Hitachi Seiki Case Analysis

Components of FMS 1. FMS WorkstationsMachining center
Turning machines
Milling machines
Boring machines
Tapping machines 2. Automated MHSWire-guided and rail-guided pallet carrying AGV
Conveyor system
Robots 3. Controls and communicationsNC controllers
Adaptive control
Central computer 4. AS/RS for tool transfer and storage 5. Tool monitoring system 6. Automatic inspection, deburring 7. Parts washing facility: cleaning, coolant and chip removal systemSWOT analysis (prior to FMS 102)12. Founded 1936, machine tools for Japanese market
13. Industry extremely competitive, rapid technological
14. FMS: new frontier; reputation as technology leader
15. 1985: 132 machining centers (12 types); 8 FMS|Strength |Opportunity |
|Leader in machine tools |Consortium to develop NC and funded by MITI |
|3 decades of machine tool manufacturing experience |Advanced development in electronics to develop controllers |
|Strong in mechanical technology | |
|Experience in special machine tool and transfer line | |
|Weakness |Threat |
|Lack of System skills |Intense competition in the Industry |
|Lack of experience in building machine with electronics | |
Chronology of FMS Development|Period |Product |Key Technology |Focus |
|1930s |Machine Tools |Mechanical/ |Technical |
| | |Electrical Relay | |
|Late 1960s |Machining Center |Mechatronics |Technical |
|Early 1970s |FMS 102 |Mechatronics, transfer line, special |Technical |
| | |machinery + Integrated Circuits | |
|Late 1970s |ABIKO I (larger) |CNC |Technical |
|1980s | ABIKO 2 |Group Technology principles + CAD/CAM |Manufacturing |
| | | |Product & Process Design |
|1990s | | | |
FMS 10216. Narashino plant17. Flexible transfer line; integration through modifications of existing machine design18. Productivity lower than conventional machineABIKO 119. After closing Narashino plant; Emphasis more on interchangeability of pallets20. Team has better experience; controller and machining center technology much improved21. Productivity-flexibility tradeoffABIKO 222. From perspective of process rationalization: not on technical capabilities or integration of machine tools but on manufacturing requirement23. Development team size started with 6 and incrementally increased at different stages24. Group technology break ABIKO 2 into 3 FMS lines (FMS 112, FMS 113, FMS 114) for different type and size of workpieces – FMS 112 focused on basics of untended operations – FMS I13 focused on fixture design and automated tool supply – FMS 114 automated tool supply for Lathe and problem with systematizing turning operationsABIKO 2|FMS 112 |FMS 113 |FMS 114 |
|Machine large-sized prismatic workpieces |Machine small-and medium-sized prismatic |Machine small to medium round-sized parts|
|3 floor machining centers |parts | |
|1 horizontal machining center |2 horizontal- spindle machining centers |3 NC lathes |
|Rail transfer line |2 vertical-spindle machining center |1 horizontal machining center |
|Max size of workpiece: 2500 x centers – |Automatic tool-supply unit (528 tools) |Robot transfer |
|1500 mm |Rail transfer line |240 tools |
| |Max size of workpiece: 500 x 500 mm |Max size of workpiece: 300 x 300 mm |Success Factors1. VISION of how good things can become ??? Matsumura provided vision and leadership
??? FMS = competitiveness + innovation leadership
??? Failed to realize expected productivity gains with FMS 102 and ABIKO 1; went ahead with ABIKO 2
??? Developing intellectual assets (system skills)2. Timely positioning of technology ??? Hitachi Seikis strength in machining
??? Electronics/computer technology
??? Automatic tool storage/retrieval/changer
??? Robotics and transfer line technology
??? NC controller and programming
??? Adaptive control mechanism
??? Automatic gauging
??? Universal fixture reduces needs to fulfill every aspects of machining requirements for every type and size of fixture and pallets3. Organizational Structure/Culture ??? FMS requires multi-disciplinary skills: knock down, knock down, knock down walls
??? Independent engineering administration department facilitated ABIKO 2 coordination
??? Right problem perceptive: manufacturing problem, not machine design perspective
??? GT simplifies problem and facilitate development focus THREE ALTERNATIVES|Criteria |Flexible Assembly |FMS 111 |FMS 112.5 |
|Purpose |Automated storage/ retrieval |Unmanned high-precision |Unmanned machining |
| | |machining | |
|Important Components |Automated storage, material |2×5 face machining centers with|5 x machining centers linked by |
| |handling & robotic carriers |corresponding automation for |material handling system for |
| | |large casting |medium casting |
|Cost |$1.2 Million + |$4.2 Million + |#3.0 million |
|Advantages |Reduces assembly times from 72 |1. Ability to high precision |1. Offers all advantages of |
| |to 60 hours |machining |ABIKO 2 |
| |Automated storage and work |2. FMS with fewer setups |2. Extends range of machining/ |
| |handling | |lead time advantages of ABIKO 2 |
| | | |3. Production very enthusiastic |
|Disadvantages |1. ???Soft??? cost not certain |1. High development cost |1. Not exciting |
| |2. Does not automate actual |2. Need to commit more people |2. Marginal improvement |
| |assembly work |to develop system | |

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *