Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (13)
- Book (3)
- Part of a Book (62)
- Conference Proceeding (114)
- Contribution to a Periodical (25)
- Lecture (7)
- Internet Paper (2)
- Report (2)
- Working Paper (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (232)
Keywords
- 02 (15)
- 03 (9)
- 04 (1)
- 5G (2)
- 7. EU-Forschungsrahmenprogramm (1)
- AI (2)
- APMS (1)
- APS (1)
- Aachener PPS-Modell (1)
- Ablauforganisation (1)
Institute
- Business Transformation (10)
- Dienstleistungsmanagement (67)
- FIR e. V. an der RWTH Aachen (232)
- Informationsmanagement (51)
- Produktionsmanagement (115)
Aus Sicht des Produktionsmanagements stellt die Beherrschung der steigenden Dynamik und den daraus resultierenden Konsequenzen wie beispielsweise Unter- und Überlastsituationen eine zentrale Herausforderung der kommenden Jahre dar. Ursachen der zunehmenden unternehmensinternen Dynamik sind verkürzte Lieferzeiten, eine höhere Prozessvarianz der Fertigung und Montage (verursacht durch individualisierte Produkte) und der Einsatz technologisch-komplexer Produktionsanlagen. Die drastische Verkürzung der Lieferzeiten hat die Auftragssituation und den Kapazitätsbedarf produzierender Unternehmen stark verändert.
Kapazitätsschwankungen und Prozessinstabilitäten einer Einzelressource wirken sich auf Grund der stärkeren Kopplung wesentlich drastischer auf die Stabilität des gesamten Unternehmens aus, da Bestände als Puffer zu kapitalintensiv geworden sind. Gleichzeitig nehmen makroskopische, überbetriebliche Kapazitätsschwankungen zu, da die Reaktionszeiten innerhalb der Lieferkette deutlich kürzer geworden sind.
Die steigende Varianz der Prozessketten und -zeiten potenziert die beschriebenen Kapazitäts- und Durchlaufzeitschwankungen. Eine "mittelwertbasierte PPS" kann aufgrund der gestiegenen Planungsanforderungen nicht mehr zielkonform agieren. Planungs- und Steuerungskonzepte, die auf diese Komplexität nicht reagieren können, multiplizieren ein weiteres Aufschwingen der Bedarfe in der Lieferkette und führen zu Auslastungsverlusten und steigenden Rückständen in der Produktion. Heute sind neue Ansätze in der Planung und Steuerung von inner- und überbetrieblichen Produktionsprozessen notwendig, die die Dynamik der Prozesse und der Kapazitätsbedarfe beherrschbar machen oder ggf. sogar kompensieren können.
Einführung
(2012)
Zusammenfassung und Ausblick
(2012)
A company can choose between three generic competitive strategies. Alongside the strategy of cost leadership are the strategy of differentiation and the strategy of focussing on niches, although we will not be discussing this latter any further here. The strategy of cost leadership is based on the achievement of “economies of scale”, so generating advantage from the benefits of cost reduction, learning curve effects and automation. In the strategy of differentiation the focus is on “economies of scope” which enable the customer-specific products to be offered, but this is generally achieved only with an increase in the complexity of products and processes. In the past it was assumed that these two strategies were mutually exclusive, as an increase in the economies of scale basically leads to a reduction in the economies of scope, and vice versa. But in order to survive in the international competitive arena companies in the high-wage countries need increasingly to offer individually tailored products at competitive prices. The target to be aimed at is therefore customer-specific products at the cost of mass production, so resolving the dilemma between economies of scale and economies of scope. For this it is necessary to optimise the alignment of all the structural elements in both the product and its production, because of the high level of their interdependence.
The areas on which we will focus our review and designs in the following will be what are known as product-production systems, or more briefly, production systems. This topic includes not only the resources and processes of the value creation systems, but also the products produced and offered on the market by a company as one connected entity. In order to tackle the challenges mentioned above, it is necessary to make it possible to measure and compare the current position of any given production system on the see-saw between economies of scale and economies of scope, and then be able to redesign specific facets of them as a second phase. A method of integrative evaluation and design of production systems is presented below for this purpose.
Industrial production in high-wage countries like Germany is still at risk. Yet, there are many counter-examples in which producing companies dominate their competitors by not only compensating for their specific disadvantages in terms of factor costs (e.g. wages, energy, duties and taxes) but rather by minimising waste using synchronising integrativity as well as by obtaining superior adaptivity on alternating conditions. In order to respond to the issue of economic sustainability of industrial production in high-wage countries, the leading production engineering and material research scientists of RWTH Aachen University together with renowned companies have established the Cluster of Excellence “Integrative Production Technology for High-Wage Countries”. This compendium comprises the cluster’s scientific results as well as a selection of business and technology cases, in which these results have been successfully implemented into industrial practice in close cooperation with more than 30 companies of the industrial production sector.
Maximising economies of scale in individualised production is a vital issue for producing companies in high wage countries. A decisive enabler for this is the management of product and process complexity by systematic standardisation. Due to the strong and far-reaching impact of complexity on the value added chain, its management requires an integrative consideration of the entire product and production system.
The following paper introduces a methodology facing this challenge. The core element of this methodology is an integrative and complexity-focused assessment model. This assessment model has been validated experimentally by analysing key company data from more than 50 German toolmaking firms. Findings of this empirical investigation are presented in this paper.
Manufacturing companies of the machinery and equipment industry find themselves more than ever exposed to a rapidly changing competitive environment. In particular, the resulting diversity of planning and control processes confronts organisations and information systems with a significant coordination effort. To this day, planning and execution of order processing – from offer processing to the final shipment of the product – is still a part of the production planning and control (PPC), which is almost entirely integrated into information systems. Though, in order to manage dynamic influences on processes within order processing, there can be found a deficiency in the processing of decision-relevant and real-time information. Partly, the reason for this is a missing or incorrect feedback of process relevant data, so that the planning results, gained by the use of information systems, differ to the current process situation.
The concept of Manufacturing Resource Planning (MRP II) still represents the central logic of production planning and control. However, the centralised and push-oriented MRP II planning logic is not able to plan and measure dynamic processes adequately, which, due to diverse disturbances, often occur in production environments. Furthermore, specific weaknesses of MRP II-based systems are the lack of support for order releases, the planning principle based on average values and the successive planning method as well as the use of limited partial models. As a result a successive planning method leads to a dissection of PPC-tasks into smaller work packages and so strides away from a holistic approach and the achievement of an optimal solution. Similarly, a planning, focusing on a general business objective system, using a partial planning approach due to isolated considerations is not possible. Insufficient consideration of the current load horizon and the current capacity utilization, non-existing or delayed feedback on order progress as well as faults and poor availability and transparency of information can be named as further weaknesses of MRP II-based systems.
Remote services are services enabled by information and communication components and therefore do not require the physical presence of a service technician at the service object to provide a task. The impact of remote service on the capital goods industry has been increasingly significant over the recent yeas. Still many companies struggle with developing and implemenling successful business model, for remote service. This leads to a lot of unaccomplished benefits for the customer as well as for the companies themselves. A survey throughout companies in Ihe industrial machine and plant production sector was conducted in order to determine what successful companies do differently from those that cannot efficiently implement remote service business models.
The study presented in this chapter identifies key suceess factors of companies that effectively implemented remote services for their products. In order to identify the successful companies a scale for measuring remote service success was developed. Only by the use of this scale further findings regarding the success factors were possible. Key findings include the fact that successful companies actively market their remotle service to their customers. Generally they try to approach their remote service business from the operating company's perspective.
Entgegen der von Porter postulierten Inkompatibilität von Economies of Scale und Economies of Scope sind in Hochlohnländern produzierende Unternehmen in zunehmendem Maße herausgefordert, sowohl individuelle Kundenbedürfnisse zu befriedigen als auch gegen den Kostendruck globalisierter Märkte zu bestehen. Diese Herausforderung entspricht einer Auflösung der Scale-Scope-Dichotomie. Aufgrund der hochgradigen Interdependenz der strukturbildenden Elemente eines Produkt-Produktionssystems müssen diese zur Auflösung der Dichotomie in ihrem spezifischen Standardisierungsgrad aufeinander abgestimmt werden.
Diese Abstimmung entspricht der Aufgabenstellung der integrativen Bewertungs-und Konfigurationslogik, die im Folgenden präsentiert wird. Auf Basis eines integrierten Bewertungsmodells, das Produkt-Produktionssysteme in vier quantifizierbare Spannungsfelder gliedert, kann hierbei der aktuelle Betriebspunkt eines Produktionssystems analysiert werden. Über die gewonnenen Analyseergebnisse ermöglicht dieses Bewertungsmodell die Steuerung des Konfigurationsprozesses eines Produkt-Produktionssystems in Form einer Konfigurationslogik.
One of the central success factors for production in high-wage countries is the solution of the conflict that can be described with the term “planning efficiency”. Planning efficiency describes the relationship between the expenditure of planning and the profit generated by these expenditures. From the viewpoint of a successful business management, the challenge is to dynamically find the optimum between detailed planning and the immediate arrangement of the value stream. Planning-oriented approaches try to model the production system with as many of its characteristics and parameters as possible in order to avoid uncertainties and to allow rational decisions based on these models. The success of a planning-oriented approach depends on the transparency of business and production processes and on the quality of the applied models. Even though planning-oriented approaches are supported by a multitude of systems in industrial practice, an effective realisation is very intricate, so these models with their inherent structures tend to be matched to a current stationary condition of an enterprise. Every change within this enterprise, whether inherently structural or driven by altered input parameters, thus requires continuous updating and adjustment. This process is very cost-intensive and time-consuming; a direct transfer onto other enterprises or even other processes within the same enterprise is often impossible. This is also a result of the fact that planning usually occurs a priori and not in real-time. Therefore it is hard for completely planning-oriented systems to react to spontaneous deviations because the knowledge about those naturally only comes a posteriori.