Content uploaded by Yelena Chaiko
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yelena Chaiko on Nov 23, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract—It has often been said that the strength of any country
resides in the strength of its industrial sector, and Progress in
industrial society has been accomplished by the creation of new
technologies. Developments have been facilitated by the increasing
availability of advanced manufacturing technology (AMT), in
addition the implementation of advanced manufacturing technology
(AMT) requires careful planning at all levels of the organization to
ensure that the implementation will achieve the intended goals.
Justification and implementation of advanced manufacturing
technology (AMT) involves decisions that are crucial for the
practitioners regarding the survival of business in the present days of
uncertain manufacturing world. This paper assists the industrial
managers to consider all the important criteria for success AMT
implementation, when purchasing new technology. Concurrently,
this paper classifies the tangible benefits of a technology that are
evaluated by addressing both cost and time dimensions, and the
intangible benefits are evaluated by addressing technological,
strategic, social and human issues to identify and create awareness of
the essential elements in the AMT implementation process and
identify the necessary actions before implementing AMT.
Keywords—Advanced Manufacturing Technology (AMT),
Justification and Classification.
I. INTRODUCTION
ANY companies are currently strengthening their
competitive positions by updating the technologies used
in the manufacturing process. The 1990s has created an
environment where manufacturing organisations must become
increasingly more sophisticated in their manufacturing
techniques if they are intending to achieve a competitive
advantage. These changes have largely been in response to the
increasing need for companies to become competitive not only
in terms of cost, but also with regard to quality and
responsiveness to customers. Developments have been
facilitated by the increasing availability of advanced
manufacturing technologies (AMTs).
Despite the significant role of AMTs in Global Market and
it’s competitive advantages ,many applications of advanced
manufacturing technologies (AMTs) have not yielded their
Zahra Banakar is master student of Industrial and Manufacturing
Engineering Department, University of Malaya (UM), 50603, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia (e-mail: Najma_banakar@yahoo.com).
Farzad Tahriri is Phd candidate and research assistance with the Center for
Product Design and Manufacturing (CPDM) in Industrial and Manufacturing
Engineering Department, University of Malaya (UM), 50603, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, (corresponding author to provide phone: 0060-17-3734-613; e-mail:
Farzad_Tahriri@ Hotmail.com).
potential benefits frequently because the selections and
implementations has not been carried out in relation to
strategic objectives. Maximum benefit will be accrued if there
is a fit between the capabilities of the technologies and the
firm’s business and manufacturing priorities. Many firms that
implemented AMT achieved technical success (the technology
is running) but not business (increased competitiveness,
quality) success. Decentralized decision making with a high
level of inter-functional coordination can increase the
potential for the flexible use of AMT.
Investment evaluation methods play an important role in
today’s competitive manufacturing environment. Both
economic evaluation criterion and strategic criteria such as
flexibility, quality improvement, which are not quantitative in
nature, are considered for evaluation. ,(Selection and using
proper manufacturing technology can enhance the production
process, provide effective utilization of resources, increase
productivity and improve system flexibility, repeatability and
reliability. Strategic decision making, like technology
selection, is very complex because the decision involves
uncertain environment, lengthy time horizon, inadequate
information and subjective factors, which cannot be easily
quantified. Usually, in the selection of the best technology,
objective factors such as cost, profit, revenue, time saving,
time of completion, etc. are considered but subjective factors
such as flexibility, learning, capacity increment, etc. are
overlooked. This results in advanced technology not winning
the confidence of top management.
In this study, an attempt is made to discuss the various
issues of a learning organization which have helped to
evaluate manufacturing strategies and select advanced
manufacturing technology, based on strategic, tactical and
monetary factors.
II. AMT
S ADOPTION AND JUSTIFICATION
Adoption of advanced manufacturing technology (AMT)
involves major investment and a high degree of uncertainty
and, hence, warrants considerable attention within a
manufacturing firm at the strategic level as discussed by
Meredith [33]. Works cited earlier by Sambasivarao and
Deshmukh [51], Small and Chen [55], Chan et al. [9], Sohal et
al. [5] have identified several barriers that may encounter
manufacturing companies to adopt AMT successfully. As a
result, issues involving selection and justification procedures
assume greater importance.
Studies conducted in the past two decades have shown that
the benefits of AMTs are both tangible and intangible and
Justification and Classification of Issues for the
Selection and Implementation of Advanced
Manufacturing Technologies
Zahra Banakar and Farzad Tahriri
M
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 41 2010
341
hinged on the type of AMTs and its applications (Voss, [64];
Sohal, [4]; Sohal et al., [5]).In addition according to the
Sambasivarao and Deshmukh [51], advanced manufacturing
technologies involve a set of quantifiable and non-quantifiable
attributes. So there is a need to evolve an integrated
framework for comprehensive appraisal of AMTs using these
attributes. There is little doubt that significant tangible and
intangible benefits can be gained from implementing AMT,
and that failure to quantify all benefits is detrimental to the
decision-making process, whether the project is accepted or
not (Small and Chen [55]).
The literature about AMT justification shows that the idea
of a strategic, non-monetary decision process is already
consolidated (Mohanty and Deshmukh [37]; Sambasivarao
and Deshmukh [52]; Denis et al, [15]). Over the last ten years,
many authors have suggested that in the AMT performance
measurement systems, financial and cost indicators should be
complemented by non-financial measurement tests related to
qualifying , delivery and flexibility, with the integration of the
different business areas being encouraged and the
management’s strategic objectives being reflected (Macarena
et al, [32]).Furthermore when monitoring the results of
investments is made in advanced manufacturing technologies
(AMT) it is dangerous to focus solely on costs, as it is
possible that the system used to assess performance might lead
managers to ignore other strategic objectives (Karsak and
Tolga [29]). According to Michael [34], while the costs
(hardware, software, planning, training, operations, etc.) and
many of the operational benefits are generally easily
quantifiable, on the other hand, some of the major strategic
benefits are very difficult to estimate. To overcome this
limitation some have promoted the use of strategic
justification approaches that consider criteria such as the
comparison with competitors, the retention, attainment or
perception of industry leadership, and expected future
developments in the industry. There is a growing consensus
that hybrid investment approaches which include both
strategic and economic justification criteria are needed to
evaluate these complex systems. Abdel-Kader and Dugdale
[1] supposed a model for the evaluation of investments in
advanced manufacturing technology. Considering the
importance to an integration of financial and non-financial
factors in AMT implementation evaluations he demonstrates
that it is conceptually possible to do this using the
mathematics of the analytic hierarchy process and fuzzy set
theory. New justification methods, such as the Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP), real options pricing, and simulation
began to be used to provide a more thorough evaluation of
investments in AMT. These new justification tools addressed
the traditional tools’ inability to include the qualitative
benefits of AMTs such as increased flexibility (Dessureault
[16]). In brief, both economic evaluation criterion and
strategic criteria such as flexibility, quality improvement,
which are not quantitative in nature, should be considered for
evaluation.
III. C
LASSIFICATION OF AMTS SELECTION METHODS
Several approaches for justifying investment in AMT have
been advanced. The literature that informs this topic can be
grouped into three categories (Suresh and Meredith [33];
Raafat [43]; Michael [34]).
• The economic approach. Involving the classical
financial justification techniques of payback period
(PP), return on investment (ROI), internal rate of
return (IRR), and net present value (NPV).
• The strategic approach. Involving analysis of
competitive advantage, business objectives, research
and development objectives and technical
importance.
• The analytic approach. Involving value analysis,
portfolio analysis and risk analysis (RA).
These methods deviate from each other due to the non-
monetary factors. Economic justification methods of
manufacturing investments are discussed by Proctor and
Canada [42]. Economic analysis methods are the basic
discounted cash flow techniques such as present worth, annual
worth, internal rate of return and other techniques such as
payback period and Return on Investment (ROI) which ignore
the time value of money.
The economic approach has long been quite popular in
investment justification. Fotsch [18] reported that the PP
technique was the most popular method of AMT appraisal in
his study of the machine tool industry. Lefley et al. [30] found
that PP techniques continue to be popular in the USA, the UK
and the Czech Republic. However, those payback methods,
because they favour a short-term perspective on investments,
can be deleterious for AMT projects. It is interesting to note
that it has been suggested that while the Japanese also used
the payback method most frequently, it serves more as a
performance measurement tool than as a rigid financial
criterion (Huang and Sakurai [25]). ROI was the second most
popular technique being used for AMT appraisal according to
Fotsch [18]. However, it has been suggested that this method
has more disadvantages than the payback method because it
does not measure the economic value of the project (Primrose
[41]).
The discounted cash flow (DCF) techniques, NPV and IRR
are considered to be more effective than ROI and payback.
Kaplan [28] argued that DCF approaches should always be
applied for the justification of AMT but, for most firms, the
discount rate should be lower than that required for
conventional projects. Other researchers also support the use
of DCF, but warn that there is a need to quantify the
intangible benefits prior to the application of DCF in order to
ensure a realistic appraisal (Primrose [41]; Kakati and Dhar
[27]; Park and Son [40]).
Cost/benefit analysis is also utilized for AMT project
appraisals. Researchers have sought to identify costs and
benefits of AMT through the use of case studies. For firms
where the level of risk and uncertainty make up the most
critical elements of the justification process, it is felt that risk
sensitivity analysis is the most appropriate evaluation
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 41 2010
342
technique (Primrose [41]; Swamidass and Waller [58]). Lefley
et al. [30] indicate that firms can use the PP, probability
analysis, and sensitivity analysis and computer simulation to
assess the level of risk. Hodder and Riggs [24] suggested that
there was also a need to vary the discount rate to reflect the
changes in the risk premium over the life of the project.
Differences in risk related to different types of AMT must also
be recognized. Generally, more complex AMT that offer a
wide range of benefits are expected to have lower risks than
less complex technologies with a narrow range of benefits.
A pervasive issue in justifying investment in AMT has been
the inappropriateness of the economic approaches using only
financial and accounting techniques (i.e. PP, NPV, ROI, IRR,
etc.) for determining the intangible benefits of AMT such as
improvements in flexibility, quality, time-to-market, and other
synergistic effects (Attaran [2]; Roth et al. [47]; Swann and
O’Keefe[59]). The lack of faith in these techniques has led
some researchers to advocate the justification of AMT using
strategic arguments.
Vrakking [65] suggested that AMT projects might have to be
justified on the basis of strategic arguments. Criteria such as
comparison with competitors, the retention, attainment or
perception of industry leadership, and expected future
developments in the industry might serve as alternative factors
for decision makers to approve AMT projects. Support for this
strategic view is also provided by Huang and Sakurai [25],
who found that, in Japanese firms, installation of AMT is seen
as a natural step that must be taken to retain manufacturing
credibility as well as market share. Primrose [41] indicated
that if strategic benefits are not quantified in the appraisal,
they will appear as unexplained variances not attributable to
the project in the accounting report. Another approach is to
regard the benefits from the new technology as essential and
calculate the cost of meeting these with conventional
technology. However, there is a fear that such an approach
might militate against the adoption of useful conventional
projects.
To alleviate the problems inherent in using purely financial or
purely strategic appraisal approaches, recent studies have
promoted hybrid economic and strategic appraisal approaches
(Raafat [43]). Kakati and Dhar [27] suggest that AMT projects
should be evaluated using two basic criteria: first, through
economic justification, and then a strategic assessment if the
project fails to meet the investment criteria. An earlier
variation of this approach called for the use of DCF
techniques, and if the project is not feasible, the difference
needed to make it feasible is determined (Kaplan [28]). The
adoption decision is then based on the ability of the strategic
benefits to make the project acceptable. There is also a school
of thought that considers all AMT costs and benefits to be
quantifiable (Primrose [41]). These authors suggest that all
projects should be appraised through a single evaluation
technique which uses sensitivity analysis on the intangible
benefits to compensate for the risk associated with evaluating
these parameters. However, there is evidence that suggests
that manufacturers are still having great difficulty quantifying
intangible benefits and that conventional appraisal techniques
are partly to blame for missing some potential benefits (Lefley
et al., [30]).
The move towards merging economic and strategic
approaches has also seen the evolution of several weighted
scoring models (WSM) which allow management to assign
weights to each tangible and intangible factor under
consideration (Slagmulder and Bruggeman [54]; Soni et al.,
[56]). Scoring models possess multiple criteria capabilities,
are simple to use, and can take management policies and the
impact of flexibility into consideration (Suresh and Meredith
[57]). While these techniques represent the importance of each
strategic factor by weights determined by management, these
weights are generally not measured for consistency.
Furthermore, the assumption of linear additivity of the
weighted scores may not be accurate. Wabalickis [66]
proposed the use of more sophisticated scoring models such as
the analytic hierarchy process which can correct for
managerial inconsistencies. There are some other recent
approaches to hybrid justification that utilize decision support
tools, the analytic hierarchical process and fuzzy logic (Abdel-
Kader and Dugdale [1]; Chiadamrong and O’Brien [11];
Luong [31]). When flexibility, risk and non-monetary benefits
are expected, and particularly if the probability distributions
can be subjectively estimated, analytical procedures may be
used.
.
TABLE I JUSTIFICATION METHOD FOR ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGIES [29]
Techniques Advantages Disadvantages
Economic
Payback method Ease of data collection Do not take into account strategic and non-economic benefits
Return on investment
Intuitive appeal
Consider a single objective of cash flows, and ignore other
benefit such as quality and flexibility
Discounted cash flow techniques
Strategic
Technical importance
Require less technical data
Necessity to use these techniques with economic or analytic
ones since they consider only long-term intangible benefits
Business objectives
Competitive advantage
Use the general objectives of the
firm
Research and development
Analytic
Scoring models(Analytic Hierarchy
Process AHP)
Uncertainty of the future and multi-
objectivity can be incorporated
Require more data
Mathematical programming
Integer programming
Goal programming
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)
Subjective criteria can be
introduced in the modelling phase
Usually more complex than the economic analysis
Stochastic methods
Fuzzy set theory
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 41 2010
343
Strategic justification methods are qualitative in nature and are
concerned with issues such as a technical importance,
business objectives and competitive advantage (Meredith and
Suresh [33]). When strategic approaches are employed, the
justification is made by considering long-term intangible
benefits. Hence, using these techniques with economic or
analytical methods would be more appropriate. Table I, which
is an updated version of the classification initially proposed by
Meredith and Suresh [33], evaluates the different justification
methods for AMT.
Wabalickis [66] developed justification procedure based on
the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate the
numerous tangible and intangible benefits of an FMS
investment. Chakravarty and Naik [8] pointed out the need for
integrating the non-financial and strategic benefits of AMT
with the financial benefits and proposed a hierarchical
evaluation procedure involving strategic evaluation,
operational evaluation and financial evaluation. Shang and
Sueyoshi [53] proposed a selection procedure for an FMS
employing the AHP, simulation and Data Envelopment
Analysis (DEA).
Small and Chen [55] discussed the results of a survey
conducted in the US that investigated the use of justification
approaches for AMS. According to their findings,
manufacturing firms using hybrid strategies, which employ
both economic and strategic justification techniques, attain
significantly higher levels of success from advanced
technology projects. Sambasivarao and Deshmukh [51]
presented a decision support system integrating multi-attribute
analysis, economic analysis and risk evaluation analysis. They
suggested AHP, TOPSIS and linear additive utility model as
alternative multi-attribute analysis methods. Methods include
game theoretical models, multiattribute utility models, fuzzy
linguistic methods and expert systems.
In summary, investment justification of AMT should
include consideration of the operational costs and strategic
and operational benefits of these systems together with
consideration of the costs and benefits of the infrastructural
adjustments (e.g. information technology adjustments,
employee training and development costs) that are required to
successfully implement these systems. The choice of AMT
should reflect both the benefits that the organization expects
to achieve and the quality of organizational preparation and
support for the adoption of the chosen system. In addition,
measurement of AMT performance must be focused on
assessing progress towards the original strategic, business and
organizational objectives for implementing the systems.
IV. C
LASSIFICATION OF AMTS ISSUES
The decision to implement useful advanced manufacturing
technology (AMT) is a major decision for many
organizations. Selection of the appropriate technology that
achieves or matches with the organization objective, and
maximum benefits of technology, which is made based on a
sound decision-making process. Selection and ranking of
advanced manufacturing technologies (AMTs) which are
defined as the strategic decision-making process for
successful implementation of AMT would be the goal of the
hierarchy. Numerous issues are addressed by researchers in
studies involving the selection and justifications of AMT. A
researcher has given attributes the different names but the
concepts behind the terminology are the same.
Mohanty R.P. [35] has classified implementation issues into
six categories: direct cost factors, preproduction cost factors,
human issues, social issues, strategic issues, and technological
issues. Selection issues are classified primarily based on
accountability for analysing AMT benefits. Tangible factors
are quantifiable dimensions. These factors are classified into
two categories, namely Cost and Time.
Economic issues: Economic issues involve cost-borne analysis
of AMT. They include cost-benefit analysis and economic
analysis strictly in monetary terms. The economic factors are
either estimated, based on certain assumptions, or are actual
cost-borne figures. It is evident to the literature that economic
attributes play a major decisive role for selection and
justification of AMT. However, analysis based on economic
factors may not be adequate, because AMT offers a large
number of intangible benefits.
Time issues: Time issues would be one of the essential
components of competition environment. All steps of
production cycles from production lines until market position
can perform effectively and would reflect all their potential
benefits if they were scheduled well.
TABLE II ECONOMIC ISSUES
Researchers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sambasivarao and Deshmukh[51] x x x x x x x
Crookall[12] x x
Ferdows et al.[17] x x x x x x
Young and Murray[68] x
Park and Son[40] x x
Wabalickis[66] x x
Fry and Smith[20] x x
Troxler and Blank[63] x x x
Huang and Sakurail[25] x x x x
Ghosh and Wabalickis[21] x x x
Primrose[41] x x
Datta et al.[13] x x x
Demmel and Askin[14] x x x x x
Afzulpurkar et al.[3] x x
Chang and Tsou[10] x x
Hin et al.[23] x x x
Mohanty[36] x x x x x x
Sambasivarao and Deshmukh[52] x x x
Mohanty and Deshmukh[37] x x
Kevin Low Lock[60] x
Chan, H. Lau[9] x x x x
Crowe and Noble[61] x x x
Godwin and Ehie[22] x x x x
Borenstein and Becker[15] x x x
Rosnah Mohd and Chek[46] x
Hulya Julie Yazici[26] x
Sohal and Burcher[4] x
Sacrista´n Dı´az and lvarez Gil[32] x x
DeRuntz and Turner[6] x
Key:
1. Investment 3. Labour 5. Modification 7. Throughput
2. Inventory 4. Maintenance 6. Quality
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 41 2010
344
Selection of advanced manufacturing technologies involves a
large number of intangible attributes. Intangible attributes are
the indirect/direct factors which are generally not quantifiable.
