An Action Effectiveness Measure for Manufacturing Process Performance

  • Suman Devadula
  • K.  Ramani
  • Praveen Uchil
  • Srinivas Kota
  • Monto Mani
  • Amaresh Chakrabarti
Conference paper

Abstract

The diversity in manufacturing processes has resulted in different kinds of performance measures that suit specific purposes. Performance measures amenable to comparing process alternatives are essential to characterize manufacturing performance. The comparison of process alternatives is increasingly being subjected to broader considerations, like environment and society. This requires a measure amenable to be considered under different perspectives. On analyzing the life cycle processes of a wooden-graphite pencil from a producer’s perspective a generic performance measure of ‘resource-use effectiveness’ is arrived at. Interpretations of the measure under different scenarios and perspectives are presented.

Keywords

Clay Graphite Stake Harness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contribution of The Boeing Company for providing financial support under contract PC36018 at SID, IISc.

References

  1. 1.
    EuP Directive (2005) Establishing a framework for the setting of energy requirements for energy using products. s.l.: European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kara S, Li W (2011) Unit process energy consumption models for material removal processes. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 60:37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patterson MG (1996) What is energy efficiency? Concepts, issues and methodological issues. Energy Policy 24:377–390Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gavankar S, Geyer R (2010) The rebound effect: state of the debate and implications for energy efficiency research. Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, Santa BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meyer MW (2002) Rethinking performance measurement. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hon KKB (2005) Performance and evaluation of manufacturing systems. CIRP Ann 54(2):139–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schlossberg E (1977) For my father [book auth.] In: Brockman J (ed) About Bateson. Dutton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the role of triple bottom line in 21st century business. Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford, p 416. ISBN: 9781900961271Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Azzone G et al (1997) A stakeholders’ view of environmental reporting. Long Range Plan 30:699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Olsthoorn X et al (2001) Using environmental indicators for business—a literature review and the need for standardisation and aggregation of data. J Clean Prod 9:453–463Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Measuring Environmental Performance of Industry. MEPI [Online] [Cited: 3 Dec 2000]. http://www.environmental-performance.org
  12. 12.
    Neely A (2002) Business performance measurement: theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 380. ISBN: 978-0521803427Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suman Devadula
    • 1
  • K.  Ramani
    • 1
  • Praveen Uchil
    • 1
  • Srinivas Kota
    • 1
  • Monto Mani
    • 1
  • Amaresh Chakrabarti
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Product Design and ManufacturingBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations