Conventional FMS Performance System Pessi- | Most | Opt € Performance | mistic | Likely | mistic ichine tepends 50 35 20 5 chine isa part 50 65 80 95 ne that ing on the 70 3s 21 7 ne when worked rackins 30 65 79 93 ‘ad time Smee 95 92.5 90 85 cad time codiiog 5 1S 10 15No. oF Fatty facturing Levelof | inProduct | Average Lot n Flexibility Family Size Low 12 7,000 & Up Medium 3-10 1,000-10,000 ndom FMS | Medium 4-50 30-2,000 Sell Medium | 30-500 20-500 Machine High 200 & Up 1-50 of the questions raised in this analysis with respect to the installation who should do it, when it should be done, and what the s of final users are. For instance, Klahorst (1981) argues that since AS project value is related to machines, industrial engineers are the Je who should be involved in the process of FMS design and om the start. ‘The circumstances under which FMS should be installed significant factors. According to Klahorst (1981), FMS should be r the following situations: hen part size and mass exceed “jib crane” standards, hen production volume is in excess of two parts per hour. hen processing needs more than two machine types to complete a ork piece. hen more than five machines are required. hen phased implementation is planned so that material handling visions can be considered in the initial phases and bad habits can be voided from the start. 'n is that the more of the above conditions exist, the more incentive nsforming a conventional system into an FMS.rous reports and case histories about the installation of FMSs. te statistics about the application of these systems are difficult to ning the extent of FMS installations throughout the machine-tool a clear-cut task and entails many confounding issues both nethodologically Ranky, 1983]. + these impediments, a number of trade and professional journals 2s of FMS installation and experiences gained through them. Some vn firms where either partial or complete FMSs have been installed ral include: sral Electric, csall Milling Machine Company, s Pontiac Division and Satu plant and locomotive plant in Erie, sylvania, sler’s Toronto plant, ac’ s Livonia engine plant, *s Sterling Heights transmission and chassis-axle plant, s Buick City, aes aircraft plant in El Segundo, California, and Whitney's plant in Columbus GA, and 1 Bradley. What could be generalized from the reports on FMS is that in almost all cases there have been reported improvements in quality, reductions in labor and inventory costs, and increased responsiveness to the changes in the market place. ‘An interesting report by Kaku (1992) indicates that a number of installed FMSs are “‘under-utilized” in the sense that the flexibility inherent in the systems installed are being used. The author, in his visit to eight establishments with installed and running FMS, only a few were utilizing the full “flexibility” of their system and the rest used the FMS as a dedicated transfer line, Cooperative and close relationship with the suppliers has already been discussed as a main factor in successful FMS implementation. Several case studies point to the signs that suppliers of FMS are more welcome now when they approach potential clients than a few years ago. In a round-table discussion reported by Dallas (1984), all participants agreed that FMS would succeed if: