Journal of Service Science and Management, 2011, 4, 268-279
doi:10.4236/jssm.2011.43032 Published Online September 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/jssm)
Converting Traditional Production Systems to
Focused Cells as a Requirement of Global
Manufacturing
Ibrahim H. Garbie
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman.
Received January 30th, 2011; revised April 20th, 2011; accepted May 12th, 2011.
ABSTRACT
The converting process from trad itional production systems (e.g., Job Shops) to focu sed (cellular) systems is important
as one requirement of global manufacturing to challenge the existing global financial crisis. This represents a big
problem and a huge task for manufacturers and academicians which almost most of industrial enterprises around the
world are still working as a job shop. This converting process means breaking or dividing the existing functional
(process) layout into independently and distinctly focused manufacturing cells to gain on the conversion benefits. To
consider this issue, a new methodology of converting job shops into cellular systems is introduced based on the re-
quirements of global manufacturing regarding manufacturing systems design only. These requirements are: respon-
siveness, reconfigurable machines, mass customization, innovative and manufacturing systems configuration. A com-
plete industrial case study will be used to analyze and explain the proposed methodology in a small-sized job shop
manufacturing firm.
Keywords: Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems, Cellular Manufacturing Systems, Cell Formation.
1. Introduction
Due to an increasingly competitive global market, the
need for shorter product life cycles and time to market,
and diverse customers, changes in manufacturing sys-
tems have been tried to improve the flexibility and pro-
ductivity of manufacturing systems. There are three dif-
ferent types of manufacturing systems: flow shop (mass
production) system, batch production system, and job
shop manufacturing system. The job shop manufacturing
system is characterized by high flexibility and low pro-
duction volume and uses general-purpose machines. The
flow shop manufacturing system has less flexibility due
to dedicated machine tools but more production volume
is valuable. Due to the limitations of job shop and flow
shop systems to accommodate fluctuations in product
demand and production volume, manufacturing systems
are often required to be reconfigured to respond to
changes in product design, introduction of a new product,
and change in product demand and volume. As a result,
cellular manufacturing systems (CMS) have emerged as
promising alternative manufacturing systems to deal with
these issues especially for next period as a competence
for the global manufacturing as one solution to solve this
crisis in industrial enterprises [1].
CMS design is an important manufacturing concept
involving the application of group technology and it can
be used to divide a manufacturing facility into several
groups of manufacturing cells. This approach means that
similar parts are grouped into part families and associ-
ated machines into machine cells, and that one or more
part families can be processed within a single machine
cell. The creation of manufacturing cells allows the de-
composition of a large job shop manufacturing system
into a set of smaller and more manageable subsystems.
There are several reasons for converting traditional
manufacturing system (e.g., Job Shop systems) into cel-
lular systems. These reasons include reduced work-in-
process (WIP) inventories, reduced lead times, reduced
lot sizes, reduced inter-process handling costs, better
overall control of operations, improved efficiency and
flexibility, utilized space, reduced operation costs, im-
proved product design and quality, and reduced setup
times. General descriptions of group technology and cel-
lular manufacturing systems, cell formation techniques,

Converting Traditional Production Systems to Focused Cells as a Requirement of Global Manufacturing269
and an extensive review of the various aspects adopted
for cellular manufacturing systems are discussed care-
fully in the literature review [2].
Always, a new product is requested and demanded at
low price with high quality and highly customized (mass
customization). For surviving in the globalization, a new
configuration of the manufacturing systems lead to
launch new products to market replacing old ones com-
peting in low prices and high quality. So, the reconfigu-
ration from Job shop system to cellular systems has be-
come an issue of core competence. Reconfigurable Job
Shop manufacturing systems must take into account the
mass customization requirements which they can cope
with unpredictable environment changes to adapt with
productivity and flexibility issues to change their con-
figuration and physical layout. Resources (e.g., machines,
material handling equipments, etc.) should be adjusted
and composed in a changeable structure. These resources
should be modular machines such as: CNC machines
and/or reconfigurable machine tools [3].
Usually, the Job shop manufacturing systems cannot
be completely divided into focused cells. Reasonably, a
portion of the Job shop facility remains as a large espe-
cially in mid-sized and large-sized systems. Functional
job shop system that has been termed the “functional or
reminder cell” and the cellularization may be less than
100% [4,5] and around 60% [6]. The entire manufactur-
ing system cannot be completely converted into cellular
cells and typically around 40% - 50% of total production
system can be transferred [7]. Hybrid organizations for
next period which consist of functional departments and
manufacturing cells were recommended [8]. The main
objectives of reconfiguring existing Job shop manufac-
turing systems into cellular systems are system perform-
ance measures (productivity and flexibility) to satisfy
market demand and management goals.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows.
Section 2 reviews the research mainly related to conver-
sion from job shop manufacturing systems to cellular
systems and manufacturing cells formation. The global-
ization issues will be discussed in Section 3. Section 4
presents the proposed conversion. A complete industrial
case study will be explained with the results and discus-
sion in Section 5. The conclusions and recommendations
for further work are given in Section 6.
2. Literature Review
There are significant amounts of literature review dedi-
cated to the design of cellular manufacturing systems
(CMS) over the last four decades since 1973. Conversion
from an existing job shop manufacturing system to a
cellular manufacturing system was presented through
modeling and economic analysis by SIMAN software
simulation package [9]. The production flow analysis
was used to convert job shops to manufacturing cells [10].
Benefits and limitations due to conversion from a func-
tional layout to a cellular layout were presented [11]. A
bi-criterion technique based on the flexibility and effi-
ciency in converting functional manufacturing systems
into cellular manufacturing systems was presented [12].
Redesigning functional production systems into cellular
systems was mentioned through similarity order cluster-
ing between machines [13]. Improving productivity
through converting job shops manufacturing systems to
cellular systems using optimal layout configuration [14].
The reconfiguration costs and times were approximately
estimated. A lot of cell formation techniques were rec-
ommended to convert job shops manufacturing system to
cell systems [15].
A pragmatic approach was proposed to grouping ma-
chines and parts in CMS to achieve cell independence as
a goal function [16]. A simulated annealing was pre-
sented to minimize cell load imbalance and extra capac-
ity required [17] while the simulating annealing was used
to increase the productivity in CMS [18]. A clustering
approach based on similarity coefficient which includes
production sequence and product volumes to form a
manufacturing cell [19,20]. Branching rules to group
machines into machine cells and parts into part families
was used [21]. A heuristic approach for cell formation
was suggested to generate manufacturing cells [22].
Mathematical programming techniques were used to
form cell formation incorporating machine capacity, al-
ternative routing and identical machines to achieve cell
independence [23,24]. A heuristic cell formation incor-
porating alternative routing, operation sequence, proc-
essing times, production volume, and machine capacity
was presented [25]. New similarity coefficients were
proposed to group parts into independent flow-line fami-
lies considering machine capabilities and operations se-
quences [26]. A mathematical programming technique
was presented to form manufacturing cells by consider-
ing alternative routing and identical machines [27]. A
integer programming to minimize intercellular move-
ments and machine costs considering multiple time peri-
ods was developed [28,29]. A flexible cell formation
approach was presented by considering routing and de-
mand flexibility [30]. Operations sequence to minimize
cost of materials flow and capital investment for design-
ing CMS was used [31].
Average linkage clustering algorithm for grouping
parts (products) into part (product) families was used [32,
33]. They considered effectiveness of a Reconfigurable
Manufacturing System (RMS) depends on the formation
of best set of product families. The reconfiguration issues
in manufacturing systems were introduced mainly on

Converting Traditional Production Systems to Focused Cells as a Requirement of Global Manufacturing
270
reconfiguring existing cellular system to another cells
taking into consideration system utilization and through-
put [34]. A reconfiguration link was suggested to inter-
face between market requirements and manufacturing
facilities to group products into families and select the
appropriate family at each configuration stage [35]. A
routing flexibility was used as a contingency process
routings in formation of manufacturing cells versus addi-
tional costs of duplicate machines [36,37]. Axiomatic
design (AD) and experimental design (ED) are used as a
framework to complete cellular manufacturing system
design [38] to generate several feasible and potentially
profitable designs. A new methodology was presented to
optimize resource through balancing the workload in
designing cellular manufacturing systems as a solution
for flow shop environments [39]. The design of CMS
based on tooling requirements of the parts and tooling
available on the machines was proposed and presented
[40]. A traditional clustering formula to evaluate the ef-
fectiveness of cell formation as a performance measure
was used [41]. Machine reliability through alternate
routing process versus transporting, operating, and un-
derutilized costs is suggested in design of CMS [42,43].
Although there are a myriad of optimal cell formation
techniques proposed to cell design, they none seem to
address the most of relevant globalization issues or on
the other words, most of the research works done in this
field has been focused on clustering or forming rather
than converting from existing job shop manufacturing
systems.
In this paper, a comprehensive converting approach
from functional and/or process layout to cellular layout
will be introduced incorporating the most important glob-
alization issues regarding manufacturing systems design.
Also, practical performance measuring will be evaluated.
3. Globalization Issues
Several relevant globalization issues should be taken into
consideration when designing global manufacturing sys-
tems and/or as a requirement of converting functional
cells into focused cells. These issues are discussed as
follows:
3.1. Responsiveness
Responsiveness is the time required by a machine to
perform an operation on a part type. Sometimes, respon-
siveness is considered as a manufacturing lead time.
Normally, set up time and processing times are included
in manufacturing lead time. The processing time should
be provided for every part (product) on corresponding
machines in the operation sequence. Processing time is
important because it is used to determine resource (ma-
chine) capacity requirements [2]. Hence, ignoring the
processing times may violate the capacity constraints and
thus lead to an infeasible solution [44].
3.2. Reconfigurable Machines
Manufacturing systems use reconfigurable machines
representing in components and architecture which can
offer a much greater range of options to manufacturers.
Reconfigurable machines are considered into two main
issues: machine capacity and machine capability.
3.2.1. Machin e Capaci t y
Machine capacity is the amount of time a machine of
each type is available for production in each period.
When dealing with maximum possible demand, we need
to consider whether the resource capacity is violated or
not. In the design of cellular systems for reconfiguration,
available capacities of machines need to be sufficient to
satisfy the production demand [2,43]. Machine capacity
is more important and it should be ensured that is more
adequate capacity (in machine hours) is available to
process all the part families [45]. The importance of ma-
chine capacity is being rapidly adjusted to fluctuations in
changing product demand.
3.2.2. Machine Capability
Machine capability refers to the functionality of ma-
chines to perform varying operations without incurring
excessive cost from one operation to another. The ma-
chine level is fundamental to a manufacturing system,
and machine flexibility is a prerequisite for most other
flexibilities as mentioned by [1,30,45].
3.3. Innovation
Introducing a new product or product design and devel-
opment (modification) represents a new concept when
the CMS should be designed. Although they carry over-
lapping definitions to design CMS, incorporating one of
them will develop concepts of CMS from traditional
ideologues to advanced ideologues (agile systems) [46,
47]. To achieve these new concepts, reconfiguring tradi-
tional job shop systems into cellular systems with cus-
tomized flexibilities is highly desired. As the reconfigu-
ration manufacturing systems is one of most important
strategies in achieving agility in the manufacturing sys-
tems, reconfiguring or reorganizing not only the tradi-
tional job shop systems but also the cellular system [43].
Introducing a new product or changing in existing prod-
uct design (product development) will base on the ma-
chine flexibility and machine reliability.
3.4. Mass Customization
Demand is the quantity of each product in the product
mix to be produced in each period. The product demand
of each product is expected to vary across the planning

