Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling impact of choice complexity on production rate in mixed-model assembly system

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The increasing variety of products complicates the mixed-model assembly process and affected the mixed-model assembly system in terms of product quality and productivity. Choice complexity comes from the process of making choices for various assembly operations due to the product variety and impacts production rate which is the performance measure of the system. The choice complexity is measured with information entropy, and the relational expression between choice complexity and error rate is analyzed by means of those research finds on average reaction time and speed-accuracy trade-off. The main achievement of our study is establishing an artificial neural network meta-model for the impact of choice complexity on production rate. The meta-model performs better than a multiple linear regression meta-model in terms of experiment results and appears to be the optimal model of the impact of choice complexity on production rate in the mixed-model assembly system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fisher ML, Jain A, Macduffie JP (1995) In: Bowman EH, Kogut BM (eds) Strategies for product variety: lessons from the auto industry. Redesigning the Firm, Chap. 6. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher ML, Ittner CD (1999) The impact of product variety on automobile assembly operations: empirical evidence and simulation. Manag Sci 45(6):771–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Niimi A, Matsudaira Y (1997) Development of a vehicle assembly line at Toyota: worker-orientated, autonomous, new assembly system. In: Shimokawa K, Jurgens U, Fujimoto T (eds) Transforming automobile assembly: experience in automation and work organization. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  4. Benders J, Morita M (2004) Changes in Toyota motors’ operations management. Int J Prod Res 42(3):433–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. MacDuffie JP, Sethuraman K, Fisher ML (1996) Product variety and manufacturing performance: evidence from the international automotive assembly plant study. Manag Sci 42(3):350–369

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Fujimoto H, Ahmed A, Iida Y, Hanai M (2003) Assembly process design for managing manufacturing complexities because of product varieties. Int J Flex Manuf Syst 15(4):283–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deshmukh AV, Talavage JJ, Barash MM (1998) Complexity in manufacturing systems, part 1: analysis of static complexity. IIE Trans 30(7):645–655

    Google Scholar 

  8. Araz OU, Eski O, Araz C (2008) Determining the parameters of dual-card kanban system: an integrated multicriteria and artificial neural network methodology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 38:965–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Anvari M, Mehrabad MS, Azadeh A, Saberi M (2010) Performance assessment of decision-making units using an adaptive neural network algorithm: one period case. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 46:1059–1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Azadeh A, Moghaddam M, Geranmayeh P, Naghavi A (2010) A flexible artificial neural network–fuzzy simulation algorithm for scheduling a flow shop with multiple processors. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 50:699–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tseng MM, Jiao J (1996) Design for mass customization. CIRP Ann 45(1):153–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Cheldelin B, Ishii K (2004) Mixed model assembly quality: an approach to prevent human errors. In: 2004 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE), Anaheim, CA, November 13–19, vol. 117. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, pp 109–19

  14. Hick WE (1952) On the rate of gain of information. J Exp Psychol 4:11–26

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hyman R (1953) Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. J Exp Psychol 45:188–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wickelgren WA (1977) Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychol 41:67–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang H, Jiang Z, Guo C (2009) Simulation-based optimization of dispatching rules for semiconductor wafer fabrication system scheduling by the response surface methodology. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 41:110–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Huanmin Xu, Li D (2006) A meta-modeling paradigm of the manufacturing resources using mathematical logic for process planning. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 36:1022–1031

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sabuncuoglu I, Touhami S (2002) Simulation metamodeling with neural networks: an experimental investigation. Int J Prod Res 40:2483–2505

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen MC, Yang T (2002) Design of manufacturing systems by a hybrid approach with neural network metamodeling and stochastic local search. Int J Prod Res 40:71–92

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Kearns M (1996) A bound on the error of cross validation using the approximation and estimation rates, with consequences for the training-test split. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 8. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 183–189

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lee SS, Chen JC (2003) On-line surface roughness recognition system using artificial neural networks system in turning operations. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 22:498–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Moody JE, Rögnvaldsson T (1997) Smoothing regularizers for projective basis function networks. Adv Neural Inform Process Syst 9:585–591

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kleijnen J (1979) Regression metamodels for generalizing simulation results. IEEE Trans Sys Man Cybernet 9:93–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The State Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacturing Equipment and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China

    Kunpeng Wang, Yunqing Rao & Mengchang Wang

Authors
  1. Kunpeng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yunqing Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mengchang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yunqing Rao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, K., Rao, Y. & Wang, M. Modeling impact of choice complexity on production rate in mixed-model assembly system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 59, 1181–1189 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3530-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3530-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation