Madson, K M; Franz, B; Molenaar, K R and Okudan Kremer, G (2020) Strategic development of flexible manufacturing facilities. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(6), pp. 1299-1314. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: This article addresses the lack of formal design guidance that supports flexibility within the architectural and engineered systems of manufacturing facilities through the development of a taxonomy and associated terminology. Design/methodology/approach: This research performed a comparative analysis of 15 manufacturing facilities located both within the United States (73 percent of cases) and internationally (27 percent of cases). These case studies provided details on how and where flexibility was incorporated into the design of a manufacturing facility. Specific consideration was given to the primary design features that enabled a decoupling of the facility from the manufacturing process. These design features were then clustered to identify main design strategies that enable flexibility. Findings: By grouping the design features together and creating a common vocabulary, three coherent design approaches for flexible facilities were identified, each having a different potential for responding to short-term and long-term changes. These include general purpose, scalable, and dedicated facilities. Research limitations/implications: By delineating three high-level strategies for early flexible facility design, this research synthesizes a conceptual understanding of flexibility with practical and implementable designs. This synthesis provides an incremental advance to a complex challenge for researchers. It also provides decision support to design teams by aiding in project definition, when flexibility is desirable. This research is primarily limited by the number of cases reviewed. With more cases, additional facility design strategies may be identified. Practical implications: The findings in this research allow for a basic understanding of how a flexible facility can be designed with only limited or vague information about the product and manufacturing processes contained within. The development of terminology associated with each facility design strategy provides standardization for the discussion and implementation of flexibility early in the design process. In doing so, flexible designs become easier to create and more efficient to implement. Originality/value: This research provides the first synthesized approach for considering flexible facility design strategies within the manufacturing sector.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | capital investment; case study; design management; feasibility; project delivery; taxonomy |
| Index terms: | standardization, implementation, taxonomy, project delivery, case study, manufacturing process, design management, methodology, United States, design strategy, decision support, design process, capital investment, design team, strategy, decoupling, comparative analysis |
| Subjects: | design methods, data collection methods, economic analysis, project delivery, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, professional practice, design process, Geography, research methods, performance measurement, manufacturing engineering, management, systems engineering, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Procurement, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here