Hitachi_Seiki_Case_Analysis

Components of FMS 1. FMS Workstations Machining center Turning machines Milling machines Boring machines Tapping machines 2. Automated MHS Wire-guided and rail-guided pallet carrying AGV Conveyor system Robots 3. Controls and communications NC controllers Adaptive control Central computer 4. AS/RS for tool transfer and storage 5. Tool monitoring system 6. Automatic inspection, deburring 7. Parts washing facility: cleaning, coolant and chip removal system SWOT analysis (prior to FMS 102) 12. Founded 1936, machine tools for Japanese market 13. Industry extremely competitive, rapid technological 14. FMS: new frontier; reputation as technology leader 15. 1985: 132 machining centers (12 types); 8 FMS |Strength |Opportunity | |Leader in machine tools |Consortium to develop NC and funded by MITI | |3 decades of machine tool manufacturing experience |Advanced development in electronics to develop controllers | |Strong in mechanical technology | | |Experience in special machine tool and transfer line | | |Weakness |Threat | |Lack of System skills |Intense competition in the Industry | |Lack of experience in building machine with electronics | | Chronology of FMS Development |Period |Product |Key Technology |Focus | |1930s |Machine Tools |Mechanical/ |Technical | | | |Electrical Relay | | |Late 1960s |Machining Center |Mechatronics |Technical | |Early 1970s |FMS 102 |Mechatronics, transfer line, special |Technical | | | |machinery + Integrated Circuits | | |Late 1970s |ABIKO I (larger) |CNC |Technical | |1980s | ABIKO 2 |Group Technology principles + CAD/CAM |Manufacturing | | | | |Product & Process Design | |1990s |''' | | | FMS 102 16. Narashino plant 17. Flexible transfer line; integration through modifications of existing machine design 18. Productivity lower than conventional machine ABIKO 1 19. After closing Narashino plant; Emphasis more on interchangeability of pallets 20. Team has better experience; controller and machining center technology much improved 21. Productivity-flexibility tradeoff ABIKO 2 22. From perspective of process rationalization: not on technical capabilities or integration of machine tools but on manufacturing requirement 23. Development team size started with 6 and incrementally increased at different stages 24. Group technology break ABIKO 2 into 3 FMS lines (FMS 112, FMS 113, FMS 114) for different type and size of workpieces - FMS 112 focused on basics of untended operations - FMS I13 focused on fixture design and automated tool supply - FMS 114 automated tool supply for Lathe and problem with systematizing turning operations ABIKO 2 |FMS 112 |FMS 113 |FMS 114 | |Machine large-sized prismatic workpieces |Machine small-and medium-sized prismatic |Machine small to medium round-sized parts| |3 floor machining centers |parts | | |1 horizontal machining center |2 horizontal- spindle machining centers |3 NC lathes | |Rail transfer line |2 vertical-spindle machining center |1 horizontal machining center | |Max size of workpiece: 2500 x centers - |Automatic tool-supply unit (528 tools) |Robot transfer | |1500 mm |Rail transfer line |240 tools | | |Max size of workpiece: 500 x 500 mm |Max size of workpiece: 300 x 300 mm | Success Factors 1. VISION of how good things can become • Matsumura provided vision and leadership • FMS = competitiveness + innovation leadership • Failed to realize expected productivity gains with FMS 102 and ABIKO 1; went ahead with ABIKO 2 • Developing intellectual assets (system skills) 2. Timely positioning of technology • Hitachi Seiki's strength in machining • Electronics/computer technology • Automatic tool storage/retrieval/changer • Robotics and transfer line technology • NC controller and programming • Adaptive control mechanism • Automatic gauging • Universal fixture reduces needs to fulfill every aspects of machining requirements for every type and size of fixture and pallets 3. Organizational Structure/Culture • FMS requires multi-disciplinary skills: knock down, knock down, knock down walls • Independent engineering administration department facilitated ABIKO 2 coordination • Right problem perceptive: manufacturing problem, not machine design perspective • GT simplifies problem and facilitate development focus THREE ALTERNATIVES |Criteria |Flexible Assembly |FMS 111 |FMS 112.5 | |Purpose |Automated storage/ retrieval |Unmanned high-precision |Unmanned machining | | | |machining | | |Important Components |Automated storage, material |2x5 face machining centers with|5 x machining centers linked by | | |handling & robotic carriers |corresponding automation for |material handling system for | | | |large casting |medium casting | |Cost |$1.2 Million + |$4.2 Million + |#3.0 million | |Advantages |Reduces assembly times from 72 |1. Ability to high precision |1. Offers all advantages of | | |to 60 hours |machining |ABIKO 2 | | |Automated storage and work |2. FMS with fewer setups |2. Extends range of machining/ | | |handling | |lead time advantages of ABIKO 2 | | | | |3. Production very enthusiastic | |Disadvantages |1. “Soft” cost not certain |1. High development cost |1. Not exciting | | |2. Does not automate actual |2. Need to commit more people |2. Marginal improvement | | |assembly work |to develop system | |