Implementation of Levels of Automation Free-Samples for Students

Question: Write a Report on Implementation of Levels of Automation and Group Technology in Batch. Answer: Key words related to this assignment are: Automation, taxonomy, allocation, manufacturing, levels of automation, assembly, concept model. Journals/publications found or related are: Fasth, ., Stahre, J. (2010, June). Concept model towards optimising Levels of Automation (LoA) in assembly systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd CIRP Conference on Assembly Technologies and Systems (pp. 1-3). Frohm, J., Lindstrm, V., Winroth, M., Stahre, J. (2008). Levels of automation in manufacturing. Ergonomia. Summary and Introduction The report presents a detailed literature review and analysis on implementation of levels of automation and group technology in batch manufacturing. Two publications or articles are reviewed and analyzed relating to this topic by presenting the arguments from the two sets of views. According to the article levels of automation in manufacturing by Frohm et al. (2008), the main objective was to explore the concepts of automation (LoA). The authors have presented a comprehensive literature review on definitions as well as taxonomies for the levels of automation crossways multiple scientific alongside industrial domains. This was aimed at increasing the understanding of task allocation within the semi-automated systems as well as providing a systematic approach for altering the level of automation. Frohm et al. (2008) have suggested the synthesizing concept encompassing a LoA definition as well as taxonomy projected at application in the manufacturing domain. The results presented by the authors suggest the level of automation need to be divided in two distinct variables that is physical or mechanical LoA and cognitive or information-linked LoA. They have also suggested that LoA in a manufacturing setting can be described as well as assessed utilizing seven-step references scales for the physical as well as cognitive LoA in that order. Frohm et al. (2008) argue that highly automated product realization has remained a significant channel for industry to meet low-cost economies competition, mainly because of comparable high wage cost witnessed in the United States and Europe for example. The authors have recognized that in the entire 20th century, elaborate efforts aimed at developing automated production processes were utilized by the manufacturing firms to increase efficiency radically as well as sustain a high production quality. Frohm et al. (2008) argue that increased automation was then not solely concerned with real manufacturing processes, but also focused on such supporting task as material handling, storage as well as transport. Nevertheless, the authors argue, even despite the existence of such ambitions in the 1980s to create the so-called light-out factories with complete automation in every production unit, a great percentage of automated systems within the manufacturing have remained semi-automatic whereby manufacturing system consist of automated and manual task combinations, particularly within assembly operations that have remained generally more challenging to automate at the justifiable costs. According to the other publication entitled concept model towards optimizing Levels of Automation (LoA) in assembly systems by Fasth Stahre (2010), advanced automation is a common solution in achieving high productivity as well as quality. Nevertheless, the authors held that the human operator remains at pace with automation based on flexibility alongside adaptability. Hence, the authors argue that appropriate levels of automation have to be selected in order to meet the triggers for change provoked by internal as well as demands. In that respect, therefore, Fasth Stahre (2010) presents a concept model that is aimed at the optimization of automation solutions in assembly system to avoid over/under automated systems. Fasth Stahre (2010) argue that current tradition for the design as well as utilization of assembly systems might never be adoptable to the needs as well as future challenges that production firms are facing. In this sense, they hold that increasing customization of products leads to a decrease in production batch sizes, particularly in the assembly operations. Hence, Asa and Johan argue that companies have to increase their respective capability to handle faster change-over between various product cohorts and novel products. Fasth Stahre (2010) argue that companies must suitably allocate task between resources (machines and operators) and technique and have to be dynamically changeable over period. However, Fasth Stahre (2010) recognize that it is common that designers automate each subsystem that culminate in the economic benefit for that particular subsystem thus leaving the operator to manage the rest. Again, Fasth Stahre (2010) warns that merely choosing solutions on the basis of solely experience and feelings instead of facts and numbers is unable to the optimal solution when the system is being designed. Fasth Stahre (2010) further argue that the DYNAMO++ method development has subsequently permitted the mechanical assessment and cognitive LoA thereby guaranteeing results in the visualization of potential improvements of automation solutions in the