Converting Traditional Production Systems to Focused Cells as a Requirement of Global Manufacturing271
horizon. Changing in product demand and the variability
in parts demands lead the designers of manufacturing
systems to convert the job shop systems to cellular sys-
tems. Mass customization does not mean producing one
of a kind product but to producing relatively large quan-
tities of varieties of products from the same product fam-
ily at mass production competitive of economics scale.
The goal of mass customization is to increase customer's
value of a product by adding a range of product varia-
tions that fit specific customer's taste and needs while
maintaining low prices [48]. Producing products for mass
customization presents a challenge because of substantial
changes in product flexibility and product volume (de-
mand).
3.5. Manufacturing System Configuration
The configuration of a manufacturing system can facili-
tate the system's productivity and responsiveness. Facil-
ity location and facility layout are the system configura-
tion requirements for global manufacturing. In this paper,
facility layout is considered. A designer of manufactur-
ing systems should consider cell configurations and sys-
tem configurations. Reconfigurable machines intra-cells
and/or inter-cell are necessary especially during next
period.
4. Converting Methodology
The proposed methodology for converting Job Shop
manufacturing systems to focused cells will be intro-
duced into five phases. The objective of first phase is
used to collect data of existing parts (products) and ma-
chines from existing Job Shop manufacturing system.
The second phase is to group parts into part families ac-
cording to similarity in processing requirements. Distrib-
uting part families to machines will be assigned in third
phase according to part(s) specification. Formation of
manufacturing cells, including part families with ma-
chine cells will be introduced in fourth phase. In fifth
phase, formed manufacturing cells will be evaluated and
revised.
4.1. Phase 1: Collecting the Existing Data from
Job Shop Manufacturing Systems
It should analyze carefully existing Job shop manufac-
turing systems into different perspectives such as existing
parts and machines information analysis. For parts
(products) information analysis, it should include number
of jobs or products (sometimes called lot size), number
of machines required for each part (product), processing
or manufacturing time from each operation, demand (lot
size) of each one. For machines information analysis, it
also should include number of machines in a plant, how
many manufacturing departments, and how many differ-
ent types of machines in each department and the speci-
fication of each machine. Also, it should exactly know a
machine capacity and machine flexibility (capability).
4.2. Phase 2: Grouping Parts to Part Families
Parts are assigned to part families according to the simi-
larity in processing requirements between two parts
(products). A procedure to group parts into part families
will be explained in following steps:
Step 1: Compute the similarity coefficient matrix be-
tween all parts according to the following Equation (1):
where:
p
q = similarity coefficient between part type p
and part type q,
S


p
Dt
= demand of part type p at time
t,


t
q = demand of part type q at time t, k = subscript
of parts (k = 1, …, n), c = total number of machines
in the cth cell, m = number of machines in the job shops
manufacturing system,
Dm
p
q
x
m = number of machines that
both part p and part q visit, c = total number of parts
in the cth cell, lp
t = processing time part p takes on
machine , = processing time part q takes on ma-
chine ,
n
l
llq
t
p
ql
X
= 1, if part type p and part type q visit
machine ,
l
p
ql
X
= 0, otherwise,
p
ql
Y = 1, if part type
p or part type q visits machine ,
l
p
ql
Step 2: Determine the desired number of part families
(NPE) by the following equation:
Y = 0, otherwise
min
n
NPF n  (2)
where: n = number of parts in existing Job shop manu-
facturing systems, = minimum number of parts in a
part family.
min
n
Step 3: Select the largest similarity part p and part
(q, …, n) to start grouping the first part family .Check for
the minimum part family size (at least one part per fam-
ily). Decrease the value of similarity index to group the
second part family. Also, form a new part family ac-
cording to the lower similarity. Check to determine if
some parts have not been assigned to part families.
4.3. Phase 3: Assigning Machines to Machine
Cells
Machine cells involve assignment of machines into ma-
 
 
1
1
max ,
max ,,
Xpql
XX
pql pql
Xpql
m
lp Plq qpql
l
pq mmm
lp Plq qpqllp Plq qpql
llm
tDt tD tX
S
tDt tDtXtDt ORtD tY













(1)

Converting Traditional Production Systems to Focused Cells as a Requirement of Global Manufacturing
272
chine cells based on the new similarity coefficient be-
tween two machines. A similarity coefficient between
machines will base on processing time of all part type
operations, number of operations performed, machine
capability (flexibility) and machine capacity (reliability),
and demand of each part (product). A procedure to group
machines into machine cells will be explained in follow-
ing steps:
Step 4: Check the machine balancing at any time MB(t)
of each machine type capacity
 


12
,,,
m
CtCtC t


to produce all parts (products) demands



12
,Dt Dt
 manufactur-
,

,n Dt

 by these machines in job shop
s. The MB of machine i at any given time t is
based on demand rates and processing times of all parts
(products) assigned to machine i. The equation for com-
puting MB for machine i is shown as a following Equa-
tion (3)
ing system
 
1
n
ikik
k
M
Bt tDt

 (3)
Step 5: Compute the similarity between all machines
ac
en machines i
cording to the following Equation (4).
where: ij S Similarity coefficient betwe
and j, = capacity of machine i at time t,

i
Ct


j
Ct
= capacity of machine j at time t,

k
Dt = dem
part type k at time t, l = subscriachines (l =
1, …, m), i
o
n= numberf operations done on machine i,
and of
pt of m
o
j
o
n = numr of operations done on machine j, max
i
O
N
aximum numbers of operations available on m
i (machine capability) at time t, max
j
O
N = maximum
number of operations available on ne j (machine
capability) at time t, ij
X
n = number of parts that can
visit both machines i aj, ki
t = processing time part k
takes on machine i including stup time.
ki
t = processing time part k takes on
be
= machine
machi
nd
e
machine j in-
cluding setup time, ijk
X
n = 1, if part type k visits both
machines i and j, ijk
X
=
m
0, otherwise, ijk Y = 1, if part
type k visits eitheachine i or machine j, ijk
Y = 0,
otherwise.
Step 6:
r
Determine the desired number of machines
cells ( NMC ) by the following Equation (5).
max
m
NMC m
 (5)
= maximum number of machines into machine
max
m
cell.
Step 7: Select a highest similarity index between ma-
chine i and machine (j, …, m) to start forming the first
machine cell. Check the minimum machine cell size con-
straint (at least two machines per cell). Decrease a value
of similarity index to form a new machine cell or add
machines to the existing one. Check for a maximum
number of machines in a machine cell. If number of ma-
chines in this machine cell does not exceed the desired
number of machines, then, add to this cell. Otherwise,
stop adding to this cell and go back to select another
similarity index. If number of machine cells formed ex-
ceeds desired number of machine cells , join two
machine cells into one machine cell. If all machines have
not been assigned to machine cells, assign a functional
cell(s).
NMC
4.4. Phase 4: Formation of Manufacturing Cells
Step 8: Manufacturing cells are formed by grouping parts
into part families and machines to machine cells. The
corresponding manufacturing cells based on results ob-
tained from Phase 2 and Phase 3 was formed by distrib-
uting part families to associated machine cells.
4.5. Phase 5: Performance Evaluation
Step 9: Compute exceptional parts and bottleneck ma-
chines.
4.5.1. Productivity Measures
Step 10: Machine i utilization in cell c at time t,


ic
M
Ut, is evaluated as the following Equation (6).
 

1
c
ic
n
kk
k
ic ic
tDt
MU tCt

 (6)
where


ic
Ct capacity of machine i in cell c at time t,


tt
ic
k = processing time part k takes on machine i in
cell c, = number of parts produced in cell c.
c
Step 11: Cell utilization at time t, , is esti-
mated as the following Equation (7).
n

ic
CU t
 

1
1
1
c
ic c
m
kk mk
ci
cic
tDt
CU tmCt










(7)
    
      
max
max maxmaxmax
1
max ,
max ,
xij j
i
iMax i
Xij j
i i
X
iji j ij
no
o
kiki ijk k
kio jo
ij nn o
o o kj kjkj
ki ki
ijk kijk k
kln
io jojojo
n
n
tt
XDt
Ct NtCt Nt
Sn
nn tt t
tt
X
DtORY Dt
Ct NtCt NtCt NtNt Nt





 









  








1
Xij
n
k

(4)

Converting Traditional Production Systems to Focused Cells as a Requirement of Global Manufacturing273
wStep
on
is calculated as the following Equation (8).
here c
m= number of machines inside cell c.
12: Cellular system utilization at any given time t,

SU t, is calculated as an average cell utilization and
depend number of manufacturing cells in system. s
The SU

t
 



1
11
11
c
ic c
m
ct kk mk
ic ci
cic
tDt
SU tCtmC t









 (8)
ufacturing cells at time t.
[45] and it is expressed in the following Equa-
tion (9).

where: C(t) = number of man
4.5.2. Flexibility Measures
Step 13: Machine flexibility (MFLX) inside a cell after
forming the manufacturing cells will be assessed by the
machine processing capability and capacity (reliability).
This flexibility will be used to measure capability of a
machine
 






max
01
1ic
ic O ic
k
oi
nic ic
ic
SMCtSMF t
MFLX tCtN t





 (9)


ic
M
FLXt = flexibility measure of machine i in
m
= slack in machine capac in manufac-
anufacturing cell c at time t.

ic
SMC tity i
turing cell,

ic
SMCt =
 
ic ic
Ct MBt
m
 
c
1ic
ic k k
k
M
Bt tDt


ic
SMFt =ty slack in machine capabilii in manu-
rations on
machi
ons on machine i in manu-
fa
[45] and it is expressed in
the following Equation (10).
facturing cell,
 
max
ic ic
icO ico
SMF tNtn.

max
ic
Oic
Nt = maximum number of ope
ne i in manufacturing cell c.
o
n = number of operati
ic
cturing cell c.
Step 14: Cell flexibility
After forming the manufacturing cells, cell flexibility
(CFLX) will be assessed by the number of machines in-
side the cell. This flexibility is used to evaluate the
manufacturing cell flexibility
 



max
10 1
1
o
ci
ic
n
mic ic
i
cicOic
1
SMCtSMF t
CFLX tmCtNt








 (10)
the man
cts) and it is expressed in the
following Equation (11).
k



Step 15: Cellular System flexibility
After forming ufacturing cells, new product
(part) flexibility (CSFLX ) will be assessed by the flexi-
bility of cells in the system. Cellular system flexibility
[45] can be used to test the cellular formation after as-
signing part families to machine cells for accepting one
or more new parts (produ
 





max
1101
1
11
o
ci
ic
n
Ct mic ic
Ci
cicOic
t
k
SMCtSMFt
CSFLXtCtmC tN












(11)
r Hours Report” for the set up time
su
5. Case Study and Implementation
XYZ Co., Inc., a manufacturing company for customer
service, is located in Houston, Texas. XYZ Co. produces
different types of parts (products) which are used in other
manufacturing companies according to customer’s re-
quests. These parts are requested by the customers by
identifying the quantity of each part (job) accompanied
by engineering drawing or prototype of the part. This
company has several machine tools, from conventional
machines to Computerized Numerical Control (CNC)
machines, for general purpose.
The main objective of this case study is to demonstrate
the application and usefulness of the proposed manufac-
turing cells design approach for conversion and/or recon-
figure the traditional job shop manufacturing systems to
cellular systems. In the XYZ Co., Inc. machines were
analyzed to identify the manufacturing cells that were
included in the plant by determining the number of them.
The number of machines with the identifying number of
identical machines will also be identified. The specifica-
tion of machines regarding machine capacity and capa-
bility will also be presented. Information with respect to
parts produced in the XYZ Co., Inc., will be selected
based on the number of parts (jobs) processed during the
same time period. The processing times of these parts on
machines with the sequence of operations were taken
from the “Work Orde
and processing time.
5.1. Machines Information Analysis
To analyze the machines in the layout, the number of
machines in the plant was divided into five manufactur-
ing departments. Three departments were used conven-
tional machines (Lathe or turning (1) department, Lathe
(2) department, and milling machines department). There
are other two departments including all the CNC ma-
chines. It can be noticed in lathe department (1) that there
are two different types of lathe machines with a total of 7
machines. Five similar machines are such as L (1)-A-A-L
(2)-L (3), and two similar machines are such as L (4)-B.
Also, in the lathe department (2), there are two different
types of lathe machines with a total of 5 machines. Two
similar machines are such as: L (5)-L (6) and three simi-
lar machines are such as: C-C-L (7). For milling depart-
ment, there are six identical universal milling machines
ch as D-D-M1 (8)-D-D-M2 (9).

Converting Traditional Production Systems to Focused Cells as a Requirement of Global Manufacturing
274
s also three
ssing times, sequence, and quantity of
ne unit (part) on universal mill-
To demonstrate the application of the proposed cell de-
Table 1. Machines Information.
Machine # Machine Code (Hours/week) Max. # of Operations
There are two different CNC departments. One CNC
lathe department includes five different CNC turning
centers with a total of 6 machines such as: E-F-CNCL
(10)-G-L-L. The other CNC milling department includes
four different CNC vertical machining centers with a
total of 6 machines such as H-I-CNCVMC (11)-J-K-
CNCVMC (12). Machine specification data regarding the
machines’ capacities and capabilities will be shown in
Table 1. In this table, there are 12 machines that are used
to process the 14 parts (products). These machines are L
(1), L (2), L (3), L (4), L (5), L (6), L (7), M (8), M (9),
CNCL (10), CNCVMC (11), and CNCVMC (12). The
existing job shop manufacturing system plant layout is
illustrated in Figure 1. It can be noticed from Figures 1
and 2 that part 6 proceeds through lathe (1) department
and CNC lathe department. Part 7 proceeds through three
departments: lathe (2), milling, and CNC milling. Also,
part 8 needs three departments to be completed: lathe (1),
lathe (2), and milling. Finally, part 9 need
departments: lathe (1), lathe (2) and milling.
5.2. Products (Parts) Information Analysis
To analyze jobs information, the number of parts in a
plant was collected based on existing number of parts
during the same period. There are 14 parts in processing
during this period and 746 parts (products) on a waiting
list. Table 2 presents the data of 14 parts on machines by
identifying proce
parts (products).
5.3. Machines-Parts Information Analysis
To analyze machines-parts information, it is recom-
mended to use the machine-part incidence matrix be-
cause it is considered an easiest way to represent proc-
essing requirements of the 14 parts on 12 used machines
types (see Figure 3). It can be noticed that part 1 needs
57.2 minutes to process o
ing machine [(M1 (8)].
5.4. Application of the Conversion Methodology
Machine Type Machine Capacit
L (1)
L (2)
L (3)
L (4)
L (5)
L (6)
L (7)
M (8)
M (9)
CNCL (10)
C)
Uni/C
CNCnter
NC VMC (11
CNC VMC (12)
02001
02004
02005
02022
02024
02051
02023
03004
03006
04001
05003
05007
Turning Lathe
Turning Lathe
Turning Lathe
Turning Lathe
Turning Lathe
Turning Lathe
Turning Lathe
versal Milling M
Universal Milling M/C
CNC Turning Centre
Vertical Machining Ce
CNC Vertical Machining Center
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
20
20
20
9
8
20
9
13
13
14
16
30
P1 P2 P3 P4P5P6 P7P8 P9P10 P11 P12 P13 P14
L (1) 13.9 1.17 28.35
L (2) 1. 22.86 95
L (3) 1650.62
L (4) 0.27416.
L (5) 1471. 11
L (6) 17.0
L (7) 95.9104.
M1 (8) 547.2 7.44.48
M2 (9) 5.06
CNCL (10) 5.23. 28 12
C) 2123.9 NCVMC (11 4.8
CNCVMC (12) 129.7
Demand (Units) 3 26 120 1021203 328 176 7 4 60 8
Figu 1.chine-penix. re Maart incidce matr

Converting Traditional Production Systems to Focused Cells as a Requirement of Global Manufacturing275
Figure 2. Existing job shop manufacturing sy ste m layout.
sign regarding the reconfiguration from job shop manu-forming manufacturing cells, and evaluating performance.
facturing systems into cellular systems, it should follow
the sequence of procedures. This sequence can be repre-
sented in the similarity in processing requirements be-
tween parts and between machines, clustering machines
into machine cells, grouping parts into part families,
The final machine cells and part families will be shown
as follows: Machine cell # 1: {1, 2, 3, 10}, Machine cell
# 2: {4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12}, Part family # 1: {3, 12},
Part family # 2: {4, 14}, Part family # 3: {5, 6, 10}, Part
family # 4: {8, 9}, Part family # 5: {1, 7, 13}, Part family

Converting Traditional Production Systems to Focused Cells as a Requirement of Global Manufacturing
276
Table 2. Produnformation. cts
Part # Sequence (MachineDemand (Lot Size)
i
s) Processing Time (minutes)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
M1 (8)
CNCVMC (12)
L (2)
L (1)
L (3)
L(1)-L(
L(5)
1.17 - 5.28
147.
0.4
120
3)-CNCL (10)
-M1 (8VMC (11)
L(4)-L(6)-L(7)-M1 (8)
)-CNC
L(4)-L(7)-M2 (9)
CNCL (10)
CNCVMC (11)
L (2)
L (5)
L (1)
57.2
129.7
1.86
13.9
165.0
0.62 -
0 24.8
1- 17.0 - 95.9 - 4.48
- 47.4 -
26.7 - 14.0 - 5.60
23.12
123.9
22.95
1.11
28.35
3
26
10
2
120
3
32
8
176
7
4
60
8
Table 3. Formedufacturing cells.
Manufacturing cell Part Families
man
Machine cells (machines)
1 L (1) ), L (2), L (3), CNCL (10PF1, PF2, PF3
2 L (4), L (5), L (6), L (7(11), CNCVMC (12) ), M1 (8), M2 (9), CNCVMC PF4, PF5, PF6
PF1 PF2 PF3 PF4 PF5 PF6
P3 P12 P4 P14 P5P6 P10 P8 P9P7 P13 P11 P1 P2
13.9 28.35 L (1) 12.17
L (2) 1. 8622.9
L (3) 165 0.62
5.28CNCL (10) 23.12
L ) (4 0.41 26.7
L (5) 147 1. 11
L (6) 17.0
L (7) 95.9 14.0
M1 (8) 4.48 57.247.4
M2 (9) 5.60
CNCVMC11 24.8 123.9
CNCVMC12 129.7
D emand (Units)120 4 8 210 120 176 328 3 3 60 26 7
Fig3. Fl foatf macinglls.
6: {2, 11}, The Final manufacystem is expected not only to ac-
garding why reconfiguration of ex-
ure inarmion oanuftur ce
#turing cells will be shop manufacturing s
shown (see Figure 3), and then the manufacturing cells
are two (see Table 3).
Measuring performance evaluation of manufacturing
cell design will depend on the productivity and flexibility
issues in different levels (machine, cell, system). The
results will be shown in Table 4. It can be noticed from
then results that there are six part families and two ma-
chine cells. Also, it can be noticed that there are three
part families were assigned to each machine cell. This
means that each machine cell can be process more than
one part family. This will lead to say that reconfigure Job
commodate for production of a variety of products which
are grouped into part families, but also it must give a
significant response to deal with introducing a new
product within each family [45]. It can be noticed that
there is no exceptional parts and bottleneck machines in
this case. May be this application has a limited number of
parts and machines.
To compare the existing job shop manufacturing sys-
tem and the new manufacturing cells design, the number
of machines will be a major criterion. This represents the
major contribution re

Converting Traditional Production Systems to Focused Cells as a Requirement of Global Manufacturing277
e p Table 4. Performance measures of throposed manufacturing cells design.
Machine Cell System
Machine Type tion Flexibility Utilization Utilization System
Machine Machine Cell Cell System
Utiliza Flexibility Flexibility
1
L (1)
CNCL (10)
L (2)
L (3)
0.1056
0.0656
0.0846
0.9797
0.7602
0.8408
0.8238
0.0173
0.3089 0.6105
2
CNCVMC (11)
CNCVMC (12)
0.2416 0.6051
0.2753 0.6078
L (4)
L (5)
L (6)
L (7)
M1 (8)
M2 (9)
0.0472
0.1058
0.1137
0.6626
0.0952
0.0093
0.1962
0.7028
0.7410
0.6705
0.8419
0.2621
0.6959
0.9144
0.7032
0.0120
isting Job shocells re im
e time because there is a reduction in capital invest-
adi-
tio facturing systems into focused cells
p to focused are moportant all
th
ment through minimizing the number of machines used
in the plant. They can be used in other places in new
plants. The new plant layout can be shown in Figure 4. It
can be noticed from Figures 3 and 4 that there are a big
difference in the number of machines in each plant layout.
From this study, it can be noticed that there are reduction
or improvement in plant layout, reduced in inter-process
handling costing. The number of work-in-progress is also
reduced by 80% than the Job shop systems.
6. Conclusions and Recommendation for
Future Work
This paper presented a new concept for converting tr
nal Job shop manu
Figure 4. The proposed manufacturing cells design layout.
systems based on the globalization issues. Globalization
issues were proposed in this paper, and they will lead to
suggest a new reconfiguration process. The proposed
methodology of converting was introduced sequentially
beginning grouping parts (products) into part families
and assigning machines to those part families. Hence, the
manufacturing cells were formed. The proposed method-
ology of conversion was examined with an industrial
case study for its justification. The results show that there
are main differences between the existing Job shop
manufacturing system and focused cells which are con-
sidered the core of the new innovative manufacturing
systems which can are used easily to apply lean manu-
facturing and agile manufacturing/management philoso-
phies.
The main contribution in this paper is how to convert
conventional Job shop manufacturing systems to focused
cells although most of plants (factories) in the world are
still working as the job shop system (functional or proc-
ess layout). The author intends to extend this research for
more applications in real case studies in next period es-
pecially under existing depression (global recession) in
h elping in reducing capital investment or saving or install
machines in other plants.
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the financial sup-
port provided by the Sultan Qaboos University (Grant No.
IG/ENG/MIED/10/01) to carry out this research work.
REFERENCES
[1] I. H. Garbie, “A Roadmap for Reconfiguring Industrial
Enterprises as a Consequence of the Global Economic
Crisis,” Journal of Service Science and Management, Vol.
3, No. 4, 2010, pp. 419-428.
doi:10.4236/jssm.2010.34048
[2] I. H. Garbie, “Designing Cellular Manufacturing Systems
Incorporating Production and Flexibility Issues,” PhD

Converting Traditional Production Systems to Focused Cells as a Requirement of Global Manufacturing
278
Dissertation, The University of Houston, Houston, 2003.
[3] I. H. Garbie, H. R. Parsaei and H. R. Leep, “Measurement
of Needed Reconfiguration Level for Manufacturing
Firms,” International Journal of Agile Systems and Ma-
nagement, Vol. 3, No. 1-2, 2008, pp. 78-92.
[4] U. Wemmerlov and D. J. Johnson, “Cellular Manufactu-
ring at 46 User Plants: Implementation Experiences and
Performance Improvements,” International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2007, pp. 29-49.
doi:10.1080/002075497195966
[5] U. Wemmerlov and D. J. Johnson, “Cellular Manufactu-
ring in the US Industry: A Survey of Users,” Inter-
ction Research, Vol. 37, 1999
doi:10.1080/00
, national Journal of Produ
pp. 413-431.
[6] R. F. Marsh, S. M. Shafer and J. R. Meredith, “A Com-
parison of Cellular Manufacturing Research Presumptions
with Practice,” International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 39-3138. 7, No. 14, 1999, pp. 311
2075499190202
[7] S. Venkataramanaiah and K. Krishnaiah, “Hybrid
Heuristic for Design of Cellular Manufacturing Systems,”
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002,
pp. 274-283. doi:10.1080/09537280110073978
[8] O. Feyzioglu and H. Pierreval, “Hybrid Organization of
Functional Departments and Manufacturing Cells in the
Presence of Imprecise Data,” International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 47, No. 2, 2009, pp. 343-368.
doi:10.1080/00207540802425898
[9] M. B. Durmusoglu, “Analysis of the Conversion from a
Job Shop System to a Cellular Manufacturing System,”
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol.
30-31, 1993, pp. 427-436.
doi:10.1016/0925-5273(93)90110-7
[10] N. Gaither, G. V. Frazier and J. C. Wei, “From Job Shops
to Manufacturing Cells,” Production and Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 31, No. 4, 1990, pp. 33-36.
[11] G. A. Levasseur, M. M. Helms and A. A. Zink, “A
Conversion from a Functional to a Cellular Manufacturing
Layout at Steward, Inc.,” Production and Inventory Mana-
gement Journal, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1995, pp. 37-42.
[12] M. Liang and S. M. Taboun, “Converting Functional
Manufacturing Systems into Focused Machine Cells―A
Bicriterion Approach,” International Journal of Produc-
tion Research , Vol. 33, No. 8, 1995, pp. 2147-2161.
doi:10.1080/00207549508904808
[13] G. C. Onwubolu, “Redesigning Job Shops to cellular
Manufacturing Systems,” Integrated Manufacturing Sys-
tems, Vol. 9, No. 5, 1998, pp. 377-382.
doi:10.1108/09576069810238763
[14] S. Collett and R. J. Spicer, “Improving Productivity
through Cellular Manufacturing,” Production Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1, 1995, pp. 71-75.
[15] F. O. Olorunniwo and G. J. Udo, “Cell Design Practices
in US Manufacturing Firms,” Production and Inventory
nal Journal of Production
031-1050.
Management, Vol. 37, No. 3, 1996, pp. 27-33.
[16] M. Cantamessa and A. Turroni, “A Pragmatic Approach
to Machine and Part Grouping in Cellular Manufacturing
System Design,” Internatio
Research, Vol. 35, No. 4, 1997, pp. 1
doi:10.1080/002075497195524
[17] A. Baykasoglu, N. N. Z. Gindy and R. C. Cobb,
“Capability Based Formulation and Solution of Multiple
Objective Cell Formation Problems using Simulated
Annealing,” Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12,
No. 4, 2001, pp. 258-274.
doi:10.1108/09576060110392560
[18] A. I. Abdelmola and S. M.Taboun, “A Simulated Annea-
ling Algorithm for Designing Cellular Manufacturing
Systems with Productivity Consideration,” Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 11, No. 6, 2000, pp. 589-597.
doi:10.1080/095372800414151
[19] G. J. Nair and T. T. Narendran, “CASE: A Clustering
Algorithm for Cell Formation with Sequence Data,”
International Journal of Production Research
No. 1, 1998, pp. 157-179.
, Vol. 36,
80/002075498193985doi:10.10
e-
[20] Y. Won and K. C. Lee, “Grouping Technology Cell
Formation Considering Operation Sequences and Produc-
tion Volumes,” International Journal of Production R
search, Vol. 39, No. 13, 2001, pp. 2755-2768.
doi:10.1080/00207540010005060
[21] C. H. Cheng, C. H. Goh and A. Lee, “Designing Group
Technology Manufacturing Systems Using Heuristics
Branching Rules,” Computers and Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 40, No. 1-2, 2001, pp. 117-131.
doi:10.1016/S0360-8352(00)00080-2
[22] A. M. Mukattash, M. B. Adil and K. K. Tahboub,
“Heuristic Approaches for Part Assignment in Cell For-
mation,” Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 42,
No. 2-4, 2002, pp. 329-431.
doi:10.1016/S0360-8352(02)00020-7
[23] V. Ramabhatta and R. Nagi
of Manufacturing Cell Formation w
, “An Integrated Formulation
ith Capacity Planning
and Routing,” Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 77,
1998, pp. 79-95. doi:10.1023/A:1018933613215
[24] W. E. Wilhelm, C. C Chiou and D. B. Chang, “Inte-
grating Design and Planning Considerations in Cellular
Manufacturing,” Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 77,
1998, pp. 97-107. doi:10.1023/A:1018985630053
[25] Y. Yin and K. Yasuda, “Manufacturing Cells Design in
Consideration of Various Production Factors,” Internatio-
nal Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40, No. 4, 2002,
pp. 885-906. doi:10.1080/00207540110101639
[26] R. G. Askin and M. Zhou, “Formation of Independent
Flow-Line Cells based on Operation Requirements and
Machine Capabilities,” IIE Transactions, Vol. 3
1998, pp. 319-329.
0, No. 4,
08179808966472doi:10.1080/074
002075499191742
[27] S. Sofianopoulou, “Manufacturing Cells Design with
Alternative Process Plans and/or Replicates Machines,”
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 37,
No. 3, 1999, pp. 707-720. doi:10.1080/
mming Model for
Vol. 77, 1998, pp. 109-128.
[28] M. Chen, “A Mathematical Progra
System Reconfiguration in a Dynamic Cellular Manufac-
turing Environment,” Annals of Operations Research,

Converting Traditional Production Systems to Focused Cells as a Requirement of Global Manufacturing
279
doi:10.1023/A:1018917109580
[29] F. F. Boctor, “The Minimum-Cost,
Formation Problem,” International Jou
Machine-Part Cell
rnal of Production
Research, Vol. 34, No. 4, 1996, pp. 1045-1063.
doi:10.1080/00207549608904949
[30] R. G. Askin, H. M. Selim and A. J. Vakharia,”A
Methodology for Designing Flexible Cellular Manu-
facturing Systems,” IIE Transactions, Vol. 29, No. 7,
1997, pp. 599-610. doi:10.1080/07408179708966369
[31] B. R. Sarker and Y. Xu, “ Designing Multi-Product Lines:
Job Routing in Cellular Manufacturing Systems,” IIE
Transactions, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2000, pp. 219-235.
doi:10.1080/07408170008963894
[32] R. Galan, J. Racero, I. Eguia and J. M. Garcia, “A Metho-
dology for facilitating Reconfiguration in Mnaufacturing:
the Move towards Reconfigurable Manufacturing Sys-
tems,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 33, No. 3-4, 2007, pp. 345-353.
doi:10.1007/s00170-006-0461-2
[33] R. Galan, J. Racero, I. Eguia and J. M. Garcia, “A
Systematic Approach for Product Families Formation in
Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems,” Robotics and
Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 23, No. 5,
2007, pp. 489-502. doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2006.06.001
[34] S. M. Saad “The Reconfiguration Issues in Manufacturing
Systems,” Journal of Processing Technology, Vol. 138,
No. 1-3, 2003, pp. 277-283.
[35] M. R. Abdi and A. W. Labab, “Grouping and Selectin
65
g
Products: The Design Key of Reconfigurable Manufactu-
ring Systems (RMSs),” International Journal of Produc-
tion Research, Vol. 42, No. 3, 2004, pp. 521-546.
doi:10.1080/002075403100016136
ro-
[36] S. Ahkioon, A. A. Bulgak and T. Bektas, “Cellular
Manufacturing Systems Design with Routing Flexibility,
Machine Procurement, Production Planning and Dynamic
System Reconfiguration,” International Journal of P
duction Research, Vol. 47, No. 6, 2009, pp. 1573-1600.
doi:10.1080/00207540701581809
[37] S. Ahkioon, A. A. Bulgak and T. Bektas, “Integrated
Cellular Manufacturing Systems Design with Production
Planning and Dynamic System Reconfiguration,” Euro-
pean Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 192, No. 2,
2009, pp. 414-428. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.09.023
[38] W. Hachcha, F. Masmoudi and M. Haddar, “Combining
Axiomatic Design and Designed Experiments for Cellular
Manufacturing Systems Design Framework,” Internatio-
nal Journal of Agile Systems and Management, Vol. 3,
No. 3-4, 2008, pp. 306-319.
[39] I. Alkattan, “Workload Balance of Cells in Designing of
Multiple Cellular Manufacturing Systems,” Jour
Manufacturing Technology Managemenal of nt, Vol. 16, No. 2,
2005, pp. 178-196. doi:10.1108/17410380510576822
[40] F. M. Defersha and M. Chen, “A Comprehensive Mathe-
matical Model for the Design of Cellular Manufacturing
Systems,” International Journal of Production Econo-
mics, Vol. 103, No. 2, 2006, pp. 767-783.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2005.10.008
[41] H. A. Bashir and S. Karaa, “ Assessment of Clustering
Tendency for The Design of Cellular Manufacturing
Systems,” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Mana-
gement, Vol. 19, No. 8, 2008, pp. 1004-1014.
doi:10.1108/17410380810911754
[42] K. Das, R. S. Lashkari and S. Sengupta, “Reilability
Considerations in the Design of Cellular Manufacturing
Systems—A Simulated Annealing Based Approach,”
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Mana-
gement, Vol. 23, No. 7, 2006, pp. 880-904.
doi:10.1108/02656710610679851
[43] K. Das, R. S. Lashkari and S. Sengupta, “Reilability
Considerations in the Design of Cellular Manufacturing
Systems,” International Journal of Production Econo-
mics, Vol. 105, No. 1, 2007, pp. 247-262.
doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.04.015
[44] S. Zolfaghari and M. Liang, “Machine Cell/Part Family
Formation Considering Processing Times
Capacities: A Simulated Annea
and Machine
ling Approach,” Compu-
ters and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 34, No. 4, 1998, pp.
813-823. doi:10.1016/S0360-8352(98)00112-0
[45] I. H. Garbie, H. R. Parsaei and H. R. Leep, “Introducing
New parts into Existing Cellular Manufacturin
based on a Novel Similarity Coeffi
g Systems
cient,” International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43, No. 5, 2005, pp.
1007-1037. doi:10.1080/00207540412331270432
[46] S. S. Heragu, “Group Technology and Cellular Manufac-
turing,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cyber-
netics, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1994, pp. 223-230.
doi:10.1109/21.281420
[47] I. H. Garbie, H. R. Parsaei and H. R. Leep, “A Novel
Approach for Measuring Agility in Manufacturing
Firms,” International Journal of Computer Applications
in Technology, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2008, pp. 95-103.
doi:10.1504/IJCAT.2008.020334
[48] Y. Koren, “The Global Manufacturing Revolution-Pro-
duct-Process-business Integration and Reconfigurable
Systems,” 1st Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken,
2010.