Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ost
s D. Productivity Indices
al c
Tot
The productivity indices are determined from the
number of quantitative aspects, such as ‘hard’ facts and
Pers
onne
‘soft’ facts. ‘Hard’ facts are:
• The number of units that are planned to be
l costs
n costs
Automatio Optimum
built, the so-called scheduled number of
0% Level of automation 100 % units.
Fig. 2. Graph of cost versus level of automation • The number of units that have actually been
built.
For the costs calculations, the relevant cost approach is • Times like the cycle times, manufacturing
used, where only the costs that make the largest times, downtimes and total working times.
contribution are taken into account [3]. • Number of employees involved in the
The following cost types are necessary for the realisation production process.
of the assembly process: These are set in relation to:
• Personnel (all carrying out and planning activities in • The availability of a production system with
the assembly process; personnel costs consist of wages respect to the amount of standstill losses.
or rather salary and social costs; they essentially • The decreasing degree of performance with
depend on personnel qualification) respect to loss of speed.
• Operating material (installations for assembly and • The degree of quality depending on the
transport; operating material costs include all costs for number of parts which are produced with
running the operating material) defects.
• Material (only consumables are relevant) • The effectiveness of equipment as a whole
• Information (software and hardware; already included with respect to the availability of production,
in operating material) the degree of performance and quality.
• Productivity which refers to the average
C. Quality Indices number of vehicles built by one employee
Quality is a top priority competition factor that should during a specified period of time and the
be integrated into all the processes of a company. Quality number of vehicles built by all employees
is characterised by the index system, which is defined as a per hour.
compilation of quantitative variables, in which individual ‘Soft’ facts include:
indices belong to each other, are supplementary to each • Flexibility to manufacture different units.
other or explain each other in an objective and practical • The degree of complexity and its
way. Thus, all these collected factors are focused on one dependence on the different range of vehicle
common paramount target. An index is formed by the models compared to the basic model.
following elements: character of information, ability to • Flexibility with regard to the possibility of
quantify facts, and specific form of information [4]. All the producing many variations of a product on
information in the index should be adequately defined to one line.
avoid ambiguity. All the cost, quality and productivity aspects are used
For manufacturing and assembly processes, the quality for determining the best level of automation of the
standards are specified by the output quality indices, which assembly processes at the three production sites as
are as follows: shown in the following section.
• The quota of quality defects that does not meet
the quality requirements in production
immediately, i.e. the ratio of the defects to the III. ANALYSES OF THE ASSEMBLY PROCESSES
whole production volume.
A. Levels of Automation
• The indices concerning the number of rejects
and the rectification of rejects as well as their The analysis was done for the final assembly of the
prevailing share of the whole production Golf A5 and Touran models in Germany and the Golf
volume that shows the developing trend. A5 model in South Africa. The assembly processes are
• The indices with regard to the implemented at different levels of automation providing
the possibility of comparing and determining the best
automation strategy for the particular plant location. The depending on the different levels of automation. By
final assembly consists of three main processes called adding up the different costs of all stations, the most
Assembly Parts. Each Assembly Part in turn can be divided economical solution and with it, the most economical
into Assembly Operations or Stations. Assembly Part 1 level of automation of each matrix can be determined.
consists of five Assembly Stations and includes roll By adding up all the total costs per unit of each
forming of the tailgate and doors and the fitting of a Assembly Station, the total costs per unit of the whole
cockpit. Assembly Part 2 also consists of five Assembly Assembly Part for a specified level of automation is
Stations and includes mainly the fitting of a power train determined for each production site. Due to differences
and glasses. Assembly Part 3 includes seven Assembly in labour and running costs, each production site will
Stations, which are typically the fitting of trim panels, a have different total costs for the same Assembly Part.
cross member, a bumper, a front end, wheels and a battery. The total costs per unit for assembly of the Golf A5
To determine the level of automation, the Assembly model in Germany are shown in Table 2. The actual
Parts are placed in a matrix with Assembly Stations shown costs have been changed for confidentiality.