However, their relative importance may be analyzed using
multi attribute decision-making approaches. These issues
include Human, Social, Strategic and Technological issues.
Thus, manufacturing firms will face large-scale issues when
selecting and implementing AMT.
Human issues: Employees play a most vital role in selecting
AMT. It may be evident that one of the objectives behind the
innovation of AMT is to reduce human intervention. In
developed countries like the UK, Germany, France and the
USA, more efforts are put in order to reduce human
intervention in manufacturing as the industry appears to be
capital-intensive. Human factors play a very significant role,
especially in many developing countries where AMTs are at
the critical early stages of implementation AMTs.
Social issues: Automation technologies have far-reaching
social impacts. Social issues are essential to consider as they
involve cost borne and benefits received by those associated
with the organization.
Strategic issues: The strategic impacts have long-term
implications for the organization as a whole. It is necessary to
consider the effects of AMT on other functional departments
of an organization. Many researchers have discussed the
effects of AMT on manufacturing strategy. These effects are
reflected in decisions like replacement with improved
technology, expansion of entire plant and plant modernization
projects. Strategic issues can be viewed as having significant
repercussions of AMT on different functional areas of the
organization. These repercussions are reflected in costs borne
and benefits received by each of the functional departments.
These are the key factors for setting the management
objectives and can be viewed as indicators to assist in making
strategic decisions.
TABLE III TIME ISSUES
Researchers 1 2 3 4
Sambasivarao and Deshmukh[51] x x
Mohanty and Deshmukh[37] x x
Kevin Low Lock[60] x x
Chan, H. Lau[9] x
Crowe and Noble[61] x
Godwin and Ehie[22] x x
Borenstein and Becker[15] x x x
Hulya Julie Yazici[26] x
Sohal and Burcher[4] x x
Sacrista´n Dı´az and lvarez Gil[32] x x
DeRuntz and Turner[6] x x x
Sohal and Schroder[5] x x
Salaheldin Ismail[50] x x
Bolden and Waterson[44] x
Rosnah and Megat Ahmad[45] x
Key:
1. Shortening product life-
cycles
3. Reduced change over/set up
times
2. Reduced lead time 4. Improving speed of delivery
TABLE IV HUMAN ISSUES
Researchers 1 2 3 4
Sambasivarao and Deshmukh[51] x x x
Ferdows et al.[17] x
Voss[64] x x
Weatherall[67] x x
Troxler and Blank[63] x
Datta et al.[13] x x
Demmel and Askin[14] x x
Hin et al.[23] x
Mohanty[35] x x x
Sambasivarao and Deshmukh[52] x x
Mohanty and S.G. Deshmukh[37] x
Chan, H. Lau[9] x x
Crowe and Noble[61] x
Rosnah Mohd and Chek[46] x
Sohal and Burcher[4] x x
Abdel-Kader and Dugdale[1] x
Salaheldin Ismail[50] x x
Sohal and Schroder[5] x x
Rosnah and Megat Ahmad[45] x
Key:
1. Level of skill 3. Employee and working
relationships
2. Employee moral/motivation 4. Manpower planning
TABLE V SOCIAL ISSUES
Researchers 1 2 3 4 5
Sambasivarao and
Deshmukh[51]
x x x x
Frazelle[19] x
Ferdows et al.[17] x
Park and Son[40] x
Weatherall[67] x x
Troxler and Blank[63] x
Ghosh and Wabalickis[21] x
Mohanty[35] x x x x
Mohanty and Deshmukh[37] x x
Kevin Low Lock[60] x
Abdel-Kader and Dugdale[1] x
Godwin and Ehie[22] x
Orlando and Aguilo[39] x
Rosnah Mohd and Chek[46] x
Hulya Julie Yazici[26] x
Sohal and Burcher[4] x
Sacrista´n Dı´az and lvarez
Gil[32]
x
DeRuntz and Turner[6] x
Sohal and Schroder[5] x
Bolden and Waterson[44] x
Rosnah and Megat Ahmad[45] x
Key:
1.Customer satisfaction 3. Responsiveness 5. Ecology
2. Working environment 4. Community
development
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 41 2010
345
Technological issues: These issues are limited to the
capabilities of the AMT to improve manufacturing
performances. The following issues describe the compliance
of manufacturing systems. Pervious studies have reported that
changed markets require flexible manufacturing. The
researchers have described procedure and methodological aids
such as technological performance, and economic evaluation
used for planning and realization of a CAM system.
Henceforth, Cost, Time, Technological, Strategic, Social and
Human issues would be the success factors for selecting AMT
and criteria of the hierarchy.
V. C
ONCLUSION
One of the main objectives of this paper is to identify the
important criteria affecting advanced manufacturing
technology selection. These factors would affect the overall
organization through new technology selection and
implementation, which are identified as main criteria and sub-
criteria of the AMT selection. From the literature, it may be
observed that a large number of issues are involved in
advanced manufacturing technology implementation
procedures.
Various attributes are addressed and used in this paper for
procedures involving selection and justification of AMT. In
this paper, a comprehensive list of attributes has been
identified and classified under two categories – tangible and
intangible attributes. The literature observes common
difficulties in implementing AMT such as lack of technical
skills, managerial problems, and lack of the systematic
evaluation methods. Economic issues alone are inadequate for
justify new manufacturing systems because traditional
evaluation methods are inadequate for the purpose.
The present paper suggested has brought several elements to
the fore. Advanced manufacturing technologies involve a set
of quantifiable and non-quantifiable attributes. There is a need
to evolve an integrated framework for comprehensive
appraisal of AMTs using these attributes.
TABLE VI STRATEGIC ISSUES
Researchers
1 2 3 4 5 6
Sambasivarao and
Deshmukh[51]
x x x x x x
Ferdows et al.[17]
x x
Voss[64] x x x
Wabalickis[66]
x
Weatherall[67]
x x x
Troxler and Blank[63]
x x x
Huang and Sakurail[25] x x x x
Primrose[41] x x
Datta et al.[13]
x x x
Demmel and Askin[14] x x x
Mohanty[36]
x x
Mohanty[35] x x x x x
Sambasivarao and
Deshmukh[52]
x x x x x x
Mohanty and Deshmukh[37] x x x x x
Kevin Low Lock[60]
x x
Chan, H. Lau[9]
x x
Crowe and Noble[61] x
Godwin and Ehie[22]
x
Sohal and Burcher[4]
x x x
Sacrista´n Dı´az and lvarez
Gil[32]
x x
DeRuntz and Turner[6]
x x x
Sohal and Schroder[5] x x
Salaheldin Ismail[50]
x x x
Bolden and Waterson[44] x x
Rosnah and Megat Ahmad[45]
x
Monge and Rao[7] x x x
Key:
1. Finance position 3. Management
development
5. R&D activities
2. Government policy 4. Market
position
6. Competition
TABLE VII TECHNOLOGICAL ISSUES
Researchers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sambasivarao and Deshmukh[51] x x x x x x
Frazelle[19] x
Crookal[12] x
Ferdows et al.[17] x x x
Young and Murray[68] x x x
Voss[64] x x
Park and Son[40] x
Weatherall[67] x x x
Fry and Smith[20] x x
Troxler and Blank[63] x x x
Huang and Sakurail[25] x x x x x
Ghosh and Wabalickis[21] x x
Primrose[41] x x
Datta et al.[13] x x x x
Demmel and Askin[14] x x x
Mohanty[36] x
Afzulpurkar et al.[3] x
Chang and Tsou[10] x x
Hin et al.[23] x x x
Mohanty[35] x x x x x x x
Sambasivarao and Deshmukh[52] x
Mohanty and Deshmukh[37] x x x
Crowe and Noble[61] x
Godwin and Ehie[22] x x x
Borenstein and Becker[15] x x x x
Rosnah Mohd and Chek[46] x x
Hulya Julie Yazici[26] x x
Sohal and Burcher[4] x x
DeRuntz and Turner[6] x x
Sohal and Schroder[5] x x x
Monge and Rao[7] x x
Salaheldin Ismail[50] x x x x
Bolden and Waterson[44] x x
Rosnah and Megat Ahmad[45] x x
Orlando and Aguilo[39] x x x
Houseman and Tiwari[38] x x
Abdel-Kader and Dugdale[1] x
Dessureault[16] x x
Tilak Rajand Shankar[62] x x
Key:
1. Capacity utilization 3. Hardware 5. Productivity 7. Software
2. Flexibility
4. Management
information
6. Reliability
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 41 2010
346
REFERENCES
[1] Abdel-Kader, M. and Dugdale, D. (2001). Evaluating Investments in
Advanced Manufacturing Technology: A Fuzzy Set Theory Approach,
British Accounting Review, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 455-489.
[2] Attaran, M. (1989). The automated factory: justification and
implementation, Business Horizons, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 80-5.
