A Systematic Basis to Manufacturing

  • G. G. Rogers


The paper reviews the manufacturing improvements that can result from adopting Design for Manufacture (DFM) procedures. However implementing DFM is often difficult and it is concluded that if the full benefits of design for function and production are to be achieved then a truly scientific (systematic) approach to production is required. With this objective in mind the paper discusses the benefits that result from adopting modular approaches to product and production machine design. The Modular Production Systems (MPS) concept is outlined and the potential benefits of this approach are discussed. In particular it is noted that if the MPS philosophy were to be fully adopted it could provide a route to truly simultaneous design and manufacture. However to implement the concept requires numerous technologies, tools and new design methods to be developed. A summary of the work at the University of Hull regarding knowledge-based tools for modular actuator machine design is given.


  1. 1.
    Gladman, C.A. (1968) Design for Production. Annals of CIRP 16, pp 3–10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boothroyd et al (1978) Design for Economic Manufacture, Research Report Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, USA.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whitney D. (1988) Manufacturing by Design, Harvard Business Review, July–Augus, p 83–91.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Swift K.G. (1987) Knowledge-based design for manufacture, Kogan-Page.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salzberg S. & Watkins M. (1990) Managing Information for Concurrent Engineering: Challenges and Barriers, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 2, No 1.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Whitney D. (1990) Designing the design process, Research in Engineering Design, 2:3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shina S. (1991) Special report: Concurrent Engineering, IEEE Spectrum, July, pp 22–37.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dewhurst P. & Boothroyd G. (1983) Computer Aided Design for Assembly, Assembly Engineering, February, pp 18–22.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Voelker H. & Requicha A. (1977) Geometric Modelling of Mechanical Parts and Processes, Computer, Vol. 10, No. 12, pp 48–57.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andreasen, M, Kahler S. & Lund T. (1983) Design for Assembly, IFS Publications.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riley, F.J. (1982) The Use of Modular Flexible Assembly Systems as a Half-Way Path Between Special Design and Robots, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Assembly Automation, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stoll H.S. (1986) Design for manufacture: An Overview, ASME Applied Mechanics Reviews, Vol. 39, No 9. September pp 1356–64.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Merchant, E. (1985) The Importance of Flexible Manufacturing Systems to the Realisation of Full Computer Integrated Manufacturing, In “Flexible Manufacturing Systems”, Ed. Warnecke, H.J., IFS (Publications) Ltd. & Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chandler C. (1992) Machines which aid manual assembly, Engineering Designer, Jan/Feb. pp 23–24.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogers G.G. (1990) Modular Production Systems; A control scheme for actuators, PhD Thesis, Loughborough University.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers G.G. (1993) Modular Production Systems: A Concurrent Manufacturing Philosophy, IEEE International Conf. on Robotics and Automation, May 2–7 (to be published)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’Meara R. (1992) A Knowledge-based CAD system for the automated selection of actuators, MSc thesis, University of Hull, UK.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hatzimihail I. (1992) Language for definition and analysis of a manipulator, MSc thesis, University of Hull, UK.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. G. Rogers
    • 1
  1. 1.University of HullUK

Personalised recommendations