Economic and Strategic Justification of Changeable, Reconfigurable and Flexible Manufacturing

  • O. Kuzgunkaya
  • Hoda A. ElMaraghy
Part of the Springer Series in Advanced Manufacturing book series (SSAM)


The evolving characteristic of changeable manufacturing systems requires design and assessment techniques that consider both the strategic and financial criteria and incorporate the reconfiguration aspects as well as fluctuations in the demand over the planned system life cycle. The economic evaluation approaches to reconfigurable and flexible manufacturing systems have been reviewed. A fuzzy multi-objective mixed integer optimization model for evaluating investments in reconfigurable manufacturing systems used in a multiple product demand environment is presented. The model incorporates in-house production and outsourcing options, machine acquisition and disposal costs, operational costs, and re-configuration cost and duration for modular machines. The resulting configurations are optimized by considering life-cycle costs, responsiveness performance, and system structural complexity simultaneously. The overall model is illustrated with a case study where FMS and RMS implementations were compared. System configurations generated from the proposed model are simulated to compare the life-cycle costs of FMS and RMS. The suitable conditions for RMS investments have been discussed.


Manufacturing System Fuzzy Membership Function Machine Type Demand Scenario Real Option Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdi MR, Labib AW (2004) Feasibility study of the tactical design justification for reconfigurable manufacturing systems using the fuzzy analytical hierarchical process. Int J Prod Res 42:3055–3076zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdel-Malek L, Wolf C (1994) Measuring the impact of lifecycle costs, technological obsolescence, and flexibility in the selection of FMS design. J Manuf Syst 13(1):37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amico M., Asl F., Pasek Z., Perrone G., 2003, Real Options: an application to RMS Investment Evaluation. CIRP 2nd Conference on RMS, Ann Arbor, MI, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellman RE, Zadeh LA (1970) Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manage Sci 17:141–164CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. ElMaraghy H.A., 2006, A~complexity code for manufacturing systems. In: Proceedings of 2006 ASME Int. Conf. on Manufacturing Science and Engineering (MSEC), Symposium on Advances in Process & System Planning, Ypsilani, MI, USA, 8--11 October 2006Google Scholar
  6. ElMaraghy HA (2005) Flexible and reconfigurable manufacturing systems paradigms. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, 17(4):261-276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ElMaraghy HA, Kuzgunkaya O, Urbanic RJ (2005) Manufacturing systems configuration complexity. CIRP Annals 54(1):445–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gindy NN, Saad SM (1998) Flexibility and responsiveness of machining environments. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 9(4):218–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koren Y, Heisel U, Jovane F, Moriwaki T, Pritschow G, Ulsoy G, Van Brussel H (1999) Reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Ann CIRP 48(2):527–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kuzgunkaya O, ElMaraghy HA (2006) Assessing the structural complexity of manufacturing systems configurations. Int J Flex Manuf Syst 18(2):145–171zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lotfi V (1995) Implementing flexible automation: a multiple criteria decision making approach. Int J Prod Economics 38:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Matson JB, McFarlane D (1999) Assessing the responsiveness of existing production operations. Int J Oper Prod Manage 19(8):765–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rajagopalan S, Singh MR, Morton TE (1998) Capacity expansion and replacement in growing markets with uncertain technological breakthroughs. Manage Sci 44(1):12–30zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Spicer JP (2002) A design methodology for scalable machining systems. PhD dissertation, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  15. Suresh NC (1992) A Generalized multimachine replacement model for flexible automation investments. IIE Trans 24(2):131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Van Hop N (2004) Approach to measure the mix response flexibility of manufacturing systems. Int J Prod Res 42(7):1407–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Visionary Manufacturing Challenges For 2020 (1998) National Academy Press Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Wiendahl HP, ElMaraghy HA, Nyhuis P, Zah MF, Wiendahl H-H, Duffie N, Kolakowski M (2007) Changeable manufacturing—classification, design and operation. CIRP Annals, Manuf Technol 56(2):783-809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wiendahl H.P., Heger C.L., 2003, Justifying Changeability. A Methodical approach to Achieving Cost Effectiveness. CIRP 2nd Conf on RMS, Ann Arbor, MI, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. Yan P., Zhou M., Caudill R., 2000, A lifecycle engineering approach to FMS development. In: Proc. of IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation. San Francisco, CA, pp 395--400Google Scholar
  21. Zhang G., Glardon R., 2001, An Analytical Comparison on Cost and Performance among DMS, AMS, FMS, and RMS. 1st Conf. on Agile Reconfigurable Manufacturing 21.--22. May Ann Arbor, MI, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer London 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Kuzgunkaya
    • 1
  • Hoda A. ElMaraghy
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Systems EngineeringUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations