You are on page 1of 10

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401

and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Robotics and

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rcim

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rcim Conceptual process planning – an improvement approach

Conceptual process planning – an improvement approach using QFD, FMEA, and ABC methods

Alaa Hassan a,b, n , Ali Siadat a , Jean-Yves Dantan a , Patrick Martin a

a LCFC Laboratory, Arts et Me´ tiers ParisTech, 4 rue Augustin Fresnel, 57078 Metz, France b Mechatronic Engineering Department, HISAT, Barza, Damascus, Syria

article info

Article history:

Received 16 July 2008 Received in revised form 13 November 2009 Accepted 2 December 2009

Keywords:

Process planning

QFD

FMEA

ABC

abstract

Conceptual process planning (CPP) is an important technique for assessing the manufacturability and estimating the cost of conceptual design in the early product design stage. This paper presents an approach to develop a quality/cost-based conceptual process planning (QCCPP). This approach aims to determine key process resources with estimation of manufacturing cost, taking into account the risk cost associated to the process plan. It can serve as a useful methodology to support the decision making during the initial planning stage of the product development cycle. Quality function deployment (QFD) method is used to select the process alternatives by incorporating a capability function for process elements called a composite process capability index (CCP). The quality characteristics and the process elements in QFD method have been taken as input to complete process failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) table. To estimate manufacturing cost, the proposed approach deploys activity-based costing (ABC) method. Then, an extended technique of classical FMEA method is employed to estimate the cost of risks associated to the studied process plan, this technique is called cost-based FMEA. For each resource combination, the output data is gathered in a selection table that helps for detailed process planning in order to improve product quality/cost ratio. A case study is presented to illustrate this approach.

Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

The major manufacturing cost is determined in the early stages of product development. It is critical to be able to assess quality and cost as early as possible in the product development cycle. Conceptual process planning (CPP) is an activity for designers to evaluate manufacturability and manufacturing cost in the early product development stage [1] . This paper proposes an approach to develop a quality/cost-based conceptual process planning (QCCPP). This approach uses QFD (Quality Function Deployment) and FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) tools to determine manufacturing resources with appropriate process capability to produce product characteristics. Then, it uses ABC (Activity-Based Costing) method to roughly estimate manufacturing cost. Fig. 1 shows the QFD, FMEA, and ABC methods in the product development process. A number of different methods have been developed for evaluating the impacts of development process on product quality and cost. Some researchers focus on the first two phases of

n Corresponding author at: LCFC Laboratory, Arts et Me´ tiers ParisTech, 4 rue Augustin Fresnel, 57078 Metz, France. Tel.: +33 387375430; fax: +33 387375470. E-mail address: alaa.hassan@metz.ensam.fr (A. Hassan).

0736-5845/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

product development, i.e., product planning and parts deploy- ment. For example, Bode and Fung introduce a method for incorporating financial elements into the house of quality in order to optimize product development resources towards customer satisfaction [2] . Eubanks [3] presents an Advanced FMEA method (AFMEA) applicable in the early stages of design to enhance life- cycle quality of ownership. The process begins by QFD method to identify customer requirements and relate them to engineering metrics and functional requirements responsible for satisfying the customer. Chen and Weng [4] apply fuzzy approaches and QFD process to determine the required fulfilment levels of design requirements for achieving the maximum satisfaction degree of several goals in total in the product design stage. Karsak [5] presents a zero–one goal programming methodology that in- cludes importance levels of product technical requirements (PTRs) derived using an analytic network process, cost budget, extendibility level and manufacturability level goals to determine the PTRs to be considered in designing the product. Other researches focus on the later product development phases like process planning. Most of them deal with computer-aided process planning (CAPP). Culler and Burd [6] present architecture in which customer service, CAPP and ABC are incorporated into a single system, thereby allowing companies to monitor and study how expenditures are incurred and which resources are being

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401

393

used by each process. Lau [7] introduces an intelligent computer- integrated system for reliable design feature recognition in order to achieve automatic process planning. Li [8] applies the genetic algorithm (GA) to CAPP system to generate optimal or near- optimal process plans based on the criterion chosen. Only a few efforts give attention to CPP that has significant impacts on manufacturing quality, cost and lead-time. Feng and Zhang [1] develop a conceptual process planning prototype for the pre- liminary manufacturability assessment of conceptual design in the early product design stage. It aims at determining manufac- turing processes, selecting resources and equipment and roughly estimating the manufacturing cost. Chin [9] proposes an approach to carry out the preliminary process planning for quality, in which the QFD and the process FMEA are incorporated. However, more efforts are required to be made to determine key process alternatives with an adequate process capability during conceptual process planning, to estimate the manufactur- ing cost, and to validate these alternatives before generating the detailed process plans. The goal of this paper is to propose an approach, to improve manufacturing process quality and to estimate the manufacturing cost of the product. As shown in Fig. 2 , the role of the proposed QCCPP approach is to link process determining activity to detailed process planning, it is responsible for selecting process alternatives (resources) with an adequate process capability, process associated risks, and process cost. QCCPP is supported by quality methods and tools, and cost estimation methods, particularly QFD and FMEA methods, and ABC method. This approach enables designers to optimize manufacturing process plan concerning with resource

determination in order to improve product quality/cost ratio, it can serve as a useful information system to support decision making in product development. The following sub-paragraphs describe briefly the methods used in QCCPP approach.

1.1. Quality function deployment (QFD)

QFD is a quality management technique which is very useful to improve the product’s quality according to the customer’s requirements. This method begins by analyzing market and customer’s needs from a product. Then it translates the desires of the customer into product design or engineering character- istics, and subsequently into parts characteristics, process plans, and production requirements associated with its manufacture [10, 11] . This is a four-phase process: product planning, parts deployment, process planning, and production planning [12] . This four-phase approach is accomplished by using a series of matrixes, called House Of Quality (HOQ), that guide the product team’s activities by providing standard documentation during product and process development ( Fig. 3 ). Each phase has a matrix consisting of a horizontal row of ‘‘Whats’’ and a vertical column of ‘‘Hows’’. At each stage, the ‘‘Hows’’ are carried to the next phase as ‘‘Whats’’ [13] .

1.2. Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA)

FMEA is an important method of preventive quality and reliability assurance. It involves the investigation and assessment

Requirements Conceptual Detailed Conceptual Detailed Process Service and Manufacturing Definition product design
Requirements
Conceptual
Detailed
Conceptual
Detailed Process
Service and
Manufacturing
Definition
product design
product design
process planning
planning
Support
QFD phase I
Product KCs
QFD phase II
Product FMEA
QFD phase III
Design FMEA
QFD phase IV
Process FMEA

ABC

Fig. 1. QFD, FMEA, and ABC in the product development process.

QFD phase IV Process FMEA ABC Fig. 1. QFD, FMEA, and ABC in the product development

Fig. 2. The role of QCCPP.

394

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401

of

all causes and effects of all possible failure modes on a system,

object’s use of the different activities. In order to differentiate

in

the earliest development phases [14] . Along with structured

between the different allocations at the two stages, the first-stage

methods like QFD, FMEA is a risk management tool that provides decision guidelines to aid the product development team in

achieving a design that provides the most in terms of cost and quality [15] . Basically, FMEA can be classified into two main types [16] : design FMEA which deals with design activities, such as

allocation bases are termed ‘‘resource cost drivers’’ and the second-stage bases ‘‘activity cost drivers’’ [19, 20] . Fig. 4 illustrates the concept of ABC method.

product design, machine or tooling design, and process FMEA which is used to solve problems due to manufacturing processes. Finally, the team summarizes the analysis in a tabular form called ‘‘FMEA table’’. The traditional FMEA involves ambiguity with the definition of risk priority number: the product of occurrence (O), detection difficulty (D), and severity (S) subjectively measured in a 1–10 range. The three indices used for RPN are ordinal scale variables that preserve rank but the distance between the values cannot be measured since a distance function does not exist. Thus, the RPN

2.

QCCPP approach

This section describes the quality/cost-based conceptual process planning (QCCPP) approach. QCCPP is a methodology to determine the process alternatives meeting the quality require- ments and to estimate the manufacturing process cost roughly as well as the failure cost before knowing the details of new product. The inputs of this approach are: product design and selected manufacturing process and the QFD and FMEA analysis results from design phase. As shown in Fig. 5 , the steps for QCCPP process

is

not meaningful. A cost-based FMEA alleviates this ambiguity by

are:

using the estimated cost of failures [17] . Tarum [18] proposed

a new technique called FMERA (Failure Modes, Effects, and

Financial Risk Analysis) that identifies and prioritizes the process part of potential problems that have the most financial impact on an operation. Alternatives can be evaluated to maximize the financial benefits. Adding columns concerning failure costs to standard FMEA table, a cost-based FMEA table is obtained.

1.3. Activity-Based Costing (ABC)

ABC assumes that cost objects (e.g., products) create the need for activities, and activities create the need for resources. Accordingly, ABC uses a two-stage procedure to assign resource costs to cost objects. In the first stage, costs of resources are allocated to activities to form Activity Cost Pools. These activities are allocated in the second stage to cost objects based on these

Selection of process alternatives using QFD information and a quality measure index, called the composite process capability (CCP), adopted from [9, 21]

Process failures analysis using process FMEA; Estimation of the manufacturing process cost; Assessment of non-quality (failure) cost using cost-based FMEA.

2.1. Selection of process alternatives

In order to achieve the process element level ( x j ), it is required to select appropriate process alternatives ( a j ) based on part information and manufacturing resources. Table 1 is an example

information and manufacturing resources. Table 1 is an example Fig. 3. Four phases of QFD. Fig.

Fig. 3. Four phases of QFD.

information and manufacturing resources. Table 1 is an example Fig. 3. Four phases of QFD. Fig.

Fig. 4. The concept of ABC.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401

395

Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401 395 Table 1 Example of QFD phase III. Fig. 5. The

Table 1 Example of QFD phase III.

Fig. 5. The process of QCCPP.

(1) weak (5) medium (9) strong

Process elements

Quality characteristic

Characteristic weight

Machine method ( e 1 )

Fixturing mode ( e 2 )

Cone obliquity ( q 1 ) Perpendicularity between the face and the axis ( q 2 ) Process elements weight ( w j ) Process element measure Process element level ( x j ) Correlation coefficient ( g j ) Lower bound of process quality level ( L j ) Upper bound of process quality level ( U j ) Process alternatives ( a j )

0.35 ( v 1 ) 0.65 ( v 2 )

9 (0.9)

1 (0.1)

9 (0.64)

5 (0.36)

 

0.71

0.29

Precision grade

Locating error

7

0.02 mm

1

1.1

3

0.002

7

0.2

Finish turning

Final clamping

of QFD during process planning for an axis of a centring system. We use this example to describe the components of the HOQ in phase III. The process quality team translates the quality characteristics ( q i ) into a set of process elements ( e j ) and their target levels. For instance, computer numerical control (CNC) finish turning is selected for machining method whose level is the 7th precision grade, while final clamping is selected for the fixturing scheme whose locating error is not allowed to be more than 0.02 mm. The selection of process alternative is just the most flexible and the most crucial task of process planning for quality. A process element is a facet that significantly influences quality characteristics. Process elements generally cover the machining method, the machine tool, the assembly tool, the fixturing scheme, the tool path mode, the cutting condition, the workpiece structure, etc. The capability of each process element is measured by one or more quality measures or indicators. For examples, ‘‘precision level’’ for the machining method, and ‘‘deformation’’ and ‘‘locating error’’ for the fixturing scheme are quality measures of process elements.

2.1.1. Estimating the capability of the process element

Based on the process alternative, the capability of each process

element, referred to from now on as an element capability, is defined as:

Ce j ¼

Ce j ¼

1 þ x j x

U j L

0 j ! g j

j

1

x j x

j

j ! g j

0

L

U j

;

; if x j is a large-better index ;

if is a small-better index : j ¼ 1 ; 2 ;

; n

ð 1 Þ

where C ej is the capability of e j ; x 0 , x j the standard or benchmark and the current value of quality value of e j , respectively; g j the correlation coefficient, set by empirical machining data, and g j 4 0; L j , U j the technical feasible lower and upper bounds of the process element ( e j ) level; n the number of process elements ( e j ) The capability index ( Ce ) of a process element is centered on 1. When the process element level is at a benchmark level, the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

396

A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401

capability of the process element is set as the standard value ‘‘1’’. The more the process element level deviates from the benchmark value ( x 0 ), the more the Ce deviates from 1, whereas Ce o 1 indicates the capability of process element decreases, and Ce 4 1 indicates the capability of process element increases. The standard process alternative is generally either an enterprise standard or a straightforward process alternative with which the team members are very familiar.

2.1.2. Estimating the capability of the quality characteristic

Assuming that the capability of each process element ( Ce j ) affects the quality characteristic ( q i ) in a linear fashion, the assurance capability of each quality characteristic ( Cq i ) can be

estimated by the following formula:

n

Cq i ¼ X w ij : Ce j ; i ¼ 1 ; 2 ;

j ¼ 1

; m

ð 2 Þ

where Cq i is the capability for assuring q i ; w ij the coefficient of

n

relationship between q i and e j , and P 1 w ij ¼ 1; m the number of

j ¼

quality characteristics ( q i ) Cq i indicates the degree for assuring the quality characteristic ( q i ) under a combined process alternative, noted by A= ( a 1 , a 2 , y , a n ), which has a set of quality measures, X= ( x 1 , x 2 , y , x n ).

2.1.3. Estimating the composite process capability (CCP) of all

quality characteristics The CCP reflects the overall degree of assuring all the quality characteristics. There are two basic approaches to estimate the overall effect of multiple attributes, namely, the additive fashion and the multiplicative fashion. Owing to every quality character- istic possessing the right to veto on the overall process quality according to the trade-off strategies [22] , we adopt the multi- plicative fashion to calculate the CCP as follows:

m

CCP ¼ Y ð Cq i Þ v i

i ¼ 1

ð 3 Þ

where

v i is relative importance of

m

q i , 0 r v i r 1, and P v i ¼ 1

i ¼ 1

In nature, CCP reflects the overall capability level of process alternatives compared with the standard process alternatives. It can be easily determined that the CCP of the standard process alternatives, whose quality measures are X 0 = ( x 0 , x 2 0 , y , x 0 n ), is always equal to 1. As a result, for the process alternatives selected during conceptual process planning, a CCP of more than 1 indicates that the overall capability level increases and the probability for assuring all quality characteristics is higher than the standard process alternatives. On the contrary, a CCP of less than 1 indicates that the overall capability level decreases and the probability for assuring all quality characteristics is lower than the standard process alternatives. Therefore, it should always be expected that the CCP is higher than one during the conceptual process planning. As shown in Fig. 5 , the result of this step is a set of combined process alternatives whose CPP is greater than 1. This result performs an input for the FMEA method to continue the QCCPP process, and to help the team to make a right decision and completing the detailed process plan.

1

2.2. Analysis of process failures

FMEA is a methodology designed to identify potential failure modes for a product or process before they occur, to assess the risk associated with each failure mode, to rank the issues in terms of importance and to identify and carry out corrective actions to address the most serious concerns [23] . This article deals with process FMEA which is used to analyse processes of various potential failures. The focus of standard FMEA is usually on providing quality parts and reducing frequency of problems. Severity (S) ratings are usually linked to the ability to provide quality products to the customer. Occurrence (O) ratings gives an indication of the frequency of the problem. Detection (D) ratings are an estimation of the effectiveness of problem preven- tion and containment. The Risk Priority Number (RPN) is a product of the Severity, Occurrence, and Detection ratings: SxOxD=RPN. As shown in Table 2 , most quality characteristics in the QFD ( q i ) should be included in the process FMEA. The process elements in the QFD ( e j ) are useful for determining the causes of failures and the recommended alternative actions [24]. The RPN values are related to process alternatives selected in the previous step.

2.3. Estimation of manufacturing cost

Manufacturing process can be decomposed into activities. In this paper, ABC method is used to estimate the manufacturing cost taking into account the cost of all activities related to risks. Cost estimating equations are described in the following equa- tions [25,26] :

N

C ma ¼ X

i ¼ 1

N

C

i

activity

¼ X C i

i ¼ 1

machining þ C load unload þ C setup þ C handling

i

i

i

þ C

i

programming testing þ C overhead

i

ð 4 Þ

C ma is the cost of manufacturing activities. i an index. N the total number of manufacturing activities applied to manufacture an artifact. C machining the machining cost of activity i . Machining

i

i

activity is a unit-level activity. C load unload the load and unload cost

i

of activity i (unit-level activity). C setup the setup cost of activity i .

i

Setup is a batch-level activity. C handling the handling cost of activity

i . Handling is a batch-level activity. C

i program min g testing the pro-

gramming and testing cost of activity i . Programming-testing is a product-level activity. C overhead the overhead cost of activity i . It is a facility-level activity.

i

2.4. Estimation of the cost of failures

To estimate the financial impact of various potential failures, an extended technique, called cost-based FMEA, is used. Based on standard process FMEA and selected process alternatives from previous steps, cost-based FMEA has been used to identify and prioritize the process part of potential problems that have most financial impact. Table 3 shows an extended table which resumes the cost-based process FMEA analysis for the axis. Based on existing process FMEA, cost-based process FMEA is carried out by adding the following steps:

1. Internal cost per event: internal failure costs are costs that are caused by products not conforming to requirements or customer needs and are found before delivery of products to

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401

Table 2 A process FMEA table.

397

q

i

e

i

Process

Part function

Failure mode

Cause

Effect

Detection O S D

RPN

Alternative action

Turning the cone of The cone adapts to

The cone obliquity is not adequate

Dispersion of

Incorrect position of the workpiece

1 piece/H 6 5 62 150

Measuring tool

 

the axis

workpiece

machine

realisation

 

6 5 63 150

SPC

 

90

Table 3 Cost-based process FMEA.

Process Part

Failure

Cause

Effect

Internal

External

Events/ Annual

Annual implementation cost ( h )

New

New annual risk ( h )

 

function

mode

Detection O S D RPN Alternative action

cost per cost per

Year

risk ( h )

RPN

 

event

event ( h )

(

h )

Turning The cone

The cone

Dispersion

Incorrect

1 piece/H 6 5 6

150

Measuring

11

12

210

2315

3000

60

46

the

adapts to

obliquity

of machine position

2

60

tool

cone

workpiece is not

 

of the

realisation

of the

adequate

workpiece

axis

 

6 56

150

SPC

2000

90

46

3

90

external customers. Each potential failure event is analyzed to determine the financial risk. The internal cost per event can be estimated using the following form:

C ei j ¼ Labour cost þ Material cost ð 5 Þ

C ei j is the internal cost of event e related to activity j

Labour cost ¼ down time hourly labour cost ð 6 Þ

Labour cost is the cost of operator work which eliminates the failure. Material cost is the cost of component replacement due to failure. Using ABC method, the cost of manufacturing activities ( C ma ) is estimated for the component.

2. External cost per event: external failure costs are costs that are caused by deficiencies found after delivery of products to external customers, which lead to customer dissatisfac- tion. The external cost per event, in our study, is essentially the complaints cost:

ð 7 Þ

C ee j ¼ Complaints cost

C ee j external cost of event e related to activity j

3. Event probability: the probability of failure events, asso- ciated to activity j , can be estimated via prob ( O j ):

prob ( O j ) is the probability corresponding to the occurrence rank of the risk associated with activity j

Number of events per year ¼

prob ð O j Þ No : of units per year

ð 8 Þ

4. The cost of all activities related to risks C r can be defined as:

P

C r ¼ X

j ¼ 1

prob ð O j Þ prob ð D j Þ C ei j þ prob ð 1 D j Þ C j i :

h

ee

ð 9 Þ

prob ( D j ) is the probability corresponding to the detection rank of the risk associated with activity j Therefore, the annual risk cost ¼ No : of units per year C r

5. Implementation cost is the cost of implementing alternative action.

For each failure mode, financial risk has been estimated, alternative actions have been identified and their cost has been calculated. To take into account the risk cost associated to manufacturing process, manufacturing process cost before alter- native actions implementation could be defined as:

ð 10 Þ

C m ¼ C ma þ C r

C m is the manufacturing process cost of an artifact. Note that it is not necessary for the alternative actions to eliminate the risk completely. Therefore, the risk cost must be taken into account even after the implementation of alternative actions. Manufacturing process cost after alternatives implemen- tation is given by this equation:

C m 0 ¼ C ma þ C r 0 þ C a

ð 11 Þ

C ma is the cost of manufacturing activities after the implementa- tion of alternative actions. This cost may have to be recalculated if some of actions modify the manufacturing activities. C r 0 is the cost of risk-related activities after alternatives implementation.

P

ð 12 Þ

C r 0 ¼ X

j ¼ 1

prob ( O 0 j ) is the probability corresponding to the new occurrence rank of the risk associated with activity j , after the implementa- tion of alternative actions; prob ( D 0 j ) is the probability correspond- ing to the new detection rank of the risk associated with activity j , after the implementation of alternative actions. C a is the cost of implemented actions.

prob ð O 0 j Þ prob ð D 0 j Þ C ei j þ prob ð 1 D 0 j Þ C j i

h

ee

3. Discussion

For a manufacturing process plan, we have estimated the risk and manufacturing costs. The modification of this process could be translated in terms of selecting alternative resources which lead for reducing, as much as possible, the risk and manufacturing costs to achieve an optimal quality/cost ratio. Once the resources are selected, the designers have to prioritize the recommended

ARTICLE IN PRESS

398

A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401

alternative actions in order to reduce the most of risks (i.e. improve product quality) and to minimize the cost. The selection of the ‘‘best’’ alternative depends on a set of heterogeneous evaluation criteria. Many methods are used for evaluating complex multi-attribute alternatives. For example; analytic hierarchy process (AHP) which is a multi-criteria decision-making technique proposed by Saaty [27] , SPEC method, based on value analysis principle, allows to make decisions among design alternatives on the bases of performance satisfaction indicators [28] , and ECOGRAI method which allows for the definition of a real customized performance measurement system with multi-criteria performance indicators [29] . To facilitate the selection task, we have proposed a decision- making tool adopted from [30] . The team gathers and prioritizes the evaluation objectives according to the organization policy, and then it ranks the process alternatives on 1–10 scale. Based on QCCPP results, an alternative selection table is prepared to improve the team’s decision by addressing the right proportions of quality and cost issues. This table is presented through a case study in the next paragraph.

4. Case study

An example of auxiliary shaft cover of a car engine is presented in this section to illustrate the implementation of QCCPP approach. This workpiece comes from foundry workshop and then NC machining operations aim at ensuring its key quality characteristics. Fig. 6 shows this cover workpiece and its main quality characteristics. We suppose that the annual rate is 600,000 parts, with 2500 parts for each batch. Our objective here is to help the team to select a process alternative in compromising among multiple selection criteria. Table 4 lists the process alternatives for each process element during the process alternative decision making. The next sub-paragraphs explain QCCPP steps for this workpiece. The quantitative estimates in this study should be considered as illustrative only.

characteristics and the process elements are assessed with the quantitative measure of each process element (lower bound, upper bound, and benchmark level). QFD phase III matrix is prepared with this data as shown in Fig. 7 . Two alternative groups are studied in this step, these are AG1= (MT1, FM2, CC2), and AG2= (MT2, FM1, CC1). Finally, the CCP index of each process alternative group is estimated using Eqs. (1–3). As shown in Fig. 7 , in spit of the little differences between process element levels for each group, there is a notable difference between CCP index for AG1, which is equal to 1.456, and for AG2, which is equal to 1.03. Therefore, the overall capability level will be increased to 45.6% with AG1, and to 3% with AG2 compared with the standard process alternatives.

4.2. Process failure analysis

The QFD results help the team in identifying what are the product quality characteristics and process elements to be analyzed in FMEA method. The RPN values are related to the process alternative group. Performing standard process FMEA analysis for the cover workpiece, results in the tables shown in Fig. 8 . Note that the differences between the two analysis are in quantification indices (O and D), and not all the process elements in QFD matrix are set as failure causes. Using AG1 to manufacture the cover part needs no alternative actions cause the related RPNs are under the predefined threshold.

4.3. Manufacturing cost estimation

Manufacturing cost is estimated using ABC method. The activities that contribute in manufacturing the cover workpiece are firstly identified. For each process alternative group, the user has to estimate the activity costs using Eq. (4). Fig. 9 shows the tables of manufacturing cost calculation for AG1 and AG2. For AG1, the estimated manufacturing cost is equal to 5.60 h , and for AG2 is 4.48 h .

4.1. Estimating the capability of process alternatives

Based on product design and QFD phase I and II, the quality characteristics of the cover are identified in order to achieve its functions. Then the relationships between these quality

its functions. Then the relationships between these quality Fig. 6. Key operations of the cover workpiece.

Fig. 6. Key operations of the cover workpiece.

4.4. Failure cost estimation

Supposing that downtime to detect the failures is 18 min, and the hourly labour cost is 12 h / H . The labour cost is estimated using Eq (6):

Labour cost=18 min 12 h / H = 3.6 h The part cost depends on the process alternative used to manufacture the cover workpiece. Manufacturing cost for each alternative group is estimated in the previous step:

If AG1 is used, then material cost=5.60 h If AG2 is used, then material cost=4.48 h Internal cost for AG1=3.6+5.60=9.20 h Internal cost for AG2=3.6+4.48=8.08 h External cost is supposed to be the same for AG1 and AG2. It is equal to 27 h

For AG1, the annual cost of risks before alternative implemen- tation (9):

C rGR 1 ¼ 600000 ½ P ð 2 Þð ð 1 P ð 4 Þ Þ 9 : 2 þ P ð 4 Þ 27 Þþ P ð 3 Þ ð ð 1 P ð 3 Þ Þ 9 : 2 þ P ð 3 Þ 27 Þ

9

¼ 600000 100000 ð ð 1 0 : 31 Þ 9 : 2 þ 0 : 31 27 Þ

þ 10000 ð ð 1 0 : 21 Þ 9 : 2 þ 0 : 21 27 Þ

3046 euros

2

: 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401

Table 4 The process elements and alternatives fo.

