Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Many capital good firms deliver products that are not strictly one-off, but instead share a certain degree of similarity with other deliveries. In the delivery of the product, they aim to balance stability and variety in their product design and processes. The issue of engineering change plays an important in how they manage to do so. Our aim is to gain more understanding into how capital good firms manage engineering change, design variety and process variety, and into the role of the product delivery strategies they thereby use. Product delivery strategies are defined as the type of engineering work that is done independent of an order and the specification freedom the customer has in the remaining part of the design. Based on the within-case and cross-case analysis of two capital good firms several mechanisms for managing engineering change, design variety and process variety are distilled. It was found that there exist different ways of (1) managing generic design information, (2) isolating large engineering changes, (3) managing process variety, (4) designing and executing engineering change processes. Together with different product delivery strategies these mechanisms can be placed within an archetypes framework of engineering change management. On one side of the spectrum capital good firms operate according to open product delivery strategies, have some practices in place to investigate design reuse potential, isolate discontinuous engineering changes into the first deliveries of the product, employ ‘probe and learn’ process management principles in order to allow evolving insights to be accurately executed and have informal engineering change processes. On the other side of the spectrum capital good firms operate according to a closed product delivery strategy, focus on prevention of engineering changes based on design standards, need no isolation mechanisms for discontinuous engineering changes, have formal process management practices in place and make use of closed and formal engineering change procedures. The framework should help managers to (1) analyze existing configurations of product delivery strategies, product and process designs and engineering change management and (2) reconfigure any of these elements according to a ‘misfit’ derived from the framework. Since this is one of the few in-depth empirical studies into engineering change management in the capital good sector, our work adds to the understanding on the various ways in which engineering change can be dealt with

Metaheuristics for single and multiple objectives production scheduling for the capital goods industry

In the capital goods industry, companies produce plant and machinery that is used to produce consumer products or commodities such as electricity or gas. Typical products produced in these companies include steam turbines, large boilers and oil rigs. Scheduling of these products is difficult due to the complexity of the product structure, which involves many levels of assembly and long complex routings of many operations which are operated in multiple machines. There are also many scheduling constraints such as machine capacity as well as operation and assembly precedence relationships. Products manufactured in the capital goods industry are usually highly customised in order to meet specific customer requirements. Delivery performance is a particularly important aspect of customer service and it is common for contracts to include severe penalties for late deliveries. Holding costs are incurred if items are completed before the due date. Effective planning and inventory control are important to ensure that products are delivered on time and that inventory costs are minimised. Capital goods companies also give priority to resource utilisation to ensure production efficiency. In practice there are tradeoffs between achieving on time delivery, minimising inventory costs whilst simultaneously maximising resource utilisation. Most production scheduling research has focused on job-shops or flow-shops which ignored assembly relationships. There is a limited literature that has focused on assembly production. However, production scheduling in capital goods industry is a combination of component manufacturing (using jobbing, batch and flow processes), assembly and construction. Some components have complex operations and routings. The product structures for major products are usually complex and deep. A practical scheduling tool not only needs to solve some extremely large scheduling problems, but also needs to solve these problems within a realistic time. Multiple objectives are usually encountered in production scheduling in the capital goods industry. Most literature has focused on minimisation of total flow time, or makespan and earliness and tardiness of jobs. In the capital goods industry, inventory costs, delivery performance and machine utilisation are crucial competitive. This research develops a scheduling tool that can successfully optimise these criteria simultaneously within a realistic time. ii The aim of this research was firstly to develop the Enhanced Single-Objective Genetic Algorithm Scheduling Tool (ESOGAST) to make it suitable for solving very large production scheduling problems in capital goods industry within a realistic time. This tool aimed to minimise the combination of earliness and lateness penalties caused by early or late completion of items. The tool was compared with previous approaches in literature and was proved superior in terms of the solution quality and the computational time. Secondly, this research developed a Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm Scheduling Tool (MOGAST) that was based upon the development of ESOGAST but was able to solve scheduling problems with multiple objectives. The objectives of this tool were to optimise delivery performance, minimise inventory costs, and maximise resource utilisation simultaneously. Thirdly, this research developed an Artificial Immune System Scheduling Tool (AISST) that achieved the same objective of the ESOGAST. The performances of both tools were compared and analysed. Results showed that AISST performs better than ESOGAST on relatively small scheduling problems, but the computation time required by the AISST was several times longer. However ESOGAST performed better than the AISST for larger problems. Optimum configurations were identified in a series of experiments that conducted for each tool. The most efficient configuration was also successfully applied for each tool to solve the full size problem and all three tools achieved satisfactory results.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

2000b) An analysis of company structure and business processes in the capital goods industry in the UK

Abstract—This work is based on a study of capital goods suppliers to the power generation and distribution, materials handling, and offshore industries. Business processes are project-based and interdependent. They include sales, marketing, tendering, engineering, manufacturing, procurement, assembly, and commissioning. A model is presented which groups these processes into three categories: nonphysical, physical, and support processes. Capital goods companies have dynamic and evolving structures, aggregating processes in ways which seek to exploit new and changing markets. The model provides a mechanism for describing and analyzing structures. The combination of structural, process, and operational perspectives offers a framework for the analysis of capital goods companies. Index Terms—Business processes, capital goods. I