The influence of work‐cells and facility layout on the manufacturing efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the use of a product‐oriented layout and a work‐cell strategy in order to maximise efficiency. These two categories of layout strategies are discussed separately, and are then used collectively in an analysis of the company. The aim is to understand how improvements on layout design could positively impact the future efficiency of the case study company. Design/methodology/approach A model was developed and measured using 26 weeks of data between the fourth quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010 during layout transformations at the case study company based in upstate New York. The model compared variables such as the distance traveled to retrieve parts, average daily output of engines, labour cost per unit produced, and the amount of time the engine remains in each cell; the aim of which is to increase the efficiency of the facility. Findings The findings indicate that there is a strong correlation between the variables improved at both the cell‐structures and the product‐structures of the facility and the overall efficiency of the manufacturing facility itself. The results also show that an overall higher efficiency allows for the facility to handle much larger workloads and also drives down both short‐run and long‐run costs. The outcomes also allow for a suggestive redesign of the facility in order to further maximise efficiency. However, it was found that the amount of time a product remains in each cell on the assembly line does not have an effect on the overall output of diesel engines. Research limitations/implications Various studies have been conducted focusing on the “facility layout problem,” yet thorough analyses of the redesigning of layout in regards to efficiency are not as available. Instead, an understanding of the topic was derived through sources focusing on the specificities of manufacturing layout. Originality/value This paper describes layout efficiency through redesigns and layout using work‐cells in a product‐oriented environment. This study would be useful to manufacturers having low variability in their product and having the ability to use work‐cell layout within their facility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".