EVALUATION OF THE
MACHINE MODERNITY IN THE MOTOR INDUSTRY
Manuela Krystyna Ingaldi
Czestochowa University of Technology, Faculty of
Management, Institute of Production Engineering, Poland
E-mail: manuela@gazeta.pl
Submission: 26/05/2014
Accept: 10/06/2014
ABSTRACT
Most manufacturing companies
realize its technologies, implemented through concrete machinery parts. They
differ in terms of importance, the relevance of their selection and the level
of their modernity. The purpose of this article is to analyse the chosen
production machine in terms of its modernity. The ABC technology method was
chosen do this research. All parts of the machine were divided into three
groups: parts of main subassembly A, parts of supportive subassembly B, parts
of collateral subassembly C. Then each of these parts was evaluated in the
Parker's five-point scale. From the conducted analysis it results that most
parts of the research machine were manufactured with more complex technologies,
requiring technical skills and knowledge or with unchanging technologies used
for years. It means that the research machine is not a modern machine. Perhaps
company managers should take a decision on the change of the machine for the
newer one. This would allow for improvement of the technical parameters of the
products, increase in production efficiency and reduction of the amount of
nonconforming products. Therefore, it can be concluded that a properly selected
and correctly applied parts of the subassemblies contribute to the improvement
in quality of products and the efficiency of the machine.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Decision making is associated with
the process of choosing the appropriate course of action. This often requires
the selection of "the best" option from many possible solutions. The
decision making is a difficult process because a person taking the decision is
responsible for its future effects. Decisions of managers play an important
role in the functioning of businesses, affect their state, processes occurring
inside of them, and thus on its financial results. Therefore, decisions should
be preceded by a thorough analysis of the situation (KAHNEMAN; TVERSKY, 2000;
NIGHTINGALE, 2008).
One of the areas of enterprise management
are decisions related to the owned technology and thus machinery park. What the
quality of products will be, and thus whether the products will meet the
requirements of customers, depend on the state of owned machinery park.
Production technology and the state of the machinery park affect the company's
competitiveness in the market, which is why company executives should take into
account these elements when taking any decisions concerning the production
process.
The state of the machine park,
according to various sources (LOWE, 1998; KONSTANCIAK, 2012), can be evaluated
for various aspects: effectiveness, productivity, energy consumption, material
consumption, the use of human labor, but also modernity. Most of the features
of the machine depend on its modernity. Therefore, any analysis of the state of
the machine park, according to the author, should start exactly from the
analysis of its modernity.
Most manufacturing companies realizes
their technologies, implemented through concrete machinery parts. They differ
in terms of importance, the relevance of their selection and the level of their
modernity (PAULIČEK, et al., 2014; DZIUBA, JAROSSOVÁ, GOŁĘBIECKA, 2013).
Modernity of machines and devices can
be classified, with use of the ABC technology method. The competitive
advantage, expressed for example as the richness of the product assortment, can
be used as a criterion for evaluation. This can be achieved thanks to the
flexibility of devices that allow for variation in the type and quality of the
product.
The purpose of this article is to
analyze the chosen production machine in terms of its modernity. The ABC
technology method was chosen do this research.
This method is usually used in
logistics to group company stocks, proper management of the stock levels, order
preparation of the stock and precise determination of their levels, in
production management to rationalize parts warehouse layout, improve the
calculation results of the production order, the selection of operations in the
technological processes, the choice of working position, in quality management
to organize nonconformities or manufacturing errors in terms of frequency of
occurrence (BORKOWSKI; SELEJDAK; SALAMON, 2006; KARDAS, 2010). However, its use
for the evaluation of modernity of machines, according to the author, is also
very useful.
Nevertheless, this is the first stage
of the study on the evaluation of the chosen production machine. Subsequently,
the author also plans to evaluate the effectiveness of this machine and its
productivity. These studies as a whole will help the company managers to take
decisions on the machine and to check if any change machinery park or
technology used in enterprise is necessary.
2.
MATERIAL
AND METHODS
To evaluated modernity of machine and devices, the ABC
technology method, described in following papers (KARDAS, 2010; BORKOWSKI;
INGALDI, 2013; SELEJDAK; KONSTANCIAK; MIELCZAREK, 2010; BORKOWSKI; ULEWICZ,
2009; ROSAK-SZYROCKA; KONSTANCIAK; KNOP, 2010), was used. This method, called
also Pareto-Lorenz method or the 80-20 rule, belongs to the techniques
determining the actions aiming at improvement of the processes levels and
quality characteristics of material goods and services. This analysis is based
on the principle according to which, in each group several segments can be
divided into marked with the letter A, which largely determine the results. For
example in case of machines parts of main subassembly A appear at the beginning
of system, at the end of the system parts of collateral subassembly C appear.
In the middle of the system there are parts of supportive subassembly B.
Technologies of level A, also known as main
technologies, are basic technologies, fundamental for business. They help to
give special attributes to produced products.
Technologies of level B are the enabling technologies
of a general nature, available to all companies in a given industry. The
company does not show interest in development, but benefits from such progress
during the purchase of the machine.
Technologies of level C are supporting
technology which are usually part of the overall business. These technologies
are associated with its own machinery or equipment and are not subject to the
innovative activity of the entity using it. User first of all cares for their
proper maintenance, aiming to shorten their downtime and to eliminate their
premature withdraw from use
(INGALDI, 2013; PUSTĚJOVSKÁ; JURSOVÁ; BROŽOVÁ, 2012; LESTYÁNSZKA ŠKŮRKOVÁ;
KUDIČOVÁ, 2011; FUTAS; PRIBULOVA, 2013 ).
The evaluations of individual parts of the machine can
be made on the basis of Parker's five-point scale (KONSTANCIAK, 2012;
BORKOWSKI; SELEJDAK; SALAMON, 2006; BORKOWSKI; ULEWICZ, 2009):
-
Level
1 concerns of the simple machine parts manufactured with use of craft
technologies.
-
Level
2 concerns of the machine parts manufactured with unchanging technologies used
for years.
-
Level
3 concerns of the machine parts manufactured with more complex technologies,
requiring technical skills and knowledge.
-
Level
4 concerns of the machine parts manufactured with modern technologies.
-
Level
5 concerns of the machine parts manufactured with the most modern, unique
technologies, not known by other producers.
Parts of subassemblies of the machinery park and technology used by the company are extremely important for the quality of products. Machinery and devices equipped
with modern parts, components not only work more efficiently, but also produce products with much higher quality.
The ABC technology method was used in the article to evaluate modernity of the riveting press. All parts of this machine were divided, in accordance
with described method, into three groups: parts of main subassembly A, parts of
supportive subassembly B, parts of collateral subassembly C. Then each of these
parts was evaluated in the previously described Parker's five-point scale. The results were shown in tabular manner.
However, the division machinery on parts and their
evaluation is not enough. The results are more visible and better understanding in the graphical form, which is why in the article these forms were used. This allows for easier interpretation of the results. With use of the histogram, a graphical interpretation
of the results, which shows the differences in the allocated evaluations, was
presented. With use of the pie charts, graphical summary of the percentage
shares of individual levels for each part in every assembly was demonstrated.
Final results of the ABC technology method for the entire research machine was
shown in the traditional way: percentage shares of each level in the form of
bars, and accumulated shares in the form of a linear function.
3.
CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE RESEARCH OBJECT
The company X is recognized as the most diversified
automotive supplier in the world whose products and services include the
development and production of parts, components, modules and systems, the
development and installation of the entire car to the customer.
The company currently manufactures its products in
three main groups of the assortment, namely group of the window lifters, group
of the car locks, group of the break rods.
Main machines used in
the production process are following:
- testing
machines,
- screw
plugs,
-
riveting
presses,
-
welding
machine.
In the article the riveting machine was analysed. It
is pneumatic press. It is used to disc riveting, strips and brackets riveting.
It is an economical, long life and robust construction, made in compliance with
CE regulations. Its drive combines the pneumatics and hydraulics advantages. A
part of such machine is well designed control system which ensures usability
and variety of features.
Due to the fact, that the manufacturer of the riveting press is an external company, from which author was not
able to receive permission to use its name and detailed description of the
machine, this information could not be mentioned in the article.
4.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
The modernity research
was conducted for the
riveting machine. The most difficult stage of the study was to specify
the different parts of the machine and their division into individual
subassemblies. Evaluation of modernity level of individual parts of the
research machine is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Evaluation of the modernity of the parts of
the riveting press (own study)
No |
Parts of main subassembly A |
Evaluation |
A1 |
Screw plug to door bracket and strip bracket |
3 |
A2 |
Setting of the brackets |
2 |
A3 |
Detector of the door bracket presence |
3 |
A4 |
Detector of the strip bracket presence |
3 |
A5 |
Crush press |
4 |
A6 |
Setting of the strip |
4 |
A7 |
Detector of the strip in setting presence |
3 |
A8 |
Screw plug to movable bracket |
3 |
A9 |
Setting of kinked
strip |
2 |
A10 |
Detector of the strip and movable bracket presence |
3 |
A11 |
Extrusion ram |
2 |
A12 |
Pneumatic system |
5 |
Average |
3.08 |
|
|
Parts of supportive
subassembly B |
|
B1 |
Main power transmission system |
3 |
B2 |
Control Panel |
3 |
B3 |
Assembly of air preparation |
3 |
B4 |
Air lines |
2 |
B5 |
Wires connectors |
2 |
B6 |
Machine switch-key |
2 |
B7 |
Safety barrier |
3 |
B8 |
Power valve |
2 |
B9 |
Button "START" |
2 |
B10 |
Safety button |
2 |
B11 |
Button "RESET" with special type of key |
3 |
Average |
2.45 |
|
|
Parts of collateral
subassembly C |
|
C1 |
Green light CYCLE OK |
1 |
C2 |
Red light CYCLE NOK |
1 |
C3 |
Container for scraps "SCRAP BOX" |
3 |
C4 |
Sensor of container for scraps use |
3 |
C5 |
Shelves for containers with details |
2 |
C6 |
Lighting |
1 |
C7 |
Machine construction |
3 |
C8 |
Foundation |
2 |
Average |
2.00 |
In Figure 1
graphical interpretation of modernity level of research machine was presented.
In Figure 2 the structure of
modernity level of the research machine taking individual subassembly into
consideration was presented. In Figure
3 the final result of the ABC analysis is presented.
Figure 1: Modernity level of parts of the riveting
press (own study)
a) |
b) |
c) |
Figure 2: The modernity structure of subassemblies of
the riveting press in: a) main subassembly, b) supportive subassembly, c)
collateral subassembly (own study)
Figure 3: ABC analysis of the modernity level of the
riveting press (own study)
Individual parts of the riveting
press, according to Table 1,
Figure 1 and Figure 2 were classified in following way:
–
Parts
of main subassembly A: in 50% are on level 3, in 25% are on level 2, in over
16% are on level 4, and in over 8% on level 5. So 3 was the most often given
evaluation (6 times). Pneumatic system
was the highest evaluated part (level 5) while Setting of the brackets, Setting of kinked strip and Extrusion ram were the lowest evaluated (level 2) parts of the of main subassembly A. No part of this subassembly
received evaluation 1. It should also be noted that the evaluations of parts of
this subassembly were the most diverse. This group had the
highest average evaluation (3.08). This
means that the average part of the subassembly was manufactured with more
complex technologies,
requiring technical skills and knowledge.
–
Parts
of supportive subassembly B: in over 54% are on level 2 and in over 45% are on
level 3. So 2 was the most often given evaluation (6 times). In case of
subassembly B, the individual parts were evaluated only at 2-3, the average
evaluation was 2.45, which means that parts of this subassembly were manufactured with more complex technologies, requiring
technical skills and knowledge or with unchanging technologies used for years.
Evaluations 1, 4, 5 has not been granted, which means small diversity in evaluations.
–
Parts
of collateral subassembly C: in over 37% are on level 1 and 3, in 25% are on
level 2. There was no evaluation which was given the most often. It should be
emphasized that some of these parts were evaluated on level 1, which means that
they were manufactured with use of craft technologies. None of the parts
received evaluation 4 and 5, which means small diversity in evaluations and
also lack of modernity. Average evaluation of all subassembly was 2.0, which
means that on average parts of this subassembly were manufactured with
unchanging technologies used for years.
Average evaluation of
the entire machine was 2.6, which means that, as in the case of the subassembly
B, most of the parts were manufactured with more
complex technologies, requiring technical skills and knowledge or with
unchanging technologies used for years. It should be emphasized that the
average evaluation of parts of subassembly A was higher than the average for
the entire machine.
Analysing Figure 3 it can be
concluded that evaluation 3 was the most often given evaluation to individual
parts of the research machine (over 45%). Evaluation 2 was next in the order
(over 35%). Evaluations 1, 4, 5 had little impact on the overall evaluation of
modernity of the research machine.
It means that the research machine is not modern. Perhaps company
managers should think about changing this machine for newer one. This is the
first condition, which tends to take such decision. This would allow for improvement
of the technical parameters of
the products and production process, increase in production efficiency and reduction of the
amount of nonconforming products. Therefore,
it
can be concluded that a properly selected
and correctly applied parts of
the subassemblies contribute to the improvement in quality
of products and the
efficiency of the machine.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
The main aim of the article
was to evaluate technological modernity of the chosen machine used during the
production process in the research company. The ABC method was used. This
analysis is a part of the evaluation of the technological strategic position of
the company.
The riveting press, which is used
in the production process of the car window lifters, was analysed. From the conducted analysis
it results that most parts of the research machine were manufactured with more complex technologies, requiring
technical skills and knowledge or with unchanging technologies used for years.
The research machine is not
modern, so managers should consider its change. It should be remembered that
the more modern machine is and the same time the more modern its part are, the
higher efficiency and productivity of its work are. Modernity also usually
entails higher quality of products. Therefore, further research
of the machine in terms of its efficiency and productivity of its work is
planned.
6.
REFERENCES
BORKOWSKI,
S.; INGALDI, M. (2013) Workers Evaluations of Ribbed Wire Competition and
Rolling Mill Technological Possibilities. In METAL 2013: 22nd INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON METALLURGY AND MATERIALS. Conference
Proceedings: 15. – 17. 5. 2013, Brno, Hotel Voroněž,
Czech Republic, Ostrava, TANGER Ltd., p. 1920-1925.
BORKOWSKI, S.;
SELEJDAK, J.; SALAMON, S. (2006) Efektywność eksploatacji maszyn i urządzeń,
1ed. Częstochowa: WZPCzęst.
BORKOWSKI,
S.; ULEWICZ, R. (2009) Instrumenty doskonalenia procesów produkcyjnych. Instruments of Production Processes
Improvement. 1 ed., Warszawa: PTM.
DZIUBA, S.T., JAROSSOVÁ, M.A., GOŁĘBIECKA, N. (2013), Applying the
Ishikawa diagram in the process of improving the production of drive
half-shafts. In Borkowski S., Ingaldi M. (Ed.) Toyotarity. Evoluation and Processes’/Products’
Improvement. Monograph. Alba Iulia:
Aeternitas Publishing House p. 20-37
FUTAS,
P.; PRIBULOVA, A. (2013) Computer simulation of casting produced by investment
casting technology. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference
Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, SGEM, v. 1, p. 29-36.
INGALDI, M.
(2013) Determination of the technological position of the courier services
company. International Journal Transport & Logistics, v. 13, n. 28.
KAHNEMAN, D.; TVERSKY, A. (2000) Choice,
Values, Frames, 1 ed. Cambridge: University Press.
KARDAS, E. (2010) Wykorzystanie metody
ABC do analizy materiałów w wybranym zakładzie wielkopiecowym. Logistyka, n. 4, p. 64-68.
KONSTANCIAK, M. (2012), Analysis of
technological strategies on the example of the production of the tramway
wheels. Archives of Materials Science and Engineering, v. 57, n. 2.
LESTYÁNSZKA
ŠKŮRKOVÁ, K.; KUDIČOVÁ, J. (2011), The process capability study of pressing
process for force closed. Vedecké práce MtF STU v Bratislave so sídlom v
Trnave. Research papers Faculty of Materials Science and Technology Slovak
University of Technology in Trnava, v. 19, n. 30, p. 51-57.
Lowe, P. (1995) Management of Technology: Perception
and Opportunities, 1 ed. London: Chapman
& Hall.
NIGHTINGALE, J. (2008) Think
Smart - Act Smart: Avoiding The Business Mistakes That Even Intelligent People
Make, 1 ed., John Wiley & Sons.
PAULIČEK T.; ČIČO P.; ORŠULA V.; JANKAJOVÁ E.; HOLOTA
T.; KOTUS M. (2014), Hodnotenie poruchovosti obrábacieho centra metódou FMEA =
Evaluation of failure machining center by the FMEA method. Kvalita,
technológie, diagnostika v technických systémoch = Quality, technologies,
diagnostics of technical systems. Zborník vedeckých prác. Slovenská
poľnohospodárska univerzita v Nitre, Nitra 2014, p. 74-79.
PUSTĚJOVSKÁ, P.; JURSOVÁ, S.; BROŽOVÁ, S. (2013), Technical-economic
Prospects of Utilization of Alternative Ironmaking Techniques in Metallurgy. In
METAL 2012: 21th ANNIVERSARY INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON METALLURGY AND
MATERIALS. Conference
Proceedings: 23.-25. 5. 2012, Brno, Hotel Voroněž, Czech
Republic Ostrava, TANGER Ltd., p. 1729-1733.
ROSAK-SZYROCKA,
J.; KONSTANCIAK, M.; KNOP, K. (2010), Meaning of
technological up-to-dateness and efficiency of machines used in HACPP system. In BORKOWSKI, S.; SELEJDAK, J. (Ed.) Operating
efficiency and machines modernity. Sisak: Endi Miletić, p. 57-70.
SELEJDAK, J. (2002) Analysis of Factors Influencing
Seamed Tubes Quality. Metalurgija, v. 41, n. 3.
SELEJDAK,
J.; KONSTANCIAK, M.; MIELCZAREK, K. (2010), Evaluation of technological
efficiency and up-to-dateness of machines used in building industry. In
BORKOWSKI, S.; SELEJDAK, J. (Ed.) Operating efficiency and machines
modernity. Sisak: Endi Miletić, p. 33-46.