Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An experimental investigation on the relationship between perceived assembly complexity and product design complexity

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Complexity is one of the main drivers inducing increased assembly cost, operational issues and increased lead time for product realisation, and continues to pose challenges to manual assembly operations. In the literature, assembly complexity is widely viewed from both objective and subjective perspectives. The objective perspective relates complexity directly to the characteristics of a process without accounting the characteristics of performers, whereas, subjective perspective considers complexity as a conjunction between process and performer characteristics. This article aims to investigate the link between perceived assembly complexity and product complexity by providing a prediction model relying on a series of natural experiments. In these experiments, the participants were asked to assemble a series of ball-and-stick models with varying degree of product complexity based on a clear 2D assembly work instruction. Complexity of each model was objectively estimated by considering structural properties associated with handling and insertion of assembly parts and their connectivity pattern. Moreover, perceived complexity is approached based on the subjective interpretations of the participants on the difficulty associated with the assembly operation of each model. The results showed that product complexity and assembly time is super-linearly correlated; an increase in the product complexity is accompanied with an increase in assembly time, rework rate and human errors. Moreover, a sigmoid curve is proposed for the relationship between perceived assembly complexity and product complexity indicating that human workers start to perceive assembly operation of a particular product as complex if the product complexity reaches a critical threshold which can vary among individuals with different skill sets, experience, training levels and assembly preferences.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Source: Alkan et al. [2]

Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmad, M., Alkan, B., Ahmad, B., Vera, D., Harrison, R., Meredith, J., Bindel, A.: The use of a complexity model to facilitate in the selection of a fuel cell assembly sequence. Proc. CIRP 44, 169–174 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alkan, B., Vera, D., Ahmad, B., Harrison, R.: A method to assess assembly complexity of industrial products in early design phase. IEEE Access 6, 989–999 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alkan, B., Vera, D., Ahmad, M., Ahmad, B., Harrison, R.: A lightweight approach for human factor assessment in virtual assembly designs: an evaluation model for postural risk and metabolic workload. Proc. CIRP 44, 26–31 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Alkan, B., Vera, D., Ahmad, M., Ahmad, B., Harrison, R.: A model for complexity assessment in manual assembly operations through predetermined motion time systems. Proc. CIRP 44, 429–434 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Alkan, B., Vera, D., Chinnathai, M.K., Harrison, R.: Assessing complexity of component-based control architectures used in modular automation systems. Int. J. Comput. Electr. Eng. 9(1), 393–402 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alkan, B., Vera, D.A., Ahmad, M., Ahmad, B., Harrison, R.: Complexity in manufacturing systems and its measures: a literature review. Eur. J. Ind. Eng. 12(1), 116–150 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bedny, G.Z., Karwowski, W., Bedny, I.S.: Complexity evaluation of computer-based tasks. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 28(4), 236–257 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J., Payne, J.W.: A componential analysis of cognitive effort in choice. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 45(1), 111–139 (1990)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bonner, S.E.: A model of the effects of audit task complexity. Account. Organ. Soc. 19(3), 213–234 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P.: Design for assembly (1984)

  11. Bystrom, K.E., Barfield, W.: Collaborative task performance for learning using a virtual environment. Presence Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 8(4), 435–448 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell, D.J.: Task complexity: a review and analysis. Acad. Manag. Rev. 13(1), 40–52 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chan, V., Salustri, F.A.: DFA: The Lucas Method, pp. 1–6. Ryerson University, Toronto (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chinnathai, M.K., Alkan, B., Harrison, R.: Convertibility evaluation of automated assembly system designs for high variety production. Proc. CIRP 60, 74–79 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. EIMaraghy, W.H., Urbanic, R.J.: Assessment of manufacturing operational complexity. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 53, 401–406 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Elmaraghy, W., Elmaraghy, H., Tomiyama, T., Monostori, L.: Complexity in engineering design and manufacturing. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 61(2), 793–814 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. ElMaraghy, W.H., Urbanic, R.J.: Modelling of manufacturing systems complexity. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 52, 363–366 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Falck, A., Örtengren, R., Rosenqvist, M.: Relationship between complexity in manual assembly work, ergonomics and assembly quality. In: NES2012 Ergonomics for Sustainability and Growth (2012)

  19. Falck, A.-C., Örtengren, R., Rosenqvist, M.: Relationship between complexity in manual assembly work, ergonomics and assembly quality. In: Ergonomics for Sustainability and Growth. NES 2012 (Nordiska Ergonomisällskapet) konferens, Saltsjöbaden, Stockholm, 19–22 augusti, 2012, number Book of abstracts. Abstract B4: 2 (2012)

