Cellular manufacturing versus a hybrid system: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To compare the performance of a new hybrid manufacturing system (HMS) with a conventional cellular manufacturing system (CMS). The hybrid system is a combination of the cellular manufacturing and job shop. Design/methodology/approach A hypothetical manufacturing facility with eight machines and 20 parts is used as a case. Simulation models are developed for two manufacturing systems. A multi‐factor comparison is carried out to test the performance of the systems under different scenarios. Findings It was found that group scheduling rules (GSR) and the manufacturing system design factors have significant impact on the performance of the system. In particular, the hybrid system shows its best performance when the MSSPT GSR is applied, whereas the cellular system is superior when DDSI is implemented. The results also demonstrate that, by adding non‐family parts to the production schedule of the HMS, significant benefits in the performance measures can be attained. Research limitations/implications The conclusion cannot be generalized, as the result is dependent upon the input data and the size of the problem. Practical implications The application may be limited to certain industry sectors. Further studies may be needed to identify the appropriate industry. Originality/value While the majority of the literature focuses on either a job shop or a pure CMS, this paper has a distinctive approach that allows the combined use of both systems. This could be a useful transitional approach from one system to the other.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".