is routine service activities to to wait through the entire spacing requires long requires a large area to be single part type and

1
causes of variation (unable processing due to (part and tool selection, recognized. The equipment the operator which non-standard, difficult to Equipment cycle time designed to run only one stop production completely. duration of the cycle for walking distances. clear for service access. designed to run as fast as
to hold mean). complicated material flow machine operation, etc.) to provides no feedback to resources to contact or what replace parts are used. (manual, automatic or a type of product. Different production and/or automatic operations. Excessive motions required Equipment requires special possible. No flexibility for
paths. Expected process produce high quality parts. allow operators to identify information to give them Only highly skilled combination) is greater than different service resources Operator must manually to search for tools and facilities which are costly to future design and/or volume
yields are low due to problems. about the problem. personnel can service takt time. have the same access unload parts before materials. Ergonomics provide (special power, changes. Not easily
selected methods. equipment. requirements. loading the next. are very poor. clean room, etc.) moved.

• FR-Q13 Eliminate method assignable causes:

Some assignable causes of Methods drive low process Equipment design and Equipment feedback allows When a disruption occurs, Access to service locations Equipment designed without Equipment changeover time Equipment design forces Equipment forces operator Equipment width and Equipment is large and Equipment can support
variation are identified. yields and complicated flow layout suggests its proper only slow recognition of operator always contacts is moderately difficult. regard to takt time. is prohibitively long. Parts routine service activities to to wait through part of the spacing requires long requires special facilities some changes in the design

2
paths. Methods are operation but still relies on disruptions. When one is the same resource, even if Many non-standard, difficult Equipment cycle time are run in large batches to stop production completely. machine cycle. Operator walking distances. Most which are costly to provide of a single product but only
changed to improve process operator judgement/training identified the equipment can not qualified to solve the to replace parts are used. (manual, automatic or a avoid changeover. Frequent interference must manually unload parts tools and materials are (special power, controlled with major modifications, it
yields, reduce unnecessary to produce high quality only identify a general area problem, because equip. Only highly skilled combination) is greater than between different production before loading the next. located at the station but temperature, does not continuously
processes and simplify parts. as the source of the doesn’t provide personnel can service takt time. and/or different service poorly organized. clean room, etc.) support multiple parts.
material flow paths problem. detailed feedback. equipment. resources. Ergonomics are fair. Not easily moved.

Methods are how processes are done and include assembly

Most causes of variation are Methods drive process Some equipment provides Disruptions are recognized When a disruption occurs, Fair access to locations that Equipment designed without Equipment changeover time Equipment design forces Equipment forces operator Equipment width and Equipment is of Equipment is designed to
Level of Achievement (DPs)

identified but are still not yields that are on par with visual feedback (lights) to rapidly but the equipment the operator receives require maintenance. Many regard to takt time. is long enough to prevent production to stop for some to wait through part of the spacing requires considerable size and/or it support different part types

3
eliminated. industry standards. aid correct operation but it can only identify a general enough information from non-standard, difficult to Equipment cycle time frequent changeovers. The routine service activities. machine cycle. Operator unnecessary walking requires a large area to be but not designed to run at
Continuous efforts are made cannot prevent incorrect area as the source of the equipment to know which replace parts are used. Only (manual, automatic or a need for shorter changeover Some interference between must manually unload parts between stations. clear for service access. takt time or a range of takt
to improve process yields. operation. problem. resource to contact. No info highly skilled personnel can combination) is greater than time is recognized. different production and/or before loading the next. Ergonomic interface Some special facilities are times (no volume flexibility).
about nature of service equipment. takt time. different service between operator and required but they are Not easily moved.

tasks and process plans for machining, assembly etc. This

problem conveyed. resources. equipment is fair. not costly to provide.
Most causes of variation Methods drive process Equipment operation is Disruptions are recognized When a disruption occurs, Easy access to locations Equipment may or may not Equipment changeover time Equipment design forces Equipment allows operator Equipment width and Equipment is of Equipment is designed to
eliminated, some causes yields above industry mostly mistake-proof but rapidly and the equipment the equipment allows the that require maintenance. be designed according to is within the same order of production to stop for a few to load a machine, start it spacing requires some considerable size and/or it support a family of parts.

