the Technology Interface / Winter98

Computer Integrated Manufacturing:

Challenges and Barriers to Implementation

by
Linda Ann Riley
Leon Cox
linriley@nmsu.edu
lcox@nmsu.edu
Department of Industrial Engineering Department of Engineering Technology
New Mexico State University
Department of Industrial Engineering
New Mexico State University

Abstract
What company wouldn't want to be known as practicing a "CIM" philosophy?
Conceptually, a company adopting computer integrated manufacturing practices
suggests a forward-looking, innovative and technologically advanced operation.
However in reality, CIM is neither appropriate nor cost-effective for many manufacturing
entities. One of the greatest challenges to organizational diffusion of a CIM philosophy is
the multi-dimensionality of the CIM construct. Just when is a company practicing CIM?
What constitutes adoption? What type of metrics can accurately measure diffusion and
CIM success? This paper overviews the challenges and barriers to CIM implementation.
It investigates processes, operations, industries and situations that are most suitable for
CIM applications, as well as those less so. Last, this paper presents a worksheet for
conceptually assisting managers and engineers in making a CIM adoption decision.
Introduction - Exactly What is CIM?
Ask twenty engineers, twenty managers and twenty information technology specialists to
define the concept of CIM, and you'll get sixty different answers. Computer integrated
manufacturing has been described as everything from an intangible philosophy to a
specific CNC program. Further complicating the process of arriving at a consensus for
the conceptualization of the term, is the issue of where in the organization CIM resides. Is
it a management tool, a planning tool? Is it a production floor activity? Or does CIM
somehow fit into an enterprise resource planning (ERP) model?

Articles, academic studies and practitioner reports abound which attempt to provide CIM
with some context. Some of these definitions involve a phased or dimensional quality.
For example, Johansen et al. define CIM to include: "1. Factory communication hardware
and software; 2. Data management, including collection, storage, and retrieval; and 3.
Applications software and hardware, including material planning and control, quality
systems, inspection and vision, computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing
(CAD/CAM), and computer aided process planning/computer-aided engineering
(CAPP/CAE)." [1] Others such as Weston, suggest that CIM consists of three
dimensions; the engineering dimension which involves CAD/CAM and CAPP activities;
the networking and systems dimension; and the continuous improvement dimension
encompassing areas such as MRP II, TQM, JIT and theory of constraints (TOC) [2].
Still others see CIM as an integration tool, a tool which uses information and automation
hardware and software for production control and management [3]. This school of
thought views CIM as a total integrative tool for the organization, one which has the
ability to increase productivity, quality and competitive advantage. Another
organizational perspective of CIM is that of a "management technology that makes
feasible the fully-automated factory-of-the-future." [4] With this perspective, CIM allows
the organization to fully integrate and control all design and manufacturing functions.
Industry specific definitions of CIM also are prevalent in the literature. The print industry
for one, has adopted certain CIM principles such as electronic data interchange (EDI);
digital linkage of users and suppliers; and automation in the production and binding steps
to move the industry from a labor intensive position to one of greater automation [5,6].
The machine tool industry is another industry frequently cited as practicing certain CIM
concepts such as CAD, CAPP, CAM and MRPII [7]. For industry specific definitions, it
appears that CIM provides a vast menu of possibilities for an organization. From this list
of possibilities, decision makers select various processes, hardware and software which
are then adapted to specific industry needs.
Another emerging trend in CIM literature involves product data management (PDM)
systems. In today's manufacturing environments, the need for PDM is paramount because
product technology is changing so rapidly. In addition to PDM, the database management
system, (for example, an Oracle system), must be capable of integration with a particular
network protocol, (TCP-IP, for example). This integration is essential for the
development, delivery and support of object-oriented client/server business-critical
documents. For successful CIM installation, PDM cannot be overlooked because it is, in
reality, the backbone of data management in a CIM environment [8].
When is a Company Practicing a CIM Philosophy?
If a company uses a CAD program, is it CIM-savvy? How about a JIT system? Or TQM
standards? At what point does a company move from a non-CIM position to one that
encompasses a CIM philosophy? Can this movement be measured by the number of hard
or soft technologies the company adopts? Or is the complete integration of only one CIM
tool a better measure of a company practicing the CIM philosophy? Is a company a CIM
company if the CEO has said it so?

One of the most difficult aspects in studying companies that have adopted CIM, is that
there is no one right answer to any of the above questions. Can we use the same metrics
and evaluation tools to compare a printing company with a tool shop when defining the
practice of CIM? Alternatively, can we similarly judge a major aerospace corporation
with a small paper mill? There is no definitive answer with respect to defining the
practice and integration of a philosophy in a company. What one company may see as
technologically advanced and CIM oriented, another may see as historically dated.
Unfortunately, most studies to this point have attempted to describe the company use of
CIM as measured by indices. Johansen and group for one, gauged the integration of CIM
in manufacturing organizations by creating indices that measured areas such as
automation level; number of CIM technologies in use; and number of organizational
functions affected by CIM integration [9].
Of late, there is also a body of research which suggests that there are human and
organizational features of CIM. This research brings systems' behavior into the CIM
picture. In some cases it is suggested that for CIM to be successfully implemented in an
organization, strong leadership is a prerequisite. In other cases, CIM is seen as initiated
by individuals at a shop floor level in response to immediate needs. These situations point
to an adoption of CIM, initiated by individuals, as a response to system requirements.
Regardless of how the CIM philosophy is measured, it is clear that the identical set of
metrics or heuristics cannot be applied to all companies collectively. Perhaps the very
nature of the word "philosophy" prescribes a somewhat nebulous, yet unique
conceptualization of CIM.
Challenges and Barriers to CIM Implementation
Probably the greatest barrier to CIM implementation is defining what exactly constitutes
implementation. Very broadly defined, CIM includes a range of technologies which
improve operational effectiveness and efficiency. More specifically defined, the
implementation of CIM should address some organizational need such as faster time to
market; reduced lead times; lower labor costs; or productivity improvements. Inherent in
the implementation of CIM are defined metrics which allow the user to assess whether or
not organizational needs are being met. CIM should never be implemented for the sake of
following your competitor, following the industry, or following the latest organizational
fad. If the implementation cannot be cost or otherwise rationalized, how can the decision
ultimately be supported?
While there exists a number of case studies and testimonials singing the praises of CIM,
it is far more difficult to find acknowledged examples of CIM failures in companies. One
such study that does suggest that CIM is overrated is reported in IIE Solutions and was
conducted by Abraham Seidmann from the University of Rochester [10]. The study
reports that CIM has not lived up to its expectations in terms of anticipated returns.
Seidman reports that this is primarily due to a perception that top management in the
organization is not convinced of CIM's benefits. Without the backing of key decisionmakers, corporate coffers will probably stay closed to CIM.

In other examples, some suggest that small companies are not appropriate venues for
CIM implementation. Due to the considerable investment and risk associated with
implementation of CIM tools and methods, the small company cannot justify its adoption
[11].
Worksheet for Assisting Managers in Making a CIM Adoption Decision
In making a CIM adoption decision, a number of different questions and parties should be
involved in the planning and implementation process. The following table proposes a
number of issues for consideration to start the planning process.
Table 1 - CIM Planning Worksheet
Areas for Consideration in the CIM Adoption Decision
For example: shorter order to delivery time; faster
1. What need, challenge or
product development; responsiveness to customers;
problem are you responding to in
greater quality levels; better management; need for
the organization?
organizational integration; etc.
2. Where is this problem located? Primary area

Secondary area

3. What are the implications of not

addressing the problem/challenge?
4. What are the needs of each
different department involved with Department Needs
the problem/challenge?
5. What definition is our
organization willing to accept for
CIM?
6. What exact CIM tools or
methods can respond to this
problem/challenge?

List CIM tools and

methods

Who are the vendors? Who

provides solutions?

7. What is the cost of

implementing CIM? Are there
different costs for different levels
of implementation?
Vendor 1:
8. Who has provided the cost data
for implementing CIM?
Vendor 2:
(Reference documents of vendors)
Vendor 3:
9. What is the anticipated return
for the implementation of CIM for Economic justification
the overall organization?
10. What is the anticipated return Economic justification
for the implementation of CIM for

Non-economic justification
Non-economic justification

individual departments involved in

the CIM implementation decision?
11. What are the responsibilities
Departments involved in Departments involved in
for individual departments in
deciding on CIM package implementing the CIM
deciding on, and implementing the
-responsibilities
package- responsibilities
CIM decision?
12. What is the timeline for
implementing CIM?

Reference a CIM planning document

13. Who in the organization needs Individual Department Contact

to sign onto the CIM
implementation decision?
Number
14. What actions will be taken to
assure that all individuals needed
to sign on to the CIM decision
have the proper information for
supporting the project?
15. How will you know if the CIM What type of metrics will
Over what time period?
implementation is successful?
measure success?
16. How long will you give the
If a failure, what do you
new system before determining it
propose to do?
a success or failure?

What are your contingency

plans?

17. What actions and plans will be

taken to promote the CIM
implementation success?
18. Future thoughts for further
CIM implementation.
19. Define you CIM solution
package.

Compile the project implementation document

Conclusion

Adopting CIM requires the consensus of a number of organizational departments and

decision makers. Since it is proposed that the construct of CIM is defined differently for
each firm, a unique CIM solution package is proposed which will provide a roadmap for
implementation. The preceding worksheet provides a beginning step in assisting those
individuals involved with constructing the CIM solution package. Furthermore, the
worksheet helps to define what form CIM will take, and consequently, what benefits it
ultimately will provide to the organization and individual departments.
References
[1] Johansen, J., Karmarkar, U., Nanda, D., Seidmann, A., "Computer Integrated
Manufacturing: Empirical Implications for Industrial Information Systems," Journal of
Management Information Systems, Volume 12, Issue 2 (Fall 1995) pp. 59-70.

[2] Weston, F.C., "Three Dimensions of CIM," Production and Inventory Management
Journal," Volume 35, Issue 1, First Quarter, (1994) pp. 59-64.
[3] See: Gould, L., "CIM is Easier than Ever," Systems Integration, (December, 1989) pp:
54-59.
[ul>Groves, C., " Hands Off Manufacturing Transcends Limits of CIM," Industrial
Engineering, (August, 1990) pp: 29-31.
[4] Zachary, W., Richman, E., "Building an Operations Management Foundation That
Will Last," IIE Solutions, Volume 25, Issue 8; pp: 39-46.
[5] Lamparter, W., "The Next Revolution?" American Printer, Volume 217, Issue 1;
(April, 1996) pp: 34-41.
[6] Lamparter, W., "CIM for Print," American Printer, Volume 219, Issue 6; (September
1997) pp: 48-53.
[7] Aronson, R., "Lead Winners Find CIM is Key to Improvement," Manufacturing
Engineering, Volume 115, Issue 5; (November 1995) pp: 3-69.
[8] Anonymous, "PDM Decisions-98," e-series document: found at
http://www.trainingforum.com/MRT/BC219_part1.html
[9] Johansen, J., Karmarkar, U., Nanda U., Seidmann, A., "Computer Integrated
Manufacturing: Empirical Implications for Industrial Information Systems," Journal of
Management Information Systems, Volume 12, Issue 2 (Fall 1995) pp. 59-70.
[10] Anonymous, "Computer-Integrated Manufacturing: An Opportunity Missed," IIE
Solutions, Volume 27, Issue 8, (August 1995) pp. 8-9.
[11] Samadhi, T., Ari, M., Hoang, K., "Shared Computer-Integrated Manufacturing for
Various Types of Production Environment," International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Volume 15, Issue 5, (1995) pp. 95-109.