systems that are semi-automated. The authors portend that such a DYNAMO++ method has allowed the company to merge feelings alongside facts to decrease sub-optimization alongside over and under automated system. Literature Review and Analysis Frohm et al. (2008) opposed the initial argument that it remains a common case that progression from manual operations to full blown automation is made in a single step that is where operators are substituted with robots/advanced machinery. Frohm et al. (2008) argued that providing the user tools or additional support in order to achieve the task is seeable as increasing the automation level and approaching fully fledged automation. Nevertheless, the authors portend that by merely supplying the user with automated hand tool or manual the support of technological level is augmented and operators almost hit full automation when electrical/hydraulic hand tool is replaced with a robot/machine on the floor of the workshop. Frohm et al. (2008) argued that the simplest form of automation commonly operate in 2 modes including automatic and manual but within more complex systems like manufacturing, it is never novel to find multifaceted automation modes of both physical as info and control support. Frohm et al. (2008) noted in their review that only a few publications of levels of automation within manufacturing area exist from which perspective, LoA has frequently been viewed as the manning level. This is to say a comparison between real numbers of operators on workshops floor with respect to machine numbers. On the basis of the review by Frohm et al. (2008) they observed that automation is not all or nothing, however, should instead be viewed as a continuum of the levels of automation, from lowest level of completely manual performance to the highest level of full automation. The authors thus argued that automation can vary crossways a range of levels as well as exists as the continuum of full, partial or no substitution of a function initially undertaken by the human operator. Fasth Stahre (2010) based their argument on the concept model for measuring as well as analyzing level of automation with the aim of visualizing the relations between actions and areas within the firm when altering a system on the basis of levels of automation via task allocation. Fasth Stahre (2010) focused on two questions (benefits/why automate and inappropriate areas for automation alongside manual work) to establish the reason companies decide to automate as a strategic choice when altering the system of production. Based on the results from the survey, Fasth Stahre (2010) argued that the main reasons for automation are lowering the cost as well as becoming increasingly competitiveness. They identified three key areas where automation remained most commonly applied. These include to make sure more clear performance of a particular function; to enhance stability of performance via revealing individual of recurrent and monotonous task as well as to permit processes to be undert aken faster and more efficiently. Applications (relevance to real world) From the two publication (Fasth Stahre (2010) and Frohm et al. (2008)), it is clear that increased cognitive Levels of Automation might enhance the environment of operators and reduce their workload with the contained mechanical automaton. An alteration of mechanical automation shall provide possibilities for enhancing the work environment by removing high risk, monotonous as well as physical demanding work conditions. Thus, it is at this point when machine and human are able to undertake the same task though the question of task allocation becomes into play. It is, therefore, important to view task allocation as complementary between machine and man instead of dividing the task only to one. The concept model used in this publication can be utilized to highlight the relations between distinct areas in system to reduce the sub-optimization and thus avoiding over or under automated system. The selection of the taxonomies for both mechanization and computerization can be effectively assembled in a manner that makes them relevant for the field of manufacturing. This is done by combining automation of those physical task with the ones for control via a concept of mechanization profile. Conclusion The concept model has been utilized in explaining dissimilar relations as well as areas to concern when redesigning the assembly systems. It is thus important to view this model as aim of combining the knowledge of workers with the measured as well as analyzed core factors in the assembly system. It is concluded that the LoA within manufacturing does not constitute one step from manual to a fully blown automated tasks. It is easy to identify the potential that resides in increased/decreased automation by assessing the relevant maximum and minimum and the real LoA using the two seven-step references scales. Such resulting assessment is usable to increase total manufacturing system performance. References Fasth, ., Stahre, J. (2010, June). Concept model towards optimising Levels of Automation (LoA) in assembly systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd CIRP Conference on Assembly Technologies and Systems (pp. 1-3). Frohm, J., Lindstrm, V., Winroth, M., Stahre, J. (2008). Levels of automation in manufacturing. Ergonomia.