[3] Afzulpurkar, S., Huq, F. and Kurpad, M. (1993). An alternative
framework for design and implementation of cellular manufacturing,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 13
No. 9, pp. 4-17.
[4] Amrik S. Sohal, Peter G. Burcher, Robert Millen and Gloria Lee. (1999).
Comparing American and British practices in AMT adoption,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 310-324.
[5] Amrik S. Sohal, Richard Schroder, Enrico O. Uliana, William
Maguire.(2001) Adoption of AMT by South African manufacturers,
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12,No 1, pp. 15-34.
[6] Bruce D. DeRuntz and Roger M. Turner. (2003). Organizational
Considerations for Advanced Manufacturing Technology, The Journal of
Technology Studies, Vol.1, No. 1.
[7] Carlo A. Mora Monge, S. Subba Rao, Marvin E. Gonzalez, Amrik S.
Sohal. (2006) Performance measurement of AMT: a cross-regional
study, benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1/2, pp. 135-
146.
[8] Chakravarty, A.K. and Naik, B. (1992). Strategic Acquisition of New
Manufacturing Technology: a Review and Research Framework,
International Journal o Production Research, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 1575-
1601.
[9] Chan F.T.S., Chan M.H., Lau H. and R.W.L. IP. (2001). Investment
appraisal techniques for advanced manufacturing technology (AMT): a
literature review, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol.12, No.1, pp.
35-47.
[10] Chang, D.S. and Tsou, C.S. (1993). A chance-constraints linear
programming model on the economic evaluation of flexible
manufacturing systems, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 4, No. 2,
pp. 159-65.
[11] Chiadamrong, N. and O’Brien, C. (1999). Decision support tools for
justifying alternative manufacturing and production control systems,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 60/61, pp. 177-86.
[12] Crookall, J.R. (1986). Computer integration of advanced manufacture,
Proceedings of Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 200 No. B4, pp. 257-64.
[13] Datta, V., Sambasivarao, K.V., Kodali, R. and Deshmukh, S.G.(1992).
Multi-attribute decision model using the analytic hierarchy process for
the justification of manufacturing systems, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 227-34.
[14] Demmel, J.G. and Askin, R.G. (1992). A multiple-objective decision
model for the evaluation of advanced manufacturing system
technologies, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 179-
94.
[15] Denis Borenstein, João Luiz Becker and Eduardo Ribas Santos. (1999).
A systemic and integrated approach to flexible manufacturing systems
design, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 10, No. 1 ,pp. 6–14.
[16] Dessureault.S. (2004). Justification techniques for computer integrated
mining, The Journal of The South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, March 2004.
[17] Ferdows, K., Miller, J.G., Nakane, J. and Vollmann, T. (1986). Evolving
global manufacturing strategies: projections into the 1990s,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 6
No. 7, pp. 6-16.
[18] Fotsch, R. (1984). Machine tool justification policies: their effect on
productivity and profitability, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 169-95.
[19] Frazelle, E. (1985). Suggested techniques enable multi-criteria
evaluation of material handling alternatives, Industrial Engineering,
Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 42-9.
[20] Fry, T.D. and Smith, A.E. (1989). FMS implementation procedure: a
case study, IIE Transactions on Industrial Engineering, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 288-93.
[21] Ghosh, B.K. and Wabalickis, R.N. (1991). A comparative analysis for
the justification of future manufacturing systems, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 11 No. 9, pp. 4-23.
[22] Godwin J. Udo and Ike C. Ehie. (1996). Advanced manufacturing
technologies: Determinants of implementation success, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 12, pp. 6-
26.
[23] Hin, L.K., Leong, A.C. and Gay, R.K.L. (1993). Selection and
justification of advanced manufacturing technologies, in Sen, A.,
Winsor, J. and Gay, R., (Eds), Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference on Computer Integrated Manufacturing, World Scientific
and Global Publications Services, Singapore, pp. 136-43.
[24] Hodder, J.E. and Riggs, H.E. (1985). Pitfalls in evaluating risky projects,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 128-35.
[25] Huang, P.Y. and Sakurai, M. (1990). Factory automation: the Japanese
experience, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 102-8.
[26] Hulya Julie Yazici. (2005). Influence of flexibilities on manufacturing
cells for faster delivery using simulation, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 825-841.
[27] Kakati, M. and Dhar, U.R. (1991). Investment justification in flexible
manufacturing systems, Engineering Costs and Production Economics,
Vol. 21, pp. 203-9.
[28] Kaplan, R.S. (1986). Must CIM be justified by faith alone?, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 87-95.
[29] Karsak, E. and Tolga, E. (2001). Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
Procedure for Evaluating Advanced Manufacturing System Investments,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 69, pp. 49-64.
