Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Mass customization and high-mix low-volume manufacturing - a few thoughts

Adopting mass customization means grappling with a high-mix low-volume (HMLV) manufacturing environment. This can be quite a change from mass production models. Routings can become more complex, lot sizes may be in units of 1, scheduling a challenge, and so forth.

In this high-mix low-volume model, the quality of the information transmitted to the shop floor becomes even more critical. Format, content, even quantity of data supplied has a magnified impact on productivity. All too often, unfortunately, this key element of production is overlooked. ERP and other systems control the transmission of an order to manufacturing, but the content of that order may be a combination of drawing types and manufacturing instructions all of which is unique to that specific order. Absolute consistency of manufacturing order information is not possible, virtually by definition.

One of the principles of mass customization is that internal systems should mirror the concept of providing a unique product to the customer based on standardized components. That is, internal systems should be comprised of standardized processing components that are combined uniquely to fit the needs to the order. This principle also applies to information components, such as manufacturing orders.

I think applying this principle to internal systems is much harder than adopting mass customization as a way of creating unique product for customers. The success of being able to do so, however, is the true indication of whether a company has successfully adopted mass customization as a business model. I also think that this application of mass customization principles to internal systems is where the traditional job shop can benefit from MC.

I intend to publish a white paper within the next several weeks that delves into these issues of mass customization, high-mix low volume manufacturing, and job shops in more depth. If you have any experiences or comments in these areas that you'd care to share, I'd be very pleased to hear them.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Good points! Wondering have you worked some more on this model since 2007 and what is your point of view at this moment? Thanks, TG