Assessing the operational and economic efficiency benefits of dynamic manufacturing networks through fuzzy cognitive maps: a case study

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The formation and effective end-to-end management of manufacturing networks is touted as a top priority for manufacturing enterprises that strive to improve the efficiency, adaptability and sustainability of their production systems. Due to their potential benefits, Dynamic Manufacturing Networks (DMNs), a knowledge-enhanced, model-based production management approach enabling seamless communication and cooperation among individual network members’ manufacturing systems, are gradually becoming a focal point of attention. Nevertheless, current understanding around the DMN concept remains fuzzy, whereas the way in which it can benefit manufacturing enterprises lacks proper articulation. This paper clarifies the management approach of Dynamic Manufacturing Networks on the basis of the DMN lifecycle and the respective information model used, while it further develops a model for their evaluation. In this respect, it employs the soft computing methodology of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps to capture industry laypeople perceptions on the factors that affect their operation, and to reveal insights on prospective benefits. Application of this model in a real-world, multi-site, single factory context in the semi-conductor industry provides good approximations of the experts’ estimations. The results, found in the directions of reduced cycle times, decreased costs and improved quality are quite promising and highlight the key role of the DMN information model. The assessment model designed enables to reason on and identify DMN gains. Thereby, it provides a basis for communication as well as a decision aid that offers evidence on the outcomes of establishing DMNs, ultimately creating a sense of confidence, before an enterprise commits its resources to it.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    In particular, the Partner, Product and Quality Assurance components of it.

References

  1. Agostinho C, Ducq Y, Zacharewicz G, Sarraipa J, Lampathaki F, Poler R, Jardim-Goncalves R (2016) Towards a sustainable interoperability in networked enterprise information systems: trends of knowledge and model-driven technology. Comput Ind 79:64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.07.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Camarinha-Matos LM, Afsarmanesh H (2005) Collaborative networks: a new scientific discipline. J Intell Manuf 16(4):439–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-005-1656-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Camarinha-Matos LM, Afsarmanesh H (2007) A comprehensive modeling framework for collaborative networked organizations. J Intell Manuf 18(5):529–542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-007-0063-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Camarinha-Matos LM, Afsarmanesh H, Galeanoc N, Molinac A (2009) Collaborative networked organizations – Concepts and practice in manufacturing enterprises. Comput Ind Eng 57(1):46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2008.11.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chituc CM, Nof S (2007) The Join/Leave/Remain (JLR) decision in collaborative networked organizations. Comput Ind Eng 53(1):173–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.05.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chryssolouris G, Papakostas N, Mavrikios D (2008) A perspective on manufacturing strategy: produce more with less. CIRP JMST 1(1):45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2008.06.008

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chytas P, Glykas M, Valiris G (2011) A proactive balanced scorecard. Int J Inform Manag 31(5):460–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gomes-Casseres B (2003) Competitive advantages in alliance constellations. Strateg Organ 1(3):327–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270030013003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hammer M, Champy J (1993) Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Iakovidis DK, Papageorgiou E (2011) Intuitionistic fuzzy cognitive maps for medical decision making. IEEE T Inf Technol B 15(1):100–107. https://doi.org/10.1109/TITB.2010.2093603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. ISA (2010) ANSI/ISA-95.00.01-2010 (IEC 62264-1 Mod) Enterprise-Control System Integration - Part 1: Models and Terminology. https://www.isa.org/store/products/product-detail/?productId=116636

  12. ISA (2013) ANSI/ISA-95.00.03-2013 Enterprise-Control System Integration - Part 3: Activity Models of Manufacturing Operations Management. https://www.isa.org/store/products/product-detail/?productId=116782

  13. Jardim-Goncalves R, Sarraipa J, Agostinho C, Panetto H (2011) Knowledge framework for intelligent manufacturing systems. J Intell Manuf 22(5):725–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-009-0332-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jardim-Goncalves R, Grilo A, Popplewell K (2016) Novel strategies for global manufacturing systems interoperability. J Intell Manuf 27(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-014-0948-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kaplan RS, Norton D (1992) The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus Rev 70(1):71–79

    Google Scholar 

  16. Koren Y (2010) Business models for global manufacturing enterprises. In: Koren Y (ed) The global manufacturing revolution: product-process-business integration and reconfigurable systems. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 281–314

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kosko B (1986) Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Man Mach Stud 24(1):65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(86)80040-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kosko B (1992) Neural networks and fuzzy systems: a dynamical systems approach to machine intelligence. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  19. Laureano-Cruces AL, Ramírez-Rodríguez J, Terán-Gilmore A (2004) Evaluation of the teaching-learning process with fuzzy cognitive maps. In: Lemaître C, Reyes CA, González JA (eds) Advances in artificial intelligence—IBERAMIA 2004. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3315. Springer, Berlin, pp 922–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-30498-2_92

    Google Scholar 

  20. MESA International. Business to Manufacturing Markup Language (B2MML). http://www.mesa.org/en/B2MacmML.asp

  21. Morris H (2002) Balanced Scorecard Report: insight. Experience and Ideas for Strategy-focused Organisations, Harvard Business School Publishing 4(1):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nikas A, Doukas H (2016) Developing robust climate policies: a fuzzy cognitive map approach. In: Doumpos M, Zopounidis C, Grigoroudis E (eds) Robustness analysis in decision aiding, optimization, and analytics. International series in operations research and management science, vol 241. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33121-8_11

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nikas A, Ntanos E, Doukas H (2019) A semi-quantitative modelling application for assessing energy efficiency strategies. Appl Soft Comput 76:140–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2018.12.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Open Applications Group Open Applications Group Integration Specification. http://www.oagi.org/oagis/9.0/

  25. O’Sullivan D, Rolstadås A, Filos E (2011) Global education in manufacturing strategy. J Intell Manuf 22(5):663–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-009-0326-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Papageorgiou EI, Salmeron JL (2014) Methods and Algorithms for Fuzzy Cognitive Map-based Modeling. In: Papageorgiou EI (ed) Fuzzy cognitive maps for applied sciences and engineering. Intelligent systems reference library. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  27. Papageorgiou E, Stylios CD (2008) Fuzzy cognitive maps. In: Pedrycz W, Skowron A, Kreinovich V (eds) Handbook of granular computing. Wiley, Chichester, pp 755–774

    Google Scholar 

  28. Papageorgiou EI, Spyridonos P, Ravazoula P, Stylios CD, Groumpos PP, Nikiforidis G (2006) Advanced soft computing diagnosis method for tumor grading. Artif Intell Med 36(1):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2005.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Papakostas N, Efthymiou K, Georgoulias K, Chryssolouris G (2012) On the configuration and planning of dynamic manufacturing networks. Logist Res 5(3):105–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12159-012-0086-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Poluha RG (2007) Application of the SCOR model in supply chain management. Cambria Press, Youngstown

    Google Scholar 

  31. Saint Germain B, Valckenaers P, Van Belle J, Verstraete P, Van Brissel H (2012) Incorporating trust in networked production systems. J Intell Manuf 23(6):2635–2646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-011-0597-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Seifert RW, Langenberg KU (2011) Managing business dynamics with adaptive supply chain portfolios. Eur J Oper Res 215(3):551–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.06.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Stark J (2011) Product lifecycle management: 21st century paradigm for product realisation. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  34. STEP Tools Inc. The STEP Standard - ISO 10303. http://www.steptools.com/library/standard/

  35. Stylios CD, Groumpos PP (2004) Modelling complex systems using fuzzy cognitive maps. IEEE T Syst Man Cy A 34(1):155–162. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2003.818878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Supply Chain Council (2010) Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model Overview. Version 10.0, Supply Chain Council, United States

  37. Tao F, Cheng Y, Zhang L, Nee AYC (2017) Advanced manufacturing systems: socialization characteristics and trends. J Intell Manuf 28(5):1079–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1042-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Taticchi P, Cagnazzo L, Beach R, Barber K (2012) A management framework for organisational networks: a case study. J Manuf Technol Manag 23(5):593–614. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381211234426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tsadiras AK (2008) Comparing the inference capabilities of binary, trivalent and sigmoid fuzzy cognitive maps. Inform Sci 178(20):3880–3894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2008.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Viswanadham N, Gaonkar RS (2003) Partner selection and synchronized planning in dynamic manufacturing networks. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 19(1):117–130. https://doi.org/10.1109/TRA.2002.805659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Westphal I, Thoben KD, Seifert MJ (2010) Managing collaboration performance to govern virtual organizations. J Intell Manuf 21(3):311–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-008-0182-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has been supported by the EC 7th Framework Programme under the project “IMAGINE—Innovative end-to-end management of Dynamic Manufacturing Networks” Grant Agreement Νο. 285132.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ourania Markaki.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Markaki, O., Askounis, D. Assessing the operational and economic efficiency benefits of dynamic manufacturing networks through fuzzy cognitive maps: a case study. Oper Res Int J (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-019-00488-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dynamic manufacturing networks
  • End-to-end management
  • Fuzzy cognitive maps
  • Operational efficiency
  • Economic efficiency
  • Benefits