Abstract
Abstract Paper aims The paper seeks to compare the performance of three layouts in a make to order (MTO) production system with high product variability. Originality No previous work sought to compare job shop, cellular and virtual cell layouts in an MTO system with high product variability, with just 21 resources, a low amount. The analysis considered models with the same capacities and demand for the three layouts. Research method The complete factorial design and ANOVA were used with simulation. The main effects plots of the control factors for response variables were obtained (e.g. throughput, lead time, and resource utilization). Main findings The virtual cell layout had results similar to the job shop, but achieved better outcomes compared with the traditional cell. Implications for theory and practice The knowledge gap regarding virtual cells signals the importance of this topic, as well as the possibilities not yet investigated about it in manufacturing companies.
Highlights
According to Andersen et al (2017), in today’s globalized production environment, changes are inevitable, and manufacturers must take advantage of either new technologies, changes in products or manufacturing processes. Paydar & Saidi-Mehrabad (2014) point out that for a company to survive, it is very important to meet the needs of customers, who demand products with high quality and lower prices (Arkat & Ghahve, 2014; Garza-Reyes et al, 2016; Paydar & Saidi-mehrabad, 2017)
In the second stage the layout is analyzed as a control factor of the experiment, and it is verified for which response variables the layout is significant
In order to facilitate the understanding of the results, a summary is presented in Table 8, which shows the relationship between each control factor and the response variables for each of the three layouts
Summary
According to Andersen et al (2017), in today’s globalized production environment, changes are inevitable, and manufacturers must take advantage of either new technologies, changes in products or manufacturing processes. Paydar & Saidi-Mehrabad (2014) point out that for a company to survive, it is very important to meet the needs of customers, who demand products with high quality and lower prices (Arkat & Ghahve, 2014; Garza-Reyes et al, 2016; Paydar & Saidi-mehrabad, 2017). Continuous improvement of processes and products are key to have loyal customers and corporate survival (Mclean & Antony, 2017). Andrade & Fernandes (2018) point out the importance of integrating the stages of the production process through the interoperable integration since its planning. In this context, Mahdavi et al (2011) mention that the use of process plans with pre-established alternatives can be advantageous, since a previously selected alternative resource can be included during the process plan elaboration. The presence of pre-planned alternatives can provide more flexibility in decision making (Ferreira & Wysk, 2001a, 2001b; Phanden et al, 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