  20. Falck, A.C., Rosenqvist, M.: What are the obstacles and needs of proactive ergonomics measures at early product development stages? An interview study in five Swedish companies. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 42(5), 406–415 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Falck, A.C., Rosenqvist, M.: A model for calculation of the costs of poor assembly ergonomics (part 1). Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 44(1), 140–147 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ham, D.H., Park, J., Jung, W.: Model-based identification and use of task complexity factors of human integrated systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 100, 33–47 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hinckley, C.M.: A global conformance quality model. A new strategic tool for minimizing defects caused by variation, error, and complexity. Stanford University. TH: Thesis (Ph.D.); PBD: Jan 1994 (1994)

  24. Hinckley, C.M.: Make No Mistake!: An Outcome-Based Approach to Mistake-Proofing. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2001)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Jacko, J.A., Salvendy, G.: Hierarchical menu design: breadth, depth, and task complexity. Perceptual Motor Skills 82(3), 1187–1201 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kinsner, W.: System complexity and its measures: how complex is complex. In: Wang, Y., Zhang, D., Kinsner, W. (eds.) Advances in Cognitive Informatics and Cognitive Computing, pp. 265–295. Springer, Berlin (2010)

  27. Li, K., Wieringa, P.A.: Understanding perceived complexity in human supervisory control. Cogn. Technol. Work 2(2), 75–88 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu, P., Li, Z.: Task complexity: a review and conceptualization framework. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 42(6), 553–568 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mattsson, S.: What is perceived as complex in final assembly? To define, measure and manage production Complexity. Ph.D. Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology (2013)

  30. Mattsson, S., Tarrar, M., Fast-Berglund, Å.: Perceived production complexity-understanding more than parts of a system. Int. J. Prod. Res. 54(20), 6008–6016 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. McDowd, J.M., Vercruyssen, M., Birren, J.E.: Aging, divides attention, and dual-task performance. In: Multiple-task Performance, pp. 387–414. Taylor & Francis, Pennsylvania (1991)

  32. Miyakawa, S., Ohashi, T.: The Hitachi assemblability evaluation method (AEM). In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Product ..., pp. 15–17 (1986)

  33. Nikiforov, V.: The energy of graphs and matrices. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 326(2), 1472–1475 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Park, J.: Complexity of proceduralized tasks (2009)

  35. Rouse, W.B., Rouse, S.H.: Measures of complexity of fault diagnosis tasks. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 9(11), 720–727 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Samy, S.N., ElMaraghy, H.: A model for measuring products assembly complexity. Int. J. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 23(11), 1015–1027 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Shibata, H., Cheldelin, B., Ishii, K.: Assembly quality methodology: a new method for evaluating assembly complexity in globally distributed manufacturing. Design Engineering 1–2, 335–344 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sinha, K.: Structural complexity and its implications for design of cyber-physical systems. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2014)

  39. Sinha, K., de Weck, O.L.: Structural complexity metric for engineered complex systems and its application. In: Gain Competitive Advantage by Managing Complexity: Proceedings of the 14th International DSM Conference Kyoto, Japan, pp. 181–194 (2012)

  40. Su, Q., Liu, L., Whitney, D.E.: A systematic study of the prediction model for operator-induced assembly defects based on assembly complexity factors. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A Syst. Hum. 40(1), 107–120 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wood, R.E.: Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 37(1), 60–82 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zaeh, M.F., Wiesbeck, M., Stork, S., Schubö, A.: A multi-dimensional measure for determining the complexity of manual assembly operations. Prod. Eng. 3(4–5), 489–496 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Zhu, X., Hu, S.J., Koren, Y., Marin, S.P., Huang, N.: Sequence planning to minimize complexity in mixed-model assembly lines. In: IEEE International Symposium on Assembly and Manufacturing, 2007. ISAM’07, pp. 251–258. IEEE, Washington (2007)

  44. Zigurs, I., Buckland, B.K.: A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems. MIS Q. 22(3), 313–334 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. WMG, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

    Bugra Alkan

Authors
  1. Bugra Alkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bugra Alkan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alkan, B. An experimental investigation on the relationship between perceived assembly complexity and product design complexity. Int J Interact Des Manuf 13, 1145–1157 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00556-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00556-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation