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
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 July 2008
Received in revised form
13 November 2009
Accepted 2 December 2009
Keywords:
Process planning
QFD
FMEA
ABC
a b s t r a c t
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 rst two phases of
product development, i.e., product planning and parts deploy-
ment. For example, Bode and Fung introduce a method for
incorporating nancial 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 fullment levels of design
requirements for achieving the maximum satisfaction degree of
several goals in total in the product design stage. Karsak [5]
presents a zeroone 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
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rcim
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing
0736-5845/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2009.12.002
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).
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392401
ARTICLE IN PRESS
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 signicant 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 briey 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 products quality according to the customers
requirements. This method begins by analyzing market and
customers 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
teams 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
Definition
Conceptual
product design
Detailed
product design
Conceptual
process planning
Detailed Process
planning
Manufacturing
Service and
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.
Fig. 2. The role of QCCPP.
A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392401 393
ARTICLE IN PRESS
of all causes and effects of all possible failure modes on a system,
in the earliest development phases [14]. Along with structured
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 classied into two main types
[16]: design FMEA which deals with design activities, such as
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 denition of
risk priority number: the product of occurrence (O), detection
difculty (D), and severity (S) subjectively measured in a 110
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
is not meaningful. A cost-based FMEA alleviates this ambiguity by
using the estimated cost of failures [17]. Tarum [18] proposed
a new technique called FMERA (Failure Modes, Effects, and
Financial Risk Analysis) that identies and prioritizes the process
part of potential problems that have the most nancial impact on
an operation. Alternatives can be evaluated to maximize the
nancial benets. 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 rst 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
objects use of the different activities. In order to differentiate
between the different allocations at the two stages, the rst-stage
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.
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
are:
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
Fig. 3. Four phases of QFD.
Fig. 4. The concept of ABC.
A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392401 394
ARTICLE IN PRESS
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)
nish turning is selected for machining method whose level is the
7th precision grade, while nal clamping is selected for the
xturing scheme whose locating error is not allowed to be more
than 0.02 mm. The selection of process alternative is just the most
exible and the most crucial task of process planning for quality.
A process element is a facet that signicantly inuences
quality characteristics. Process elements generally cover
the machining method, the machine tool, the assembly tool, the
xturing 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 xturing 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
dened as:
Ce
j
1
x
j
x
0
j
U
j
L
j
_ _
g
j
; if x
j
is a large-better index;
Ce
j
1
x
j
x
0
j
U
j
L
j
_ _
g
j
; if is a small-better index: j 1; 2; . . .; n 1
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 coefcient, set by empirical machining data, and
g
j
40; 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
Fig. 5. The process of QCCPP.
Table 1
Example of QFD phase III.
(1) weak (5) medium (9) strong Process elements
Quality characteristic Characteristic weight Machine method (e
1
) Fixturing mode (e
2
)
Cone obliquity (q
1
) 0.35 (v
1
) 9 (0.9) 1 (0.1)
Perpendicularity between the face and the axis (q
2
) 0.65 (v
2
) 9 (0.64) 5 (0.36)
Process elements weight (w
j
) 0.71 0.29
Process element measure Precision grade Locating error
Process element level (x
j
) 7 0.02 mm
Correlation coefcient (g
j
) 1 1.1
Lower bound of process quality level (L
j
) 3 0.002
Upper bound of process quality level (U
j
) 7 0.2
Process alternatives (a
j
) Finish turning Final clamping
A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392401 395
ARTICLE IN PRESS
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 Ceo1
indicates the capability of process element decreases, and Ce41
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:
Cq
i

n
j 1
w
ij
:Ce
j
; i 1; 2; . . .; m 2
where
Cq
i
is the capability for assuring q
i
; w
ij
the coefcient of
relationship between q
i
and e
j
, and

n
j 1
w
ij
1; m the number of
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 reects 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:
CCP

m
i 1
Cq
i

v
i
3
where
v
i
is relative importance of q
i
, 0rv
i
r1, and

m
i 1
v
i
1
In nature, CCP reects 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
1
0
, x
2
0
,y,x
n
0
), 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.
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]:
C
ma

N
i 1
C
i
activity

N
i 1
C
i
machining
C
i
loadunload
C
i
setup
C
i
handling
_
C
i
programmingtesting
C
i
overhead
_
4
C
ma
is the cost of manufacturing activities. i an index. N the total
number of manufacturing activities applied to manufacture an
artifact. C
i
machining
the machining cost of activity i. Machining
activity is a unit-level activity. C
i
loadunload
the load and unload cost
of activity i (unit-level activity). C
i
setup
the setup cost of activity i.
Setup is a batch-level activity. C
i
handling
the handling cost of activity
i. Handling is a batch-level activity. C
i
programmingtesting
the pro-
gramming and testing cost of activity i. Programming-testing is a
product-level activity. C
i
overhead
the overhead cost of activity i. It is
a facility-level activity.
2.4. Estimation of the cost of failures
To estimate the nancial 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
nancial 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
A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392401 396
ARTICLE IN PRESS
external customers. Each potential failure event is analyzed
to determine the nancial risk. The internal cost per event
can be estimated using the following form:
C
j
ei
Labour costMaterial cost 5
C
j
ei
is the internal cost of event e related to activity j
Labour cost down time hourly labour cost 6
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 deciencies 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:
C
j
ee
Complaints cost 7
C
j
ee
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
probO
j
No: of units per year 8
4. The cost of all activities related to risks C
r
can be dened as:
C
r

P
j 1
probO
j
probD
j
C
j
ei
prob1D
j
C
j
ee
_ _
: 9
prob(D
j
) is the probability corresponding to the detection
rank of the risk associated with activity j
Therefore, the annual risk cost No: of units per year C
r
5. Implementation cost is the cost of implementing alternative
action.
For each failure mode, nancial risk has been estimated,
alternative actions have been identied 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 dened as:
C
m
C
ma
C
r
10
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 C
ma
C
r
0 C
a
11
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.
C
r
0

P
j 1
probO
0j
probD
0j
C
j
ei
prob1D
0j
C
j
ee
_ _
12
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.
3. Discussion
For a manufacturing process plan, we have estimated the risk
and manufacturing costs. The modication 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
Table 2
A process FMEA table.
q
i
e
i
Process Part function Failure mode Cause Effect Detection O S D RPN Alternative action
Turning the cone of
the axis
The cone adapts to
workpiece
The cone obliquity is not
adequate
Dispersion of
machine
Incorrect position of the
workpiece
1 piece/H 6 5 62 150 Measuring tool
realisation
6 5 63 150
90
SPC
Table 3
Cost-based process FMEA.
Process Part
function
Failure
mode
Cause Effect Detection O S D RPN Alternative
action
Internal
cost per
event
(h)
External
cost per
event (h)
Events/
Year
Annual
risk (h)
Annual
implementation
cost (h)
New
RPN
New
annual
risk (h)
Turning
the
cone
of the
axis
The cone
adapts to
workpiece
The cone
obliquity
is not
adequate
Dispersion
of machine
Incorrect
position
of the
workpiece
1 piece/H 6 5 6
2
150
60
Measuring
tool
realisation
11 12 210 2315 3000 60 46
6 5 6
3
150
90
SPC 2000 90 46
A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392401 397
ARTICLE IN PRESS
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
denition 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 110 scale. Based on
QCCPP results, an alternative selection table is prepared to
improve the teams 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.
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 identied in order to achieve
its functions. Then the relationships between these quality
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. (13). 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
quantication 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 predened threshold.
4.3. Manufacturing cost estimation
Manufacturing cost is estimated using ABC method. The
activities that contribute in manufacturing the cover workpiece
are rstly identied. 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.
4.4. 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 min12 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
rGR1
600000 P2 1P4 9:2P4 27 P3 1P3
9:2P3 27
600000
9
100000
10:31 9:20:31 27
_

2:9
10000
10:21 9:20:21 27
_
%3046 euros
Fig. 6. Key operations of the cover workpiece.
A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392401 398
ARTICLE IN PRESS
To calculate the annual cost of risks associated to the
workpiece manufactured by AG2, we use also Eq. (9):
C
rGR2
600000 P5 1P4 8:08
P4 27 1P3 8:08P3 27
600000
2:9
1000
10:31 8:080:31 27
10:21 8:080:21 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
GR2
600000 P2 1P4 8:08P4 27 1P3
8:08P3 27 2285
600000
9
100000
10:31 8:080:31 27
10:21 8:080:21 27 2285
%3835 euros
Table 4
The process elements and alternatives fo.
Process element Alternative reference Process alternative name Measure Process element level
Machining tool MT1 NC milling machine 1 Precision grade IT8
MT2 NC milling machine 2 Precision grade IT9
Fixturing mode FM1 Outer spoke clamping Locating error 0.06 mm
FM2 Outer support griping Locating error 0.05 mm
Cutting conditions CC1 Cutting force and speed Deformation 0.085 mm
CC2 Cutting force and speed Deformation 0.080 mm
Fig. 7. Results of process alternative capabilities for the cover.
Fig. 8. Process FMEA analysis for two process alternatives: AG1 and AG2.
A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392401 399
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 9. Manufacturing cost estimation of the cover for AG1 and AG2.
Fig. 10. Cost-based process FMEA of the cover for AG1 and AG2.
Fig. 11. Process alternative group selection table.
A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392401 400
ARTICLE IN PRESS
The results of this step are summarized in Fig. 10.
4.5. Process alternative selection
The nal 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 110 range and then calculate the nal score in order to
identify the most suitable alternative which replies to multiple
objectives. This score is not a subjective quantication but it
depends on the numerical data results from the QCCPP approach.
As shown in Fig. 11, the nal 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 denition 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;35:58790.
[3] Eubanks C, Kmenta S, Ishii K. Advanced failure modes and effects analysis
using behavior modeling. In: Proceedings of DETC97, ASME design
engineering technical conferences and design theory and methodology
conference, Sacramento, California, USA, September 1417, 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;172:23048.
[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:
171190.
[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;23:33950.
[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;26:103242.
[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;21:56878.
[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:
73343.
[10] Tan CM. Customer-focused build-in reliability: a case study. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 2003;20(3):37897.
[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;24:47287.
[12] Kim K-J. Determining optimal design characteristic levels in QFD. Quality
Engineering 1998;10(2):295307.
[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 24, 2004.
[15] Chao PL, Ishii K. Design process error proong: failure modes and effects
analysis of the design process. Journal of Advanced Mechanical Design
2007;129:491501.
[16] Teoh PC, Case K. Failure modes and effects analysis through knowledge
modelling. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2004;153154:
25360.
[17] Rhee S, Ishii K. Using cost based FMEA to enhance releability and
serviceability. Advanced Engineering Information 2003;17:17988.
[18] Tarum C. FMERA-Failure Modes, Effects, and (Financial) Risk Analysis. SAE
2001 world congress, Detriot, Michigan, USA, March 58, 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;43:611.
[21] Zheng L-Y, Chin K-S. QFD based optimal process quality planning. Interna-
tional Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2005;26:83141.
[22] Otto KN, Antonsson EK. Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research
in Engineering Design 1991;3(2):87103.
[23] Pillay A, Wang J. Modied failure mode and effects analysis using
approximate reasoning. Reliability Engineering and System Safety
2003;79:6985.
[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
2325, 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 1013, 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;79:7582.
[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;3:18999.
[29] Blanc S, Ducq Y, Vallespir B. Evolution management towards interoperable
supply chains using performance measurement. Computers in Industry
2007;58:72032.
[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;24:5017.
A. Hassan et al. / Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 26 (2010) 392401 401