in columns and different manufacturing methods in rows
according to the level of automation from the highest to the Table 2. Unit costs of the assembly stations of Golf A5
lowest (Table 1). The starting point of creating the levels in Germany
of automation begins at the assembly of the Golf A5 model Level of
automation Assembly Part 1 Assembly Part 2 Assembly Part 3
at Wolfsburg because this process is the most automated 1 1,00 € 1,20 € 1,20 €
and therefore it is assigned the first level of automation. By 2 1,10 € 1,30 € 1,10 €
3 1,20 € 1,10 € 1,10 €
de-automating one station at a time, the level of automation 4 1,30 € 1,00 € 1,00 €
decreases. For example, Assembly Part 1 has five levels of 5 1,40 € 1,40 € 1,30 €
6 1,40 €
automation because it includes five Assembly Stations. 7 1,50 €
whereas, on the other hand, the costs for all the other
Priming window flange,
Rollforming tailgate
Rollforming doors
Opening bonnet
Closing tailgate
……
……
……
……
……
Assembly Part 2
Assembly Part 3
Direct Runners
Process Audit
ring stations
CP 7 / CP 8
automation in the assembly line of the Touran model at the
Ist (Target)
Field Data
FISeQS
FISeQS
FISeQS
Audit
VPC
Auto5000 GmbH. On level 6, the fitting of the front end is Level of
automation
the most expensive station because of the high personnel
Level of automation 0,01345 0,02796 0,00465 0,05432 80 (90) 2,44 58 / 62 94
costs for workers in the line. The second most expensive (Golf A5 WOB)
T.C./veh. T.C./veh. T.C./veh. T.C./veh. Audit Points T.C./veh. % %
station is the pre-mounting and fitting of wheels. Both of Level of automation 0,03872 0,01235 0,01987 0,01076 82 (90) 0.87 69 / 95 91
the stations have high investment costs as well. Therefore, (Auto5000 WOB) T.C./veh. T.C./veh. T.C./veh. T.C./veh. Audit Points T.C./veh. % %
both of these stations and the station placing the spare Level of automation 0,10984 0,03561 0,96543 0,02345 92 (90) 2,23 81 / 89 92
(Golf A5 SA)
wheel in the boot should work fully automatically as it is T.C./veh. T.C./veh. T.C./veh. T.C./veh. Audit Points T.C./veh. % %
is investigated. These collected data are summarized in one production site. If the different optima correspond with
theoretical optimal level of automation. The results of the each other, the total optimum for the individual
analysis confirm the assumption that different fictitious Assembly Part is already found. Otherwise, if the
levels of automation will create fewer defects and that a optima show differences in a certain Assembly Part, a
combination of automation levels will bring about a much further examination has to be carried out. In the
better result than the existing methods. combination of the optima, the optimal levels of costs
are defined as the basis. Both of the other aspects are
D. Productivity and Flexibility
compared with the optimal level of costs to find a total
On the basis of the above described matrices, the solution for each production site. The results are shown
productivity figures are examined in relation to the number in Table 6.
of workers. These workers are later seen in relation to the
vehicles built and the time needed for such. These relations A. Production of the Golf A5 model in Wolfsburg
are the indices of productivity taken into consideration in For Assembly Part 1, level 1 is the optimal
this analysis. The result of this analysis leads to the automation level from a cost point of view, which
assumption that a highly automated method of represents actual assembling in practice. The
manufacturing is also highly productive when taking into productivity indices show the same optimum. However,
account that the smallest number of employees produces the differences between the optimal level of costs and
the highest number of vehicles as can be seen from the quality have to be remedied. The difference between the
comparison shown in Fig. 3. On the other hand, the first and third level of automation from a quality point
calculation of effectiveness shows that the availability of of view is 0.005 trouble cases per vehicle. A more
the high-automated production is susceptible to faults and detailed examination revealed that the assembly stations
trouble cases because of its complexity. On account of this, of roll forming of tailgate as well as roll forming of
a high number of faultless units can only be reached when doors cause this difference. This is attributed to the
produced at a lower automated level, which includes the robotic station, which allows only a very small tolerance
integration of highly skilled employees. for assembling. If this tolerance margin is not kept, the
robot is not able to react appropriately, because an
automatic station is not flexible enough to compensate
Number of vehicles per employee for abrupt variances of tolerances. In order to achieve a
8000 better quality, an improvement of the adjustment of the
robot, a more appropriate maintenance of the robot or a
6000 7148
further development of the roll forming tool for robots
4000 should be investigated.
4029
2000
1200
0
Table 6. Optimal levels of automation
VW Main Auto5000 VW South Golf A5 Touran Golf A5
Plant Africa Wolfsburg Wolfsburg Uitenhage
Index Assembly Parts
Fig. 3. Annual production quantities per employee 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
Cost 1 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 7
Flexibility of production equipment is difficult to Quality 3 4 4 3 4 1 3 4 1
quantify in financial terms. Also, product variations cannot Productivity/Flexibility 1 2 4 2 3 4 4 4 6
be considered in this case since the automotive production Present Automation 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 5 7
equipment is specifically designed for a range of vehicle Level
models. Nevertheless, the production equipment should Proposed Automation 1 4 4 3 4 3 5 5 7
Level
have a sufficient capacity to accommodate a limited
increase in production quantities. Therefore, in determining
the levels of flexibility of Assembly Parts, the focus is on For Assembly Part 2, the determination of the optimal
two aspects: the variation of production quantities and the level of costs and quality deliver the same level of
number of workers required. From this point of view, the automation as the optimal, which is level 4. However,
most flexible is the production system that has to change the actual level of automation is level 1 and in
the least to cope with the increase/decrease of production productivity aspects, the levels 1 and 2 demonstrate the
quantities, i.e. a minimum variation in the number of best options. However, level 4 shows a rising
workers. A variation of ±20% of production quantities was productivity with decreasing number of units. And,
used in the analysis. additionally, it provides a better flexibility because the
operations are done manually and can be modified
easily. Therefore, the actual level of automation in
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Assembly Part 2 has to be de-automated to reach the
total optimal level but improvement of the quantity
indices has to be considered.
The levels of automation of the assembly processes with
regard to the three main aspects such as costs, quality and
For Assembly Part 3, the results of costs and quality
quantity are compared to obtain the optimal levels for each
are also the same, which is level 4. To reach an optimal
quality level, the quality results have to be taken into closer leadership, training and qualification of workers are not
consideration. The quality difference of 0.021 trouble cases adequate. The Auto5000 GmbH assembly line illustrates
per vehicle is caused by the assembly stations fitting a that a high quality assembly by workers is possible in
battery as well as fitting a cross member and a rear practice. Assuming that quality will improve, level 5
bumper. The assembly is performed automatically, can be seen as the optimum. This level is just a little less
whereas at other locations it is done manually with better flexible than level 4. The advantage of level 5 is the
quality results. However, for reaching a high quality higher productivity. The present method should be kept,
performance in manual assembly, workers have to be improvements in quality are required.
adequately qualified, motivated and co-ordinated. The In Assembly Part 2, the optimal levels of automation
quantity aspect shows that level 1 and 4 provide the best with regard to costs (level 5) and quality (level 4) differ
flexibility. Level 1 also shows a better productivity. The again from each other. In this Assembly Part, the
other possibility is level 4, which is preferred from the differences are explainable by the above-mentioned
point of view of costs and has the same flexibility as level reasons, too. All aspects that relate to the workers would
1, but provides better flexibility. In Assembly Part 3, the have to be improved as described above. Level 4 is also
actual level of automation should be de-automated to reach the optimal level from the point of view of quantity. The
the optimal level as well. The quality as well as the advantages of level 5 are better availability as well as
modifications in quantity should be kept in mind. lower complexity. Therefore, this Assembly Part is
optimally designed.
B. Production of the Touran model at Auto5000 GmbH
Similar to the previous processes, the optimal
For Assembly Part 1, level 3 is the optimal level with automation levels of costs (level 7) and quality (level 1)
regard to costs and also to quality, whereas the actual level differ for the same reason of low skills and/or poor
of automation is level 4 in the Auto5000 GmbH. Regarding motivation of workers. Quantitatively the levels 1 to 6
flexibility and productivity, level 1 is the optimal level for are all better than level 7. However, level 7 is the actual
Assembly Part 1. Level 2 is only partly recommendable level of automation in South Africa. Level 7 is only
with respect to productivity because of its low level of partially recommendable with respect to quantity,
flexibility. Assembly Part 1 should be automated to level 3. because this level shows poorer values for flexibility
As for Assembly Part 1, the optimal levels of automation and productivity compared with the other levels. The
regarding cost and quality correspond to each other for main advantage of level 7 is that it requires only basic
Assembly Part 2 as well. But, for this Assembly Part, level equipment. Hence, the present method should be kept,
4 represents the actual level of automation. Between with improvements in quality.
flexibility and high productivity a compromise has to be
found. Regarding this aspect, the decision is made for level
4, because only small changes in the number of workers V. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
and no changes in the assembly line need to be carried out
to realise a good productivity. As level of automation 4 is
The authors thank the staff of VW in Wolfsburg and
the optimal and also the actual level of automation, this
Uitenhage, and in particular the department PWA-V
Assembly Part is optimally designed.
(launching and production process optimisation in
Wolfsburg), for providing the information used in this
For Assembly Part 3, the results of costs (level 4) and
research.
quality (level 1) do not correspond, which is the main
concern. It appears that even with the highly extensive
training programme which takes place at the Auto5000
VI. REFERENCES
GmbH plant, consistent quality is not possible without
automation for this assembly process. Concerning
productivity, levels 3 or 4 could be the optimum. Based on [1] Ross, P., 2002, Bestimmung des wirtschaftlichen
the results, Assembly Part 3 should be automated to level 3 Automatisierungsgrades von Montage-Prozessen in
der frühen Phase der Montageplanung, p. 11
to improve quality.
[2] Fichtmüller, N., 1996, Rationalisierung durch
C. Production of the Golf A5 model in Uitenhage flexible, hybride Montagesysteme, Heidelberg
In Assembly Part 1, the results of costs and quality differ [3] Hartmann, M. 1993, Entwicklung eines
from each other, but, in this case, it is exactly the opposite. Kostenmodells für die Montage – Ein Hilfsmittel
The optimal level of automation regarding costs (level 5), zur Montageanlagenplanung, Aachen.
is more de-automated than the optimal level of automation [4] Tomys, A.K., 1995, Kostenorientiertes
regarding quality (level 3). The above-mentioned argument Qualitätsmanagement, Qualitätscontrolling zur
that manual assembly is as good as automatic assembly or ständigen Verbesserung der Unternehmensprozesse,
even better is not valid for the manufacturer in Uitenhage. Munich.
Within the assembly of roll forming of tailgate and doors,
differences with respect to quality occur again. These
stations are implemented in exactly the same manner as in
the manufacture of the Auto5000 GmbH, but they produce
0.101 more trouble cases per vehicle. This fact shows the
deficiency of the Golf A5 assembly in Uitenhage. The