399

Process element

Alternative reference

Process alternative name

Measure

Process element level

Machining tool

MT1

NC milling machine 1 NC milling machine 2 Outer spoke clamping Outer support griping Cutting force and speed

Precision grade

IT8

MT2

Precision grade

IT9

Fixturing mode

FM1

Locating error

0.06 mm

FM2

Locating error

0.05 mm

Cutting conditions

CC1

Deformation

0.085 mm

CC2

Cutting force and speed Deformation 0.080 mm

mm CC2 Cutting force and speed Deformation 0.080 mm Fig. 7. Results of process alternative capabilities

Fig. 7. Results of process alternative capabilities for the cover.

Results of process alternative capabilities for the cover. Fig. 8. Process FMEA analysis for two process

Fig. 8. Process FMEA analysis for two process alternatives: AG1 and AG2.

To calculate the annual cost of risks associated to the workpiece manufactured by AG2, we use also Eq. (9):

C rGR 2 ¼ 600000 P ð 5 Þ ½ ð 1 P ð 4 Þ Þ 8 : 08

þ P ð 4 Þ 27 þ ð 1 P ð 3 Þ Þ 8 : 08 þ P ð 3 Þ 27

2

: 9

¼ 600000 1000 ½ ð 1 0 : 31 Þ 8 : 08 þ 0 : 31 27

þ ð 1 0 : 21 Þ 8 : 08 þ 0 : 21 27

49935 euros

For AG2, this cost is the annual risk cost before alternative implementation.

For AG2, the implementation cost of the proposed alternative actions is 1500+785=2285 h After action implementation, the risk probabilities are reduced so that the annual risk cost will change. The risk cost after alternative implementation is given by Eq. (12):

C r 0 GR 2 ¼ 600000 P ð 2 Þ ½ ð 1 P ð 4 Þ Þ 8 : 08 þ P ð 4 Þ 27 þ ð 1 P ð 3 Þ Þ

8 : 08 þ P ð 3 Þ 27 þ 2285

9

¼ 600000 100000 ½ ð 1 0 : 31 Þ 8 : 08 þ 0 : 31 27

þ ð 1 0 : 21 Þ 8 : 08 þ 0 : 21 27 þ 2285 3835 euros

400

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401

and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401 Fig. 9. Manufacturing cost estimation of the cover for AG1

Fig. 9. Manufacturing cost estimation of the cover for AG1 and AG2.

Manufacturing cost estimation of the cover for AG1 and AG2. Fig. 10. Cost-based process FMEA of

Fig. 10. Cost-based process FMEA of the cover for AG1 and AG2.

AG2. Fig. 10. Cost-based process FMEA of the cover for AG1 and AG2. Fig. 11. Process

Fig. 11. Process alternative group selection table.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392–401

401

The results of this step are summarized in Fig. 10 .

4.5. Process alternative selection

The final step in QCCPP approach is to make a decision concerning the selection of the best process alternative which compromises multiple evaluation criteria. The output data of the precedent steps are gathered in the decision table shown in Fig. 11 . The team is now able to gather the results in one table, to prioritize the evaluation criteria, and to score the process alternatives against them. It can evaluate the alternative options in 1–10 range and then calculate the final score in order to identify the most suitable alternative which replies to multiple objectives. This score is not a subjective quantification but it depends on the numerical data results from the QCCPP approach. As shown in Fig. 11 , the final score of process alternative groups give the advantage to AG1 (57%), and rank AG2 in the second place (43%).

5. Conclusion

In order to improve the effectiveness of conceptual process planning, this paper proposes a methodology to support the decision making process while taking into account both the quality and cost factors. In this paper, a QCCPP approach is proposed to improve manufacturing process quality, to estimate manufacturing cost, and to help the team in selecting process alternatives which satisfy multiple selection criteria. QFD technique is used in this approach to assess the process quality and give useful information about the possible combined resources by incorporating a capability function for process elements called a composite process capability index (CCP). On the other hand, ABC method is employed to estimate the manufacturing process cost, and then a cost-based FMEA analysis is carried out to assess the failure modes due to this manufacturing process and to estimate the failure cost. Finally, a selection table is proposed to summarize the results of this methodology and help the team to select the most suitable combined alternatives towards quality improvement and cost minimizing. Further work is required in analyzing the dependence between the failure causes while taking advantage of the common data between QFD and FMEA. It is also necessary to develop a software tool to effectively support this methodology and provide a user interface to combine all the methods used in it. To develop this new tool, an information model is necessary to support the tool development and the integration of these methods.

References

[1] Feng S, Zhang Y. Conceptual Process Planning – a definition and functional decomposition. Manufacturing Science and Engineering. In: Proceedings of the 1999 international mechanical engineering congress and exposition. Vol. 10, 1999, p. 97-106. [2] Bode J, Fung R. Cost engineering with quality function deployment. Computers and Industrial Engineering 1998;35:587–90. [3] Eubanks C, Kmenta S, Ishii K. Advanced failure modes and effects analysis using behavior modeling. In: Proceedings of DETC’97, ASME design engineering technical conferences and design theory and methodology conference, Sacramento, California, USA, September 14–17, 1997.

[4] Chen L-H, Weng M-C. An evaluation approach to engineering design in QFD processes using fuzzy goal programming models. European Journal of Operational Research 2006;172:230–48. [5] Karsak EE, Sozer S, Alptekin SE. Product planning in quality function deployment using a combined analytic network process and goal programming approach. Computers & Industrial Engineering 2002;44:

171–190.

[6] Culler D, Burd WA. framework for extending computer aided process planning to include business activities and computer aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) data retrieval. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 2007;23:339–50. [7] Lau HCW, Lee CKM, Jiang B, Hui IK, Pun KF. Development of a computer- integrated system to support CAD to CAPP. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2005;26:1032–42. [8] Li L, Fuh JYH, Zhang YF, Nee AYC. Application of genetic algorithm to computer-aided process planning in distributed manufacturing environ- ments. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 2005;21:568–78. [9] Chin K-S, Zheng L-Y, Wei L. A hybrid rough-cut process planning for quality. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2003;22:

733–43.

[10] Tan CM. Customer-focused build-in reliability: a case study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 2003;20(3):378–97. [11] Korayem MH, Iravani A. Improvement of 3P and 6R mechanical robots reliability and quality applying FMEA and QFD approaches. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 2008;24:472–87. [12] Kim K-J. Determining optimal design characteristic levels in QFD. Quality Engineering 1998;10(2):295–307. [13] ReVelle JB, Moran JW, Cox CA. In: The QFD handbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1998. [14] Dittmann L, Rademacher T, Zelewski S. Performing FMEA using ontologies. In:

The 18th international workshop on qualitative reasoning, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA, August 2–4, 2004. [15] Chao PL, Ishii K. Design process error proofing: failure modes and effects analysis of the design process. Journal of Advanced Mechanical Design

2007;129:491–501.

[16] Teoh PC, Case K. Failure modes and effects analysis through knowledge modelling. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2004;153–154:

253–60.

[17] Rhee S, Ishii K. Using cost based FMEA to enhance releability and serviceability. Advanced Engineering Information 2003;17:179–88. [18] Tarum C. FMERA-Failure Modes, Effects, and (Financial) Risk Analysis. SAE 2001 world congress, Detriot, Michigan, USA, March 5–8, 2001. [19] Turney PBB. Common cents: the ABC performance breakthrough, how to succeed with activity-based costing. Cost technology, Hillsboro, 1991. [20] Tsai W-H. A technical note on using work sampling to estimate the effort on activities under activity-based costing. International Journal of Production Economics 1996;43:6–11. [21] Zheng L-Y, Chin K-S. QFD based optimal process quality planning. Interna- tional Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2005;26:831–41. [22] Otto KN, Antonsson EK. Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design 1991;3(2):87–103. [23] Pillay A, Wang J. Modified failure mode and effects analysis using approximate reasoning. Reliability Engineering and System Safety

2003;79:69–85.

[24] Hassan A, Siadat A, Dantan J-Y, Martin P. Quality improvement through QFD/ FMEA information model. In: Proceedings of 6th CIRP ICME, Naples, Italy, July 23–25, 2008. [25] Feng S, Song E. Information Modeling of Conceptual Process Planning Integrated with Conceptual Design. In: Proceedings of DETC2000, the 5th design for manufacturing conference, the 2000 ASME design engineering technical conferences, Maryland, USA, September 10–13, 2000. [26] Tornberg K, J amsen¨ M, Paranko J. Activity-based costing and process modeling for cost-conscious product design: A case study in a manufacturing company. International Journal of Production Economics 2002;79:75–82. [27] Saaty TL. In: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980. [28] Yannou B, Hajsalem S, Limayem F. (In French). Comparison between the SPEC method and Value Analysis for an aid in preliminary design of products. Me´ canique & Industries 2002;3:189–99. [29] Blanc S, Ducq Y, Vallespir B. Evolution management towards interoperable supply chains using performance measurement. Computers in Industry

2007;58:720–32.

[30] Almannai B, Greenough R, Kay J. A decision support tool based on QFD and FMEA for the selection of manufacturing automation technologies. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 2008;24:501–7.