4
are still unable to be standards. Continuous defects could still be can identify a specific operator to contact the right Some non-standard parts. takt time. Equipment cycle magnitude as the takt time. routine service activities. and walk away. Operator unnecessary walking. Most requires a large area to be Equipment runs at takt time
removed. efforts are made to reduce intentionally produced and machine/station as the resource with some Only skilled personnel can time (manual, automatic or Different production must manually unload parts tools, fixtures and materials clear for service access. No and allows running slower

FR ensures that the impact of the types of operations

material flow paths and the equipment would not source of the problem. No information, sometimes service equipment. a combination) is less than resources have separate before loading the next. are located at the station. special facilities are (less volume) but not faster.
eliminate unnecessary prevent it. feedback about the inaccurate or unclear. takt time for most access requirements. Ergonomic interface is required. Not easily moved.
processes. nature of the problem. stations. fair.
Causes of variation reduced Methods are continuously Equipment can not fully Disruptions are immediately When a disruption occurs, Simple design that is easy Equipment designed Equipment can be changed Most routine service tasks Equipment allows operator Equipment width and Equipment occupies a small Equipment designed to
so that equipment output is improved and drive high prevent operators from reported, and the equipment the equipment allows the to service, easy access to according to takt time. over with one touch but can be performed from the to load a machine, start it spacing reduces operator amount of floor-space and it support volume (a range of

5
stabilized and mean shifts process yields. Some making defects but it does can pinpoint the subsystem operator to contact the right locations that require Equipment cycle time feeding parts for different rear of equipment, without and walk away. When cycle walking distance. Parts, only requires a small area to takt times) and product (a

selected and their order on the design of the equipment

rarely occur. unnecessary processing still detect them if they happen in the machine that has the resources with the right maintenance. Most parts (manual, automatic or a products requires changing disrupting production. is complete the equipment tools and fixtures are be clear to allow service family of products) flexibility.
remains. and does not advance problem, but it provides little information, but the transfer are “off the shelf”. Service combination) is less than containers and causes Different production and automatically unloads the conveniently located at the access. No special facilities Equipment can be moved
defective parts. or no feedback about does not happen operations require takt time. delays. different service tasks part (Man-machine station. Ergonomic are required. and reconfigured.
nature of problem. immediately. considerable training. have separate access. separation achieved). interface is good.
Equipment able to maintain Simple, reliable methods It is impossible to load / Disruptions are immediately When a disruption occurs, Equipment is very simple to Equipment designed Equipment can be changed Routine service tasks can Equipment allows operator Minimal equipment width Equipment occupies a Equipment designed to

and system is considered. Ideally the methods are simple

mean, within tolerances. All are selected and operate equipment reported by the equipment the equipment allows the service, allows easy access according to takt time. over with one touch. be performed from the rear to load a machine, start it and spacing reduces minimal amount of floor- support volume (a range of

6
assignable causes of continuously improved. incorrectly. Visual aids, to the operator, along with operator to contact the right to locations that require Equipment cycle time Equipment can make parts of equipment, without and walk away. When cycle operator walking distance. space, and it needs a takt times) and product (a
variation eliminated or There is no unnecessary sensors and equipment information about the exact resources with the right maintenance. Uses only “off (manual, automatic or a for different products disrupting production. is complete the equipment Parts, tools are conveniently minimal area for service family of products) flexibility.
controlled. processing and process features prevent loading the location and nature of the information to allow them to the shelf” parts. Minimal combination) is less than immediately available when Different production and automatically unloads the located at the station to access requirements. No Equipment can easily be
yields are high. wrong part or cycling problem. start working training needed to takt time. needed. different service tasks part (Man-machine provide a highly special facilities are reconfigured and
if there is a problem. immediately. service equipment. have separate access. separation achieved). ergonomic interface. required. moved.

and allow for equipment with no unnecessary processing

Refers to quality reliability Methods are how Equipment should prevent Equipment should be Equipment should be Equipment should be Equipment should be Equipment should be Equipment should allow When automation is Width and spacing of Equipment should be Investment decisions are
of the equipment. processes are done and operators from making any designed to help operators designed to allow operators designed to allow simple designed such that the designed to changeover access for routine service advantageous the stations / equipment should designed with the smallest largely dependent on how
Assignable causes are include assembly tasks and errors that will lead to a identify production to identify the correct and rapid service operations being performed quickly between different operations (lubrication, chip equipment should be be kept to a minimum to possible footprint to the system is designed.
those that cause the process plans for defective part. The disruptions immediately support resources needed operations. The simpler the at a station (either manual, products. Quick-change removal, coolant flush, etc.) designed to eliminate reduce operator walking minimize overhead cost. It Equipment should support
Comments

process to go out of control machining etc. The order equipment should prevent when they occur. It should to resolve problems when design of the machine, the automatic or a fixtures, one-touch from the rear to prevent waiting and minimize non distance. Equipment should not require special this design and have the
and may be: tool and type of operation and loading the wrong part or also be able to pinpoint the they occur. It should also simpler its maintenance. combination) can be equipment setups, and disrupting production value-adding tasks. should be designed such facilities (special power, flexibility for expected

and high process yields.

wear/breakage, bearing their impact on equipment incorrectly loading the right location and the exact convey sufficient The use of “off the shelf” completed in less than the quick changeover of activities. Access points Equipment allows operator that fixtures, tools and controlled temperature, volume changes, design
failures, etc. Equipment and system design must be part. Equipment will not nature of the problem. This information to allow the parts (easier to replace) takt time. material supply should be for different production to load a part, start the materials are located to clean room, large chip changes and layout
design should strive to considered. cycle if there is a problem. may be accomplished with support resources to and easy access to service considered. activities should be cycle and walk away, and minimize wasted operator removal systems, etc.) reconfiguration changes
maintain quality as lights, display screens or immediately start working locations also make a separate, as well as those the equipment unloads the motions. whenever possible. (cycle time/product flexible
opposed to just preventing other feedback systems. to resolve the production machine more easily for different service part automatically. & small/movable
breakdowns. disruption. serviceable. activities. machines)
# of defects per n parts Time between occurrence Time between Actual run size - target run Production time lost due % of operators’ time spent Investment over
# of defects per n parts # of defects per n parts Amount of time required Production cycle time - % of operators’ time spent
caused by human error of disruption and identification of what the size. Ratio of changeover to interference among on non value-adding tasks Facilities Cost production system
assignable to equipment assignable to the process to service equipment takt time on wasted motions
(not prevented by equip.) identification of what the disruption is and support time to takt time resources while waiting at a station lifecycle
disruption is resource understanding
Metrics

# of defects per n parts #, length of unplanned

assignable to operators what the disruption is equipment downtime

• FR-Q123 Ensure that operator human errors

# of defects per n parts with an assignable cause Time between occurrence and resolution of problems #, length of disruptions Inv. due to process delay Inv. due to run size delay % of time waiting on eq.
Process Capability % on-time deliveries Difference between mean throughput time and customers’ expected lead time % of op. time spent on wasted motions and waiting
Sales revenue Production Costs
Return on investment over system lifecycle

PSD do not translate to defects:

Motivation Mapping from MSD Decomposition Instructions Example of Evaluating a Column
FRs used as evaluation criteria Production System Design Laboratory
Ability to produce in sufficiently
This Equipment Evaluation Tool is based on the
Manufacturing System Design Decomposition v5.1
MSD Decomposition FRs affecting equipment design Steps: small run sizes Laboratory for Manufacturing and Productivity
(MSDD), which reflects the design of a Lean system 1. The system to be evaluated must be first 3/8ths of the equipment being considered Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and operation but not directly
as demonstrated by the Toyota Production System
evaluated (Evaluated using their
defined; it may be a single machine, a 1 can not be changed over at all and is
(TPS). This decomposition however, has identified series of machines or an entire cell, designed to run only a single part type. Prof. David S. Cochran 77 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, BUILDING 35-135

Equipment should prevent operators from making any

how each element of TPS integrates into a system to
parent FRs) product line, or entire plant. CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139
satisfy business goals. The requirements in the
MSDD that drive the design and operation of Definition of system:_____________ 2 PHONE: (617) 253-1811 FAX: (617) 258-7488
equipment have been identified and they are Production Investment 2. Evaluation is done column by column. If 1/8th of the equipment being considered
evaluated in terms of how well a single piece or
series of equipment satisfies these requirements. Facilities Cost a description matches a percentage of
the system, the percentage is indicated
3 has a changeover time long enough to
prevent frequent changeovers.
The objectives are to:
by filling in the appropriate portion of the One half of the equipment being considered
•Show how well equipment is designed and operated
4 Equipment Evaluation Tool

errors that will lead to a defective part. The equipment

Time Delay pie chart in box. A typical evaluation is has a changeover time of the same order of
(current status).
Quality Direct Labor
•Identify areas for improvement where the current shown to the right as an example. magnitude as the takt time.
Variation Reduction
equipment does not satisfy the objectives of the Deny D. Gomez, Daniel C. Dobbs, David S. Cochran
MSDD (current problems). 3. To make quantitative assessments, the
5
Criteria (FRs)

Eliminate Eliminate Ensure Rapidly Communic. Ensure that Ensure that Produce in Reduce Reduce Eliminate Minimize Minimize
metrics for each FR may be used.
Evaluation

•Indicate how equipment can satisfy the requirements machine method human recognize problems to equipment produc. rate sufficiently systematic time ops. wasted facilities production © MIT 2000
from the MSDD (future objectives). assignable assignable errors don’t production the right is easily is balanced small run operational spend tied motion of cost investment 4. As changes are implemented, the
6
•Provide a method to track the progress of DATE FILENAME PAGE OF PAGES
causes causes translate disruptions people serviceable with takt sizes delays to operators impact on the metrics and design

should prevent loading the wrong part or incorrectly

improvements to equipment design and operation. into defects time equipment evaluation may be tracked. February 14th 2000 Equipment Evaluation Tool.ppt 1 1

Figure 6: Equipment Evaluation Tool

6
 Equipment Evaluation Tool Based on The Manufacturing System Design Decomposition
The Third World Congress on Intelligent Manufacturing Processes & Systems
Cambridge, MA – June 28-30, 2000

loading a part. Equipment will not cycle if there is a products. Quick-change fixtures, one-touch equipment
problem. setups, and quick changeover of material supply should be
considered to reduce the changeover time.
Time Variation
• FR-T5 Reduce systematic operational delays:
The 3 FRs from the time variation branch on the Equipment should allow access for routine service
MSDD that influence equipment design are: operations (lubrication, chip removal, coolant flush, etc.)
from the rear of the station to prevent disrupting
• FR-R11 Rapidly recognize production production activities. Access points for different
disruptions: production activities should be separate.
Equipment should be designed to help operators identify
production disruptions immediately when they occur.
Equipment should also be able to pinpoint the location
and the exact nature of the problem. Lights, display
screens and other feedback systems help to recognize
production disruptions rapidly.

• FR-R12 Communicate problems to the right

people:
Equipment should be designed to allow operators to
identify the correct support resources needed to resolve
problems when they occur. Equipment should also
convey sufficient information to allow the support
resources to immediately start working to resolve the
production disruption.

• FR-P121 Ensure that equipment is easily

serviceable:
Equipment should be designed to allow simple and rapid
service operations. Ideally, equipment should be designed
to be as simple as possible, since the simpler the design of
the machine, the simpler its maintenance. Also,
equipment should strive to use “off the shelf” parts (easier
to replace) and easy access to service locations to make it
more easily serviceable.

Delay Reduction

The 3 FRs from the delay reduction branch on the

MSDD that affect equipment design are:

• FR-T22 Ensure that production cycle time is

balanced with takt time:
Equipment should be designed such that the operations
being performed at a station (either manual, automatic or a
combination) can be completed in less than the takt time.

• FR-T32 Produce in sufficiently small run

sizes:
Equipment should be designed to enable small run sizes;
therefore it should changeover quickly between different

7
 Equipment Evaluation Tool Based on The Manufacturing System Design Decomposition
The Third World Congress on Intelligent Manufacturing Processes & Systems
Cambridge, MA – June 28-30, 2000

Direct Labor MSDD affect equipment design and operation and which
physical characteristics the equipment should have to
The 2 FRs from the direct labor branch on the MSDD satisfy these requirements. The Equipment Evaluation
that influence equipment design are: Tool allows a qualitative evaluation of the equipment in a
gradient of 6 levels of achievement by comparing the
• FR-D11 Reduce time operators spend on non- physical attributes of the equipment to the descriptions
value added tasks at each station: under each one of the levels. The Equipment Evaluation
When automation is advantageous the equipment should Tool also allows a quantitative evaluation by using the
be designed to prevent tying the operator to the station performance metrics for each FR being assessed.
waiting for an automatic cycle to be completed. The
equipment should allow the operator to load a part, start The Equipment Evaluation Tool can be very valuable
the cycle and walk away, and the equipment will unload the to a manufacturing enterprise since it serves as a measure
part automatically when finished. of how well the current design and operation of
equipment supports the manufacturing system design.
• FR-D2 Eliminate wasted motion of operators: The tool can also be very useful in providing a guideline or
The width and spacing of stations/equipment should be set of objectives for the improvement of current
kept to a minimum to reduce the operators’walking equipment or the design of new equipment. Another
distance. Equipment should be designed such that application is to track the progress of a system as the
fixtures, tools and materials are located to minimize equipment design changes.
wasted operator motions.
It is important to note that although the authors have
made every attempt to make the concepts and descriptions
Facilities Cost and Production Investment in the Equipment Evaluation Tool general in nature, they
might not apply exactly to every industry or every
The 2 FRs from the facilities cost and production
manufacturing operation. When using the Equipment
investment branches on the MSDD that affect equipment
Evaluation Tool it might be useful to alter some of the
design are:
descriptions and/or metrics to suit the particular industry
or system under evaluation.
• FR123 Minimize facilities cost:
Equipment should be designed with the smallest possible
footprint to minimize overhead cost. It should not require REFERENCES
special facilities (special power, controlled temperature,
clean room, large chip removal systems, etc.) whenever Arinez, Jorge F. and David S. Cochran. “Application of a
possible. Production System Design Framework to Equipment
• FR13 Minimize investment over production Design”. Proceedings of the 32nd CIRP International
system lifecycle: Seminar on Manufacturing Systems. Leuven, Belgium,
Investment decisions are largely dependent on how the May 24-26, 1999.
system is designed. Equipment should support the system
design and have the flexibility for expected volume Carrus, Brandon J. and David S. Cochran. “Application of
changes, design changes and layout reconfiguration a Design Methodology for Production Systems”.
changes (cycle time/product flexible and small/movable Annals of the 2nd International Conference on
machines). Engineering Design and Automation. Maui, HI, July
1998.

SUMMARY Chu, Alex K. and David S. Cochran. “Measuring

Manufacturing System Design Effectiveness Based on
This paper presented an Equipment Evaluation Tool the Manufacturing System Design Decomposition”.
that can be used to assess how well the design and Proceedings of the Third World Congress on
operation of equipment within a manufacturing enterprise Intelligent Manufacturing Processes and Systems.
supports the manufacturing system design. The Cambridge, MA, June 28-30, 2000.
Equipment Evaluation Tool is based on the
Manufacturing System Design Decomposition v5.1 Cochran, David S. “The Production System Design and
(MSDD). It identifies which requirements from the Deployment Framework”. Proceedings of the 1999

8
 Equipment Evaluation Tool Based on The Manufacturing System Design Decomposition
The Third World Congress on Intelligent Manufacturing Processes & Systems
Cambridge, MA – June 28-30, 2000

SAE International Automotive Manufacturing

Conference. Detroit, MI, May 11-13, 1999.

Cochran, David S., Yong-Suk Kim and Jongyoon Kim.

“The Alignment of Performance Measurement with
the Manufacturing System Design”. Proceedings of
the First International Conference on Axiomatic
Design. Cambridge, MA, June 21-23, 2000.

Monden, Yasuhiro. Toyota Production System: An

Integrated Approach to Just In Time. 2nd ed.
Norcross, Georgia: Industrial Engineering and
Management Press, 1993.

Production System Design Laboratory, MIT.

Manufacturing System Design Decomposition v5.1.
Internal Document, 2000.

Shingo, Shigeo. A Study of the Toyota Production System

From an Industrial Engineering Viewpoint. Trans.
Andrew P. Dillon. Portland, Oregon: Productivity
Press, 1989.

Suh, Nam P. The Principles of Design. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1990.