[30] Lefley, F., Wharton, F., Hajek, L., Hynek, J. and Janecek, V. (2004).
Manufacturing investments in the Czech Republic: an international
comparison, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 88, pp.
1-14.
[31] Luong, L.H.S. (1999). Decision support systems for the selection of
computer integrated manufacturing technologies, Robotics & Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 45-53.
[32] Macarena Sacrista´n Dı´az, Marı´a Jose´ A ´ lvarez Gil and Jose´ A.
Dominguez Machuca. (2005). Performance measurement systems,
competitive priorities, and advanced manufacturing technology: Some
evidence from the aeronautical sector, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 781-799.
[33] Meredith, J.R. and Suresh, N.C. (1986). Justification Techniques for
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 1043-1057.
[34] Michael H. Small. (2006). Justifying investment in advanced
manufacturing technology: a portfolio analysis, Industrial Management
& Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 4, pp. 485-508
[35] Mohanty, R.P. (1993). Analysis of justification problems in CIMS:
review and projections, International Journal of Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 260-71.
[36] Mohanty, R.P. (1992). Project selection by a multiple-criteria decision-
making method: an example from a developing country, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 31-8.
[37] Mohanty, R.P. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1999). Evaluating manufacturing
strategy for a learning organization: a case, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 308-327.
[38] Oliver Houseman, Ashutosh Tiwari and Rajkumar Roy. (2004). A
methodology for the selection of new technologies in the aviation
industry, Cranfield University.
[39] Orlando Dura´n and Jose´ Aguilo. (2008). Computer-aided machine-tool
selection based on a Fuzzy-AHP approach, Expert Systems with
Applications 34, pp. 1787–1794.
[40] Park, C. and Son, Y. (1988). An economic evaluation model for
advanced manufacturing systems, The Engineering Economist, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp 1-26.
[41] Primrose, P.L. (1991). Investment in Manufacturing Technology,
Chapman & Hall, London.
[42] Proctor, M.D. and Canada, J.R. (1992). Past and Present Methods of
Manufacturing Investment Evaluation: A Review of the Empirical and
Theoretical Liturature, The Engineering Economist, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.
45-59.
[43] Raafat, F. (2002). A comprehensive bibliography on justification of
advanced manufacturing systems, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 79, pp. 197-208.
[44] Richard Bolden, Patrick Waterson, Peter Warr, Chris Clegg and Toby
Wall. (1997). A new taxonomy of modern manufacturing practices,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17
No. 11, pp. 1112-1130.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 41 2010
347
[45] Rosnah, M.Y., Megat Ahmad, M.M.H. and Osman, M. R. (2004).
Barriers to advanced manufacturing technologies implementation in the
small and medium scales industries of a developing country,
International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.
39 – 46.
[46] Rosnah Mohd. Yusuff, Lo Woon Chek and M. S. J. Hashmi. (2005).
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies in SMEs, CACCI Journal, Vol.
1.
[47] Roth, A.V., Gaimon, C. and Krajewski, L. (1991). Optimal acquisition
of FMS technology subject to technological progress, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 308-34.
[48] Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytical Hierarchy Process. N.Y. McGraw-Hill.
[49] Saaty, T. (1990). How to make a decision- The analytic hierarchy
process. European Journal of Operational Research 48: 9-26.
[50] Salaheldin Ismail Salaheldin. (2007). The impact of organizational
characteristics on AMT adoption: A study of Egyptian manufacturers,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp.
443-460.
[51] Sambasivarao, K.V. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1995). Selection and
implementation of advanced manufacturing technologies Classification
and literature review of issues, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 10, pp. 43-62.
[52] Sambasivarao, K.V. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1994). Strategic framework
for implementing the flexible manufacturing systems in India,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 52-65.
[53] Shang, J. and Sueyoshi, T. (1995). A Unified Framework for the
Selection of a Flexible Manufacturing System, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 297-316.
[54] Slagmulder, R. and Bruggeman, W. (1992). Investment justification of
flexible manufacturing technologies: inferences from field research,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 12
Nos 7/8, pp. 168-86.
[55] Small, M.H. and Chen, I.J. (1997). Economic and Strategic Justification
of AMT - Inferences From Industiral Practices, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 65-76.
[56] Soni, R.G., Parsaei, H.R. and Liles, D.H. (1990). A methodology for
evaluating computer integrated manufacturing technologies, Computers
& Industrial Engineering, Vol. 19 Nos 1/4, pp. 210-4.
[57] Suresh, N. and Meredith, J. (1985). Justifying multimachine systems: an
integrated strategic approach, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 4
No. 2, pp. 117-34.
[58] Swamidass, P.M. and Waller, M.A. (1991). A classification of
approaches to planning and justifying new manufacturing technologies,
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 181-93.
[59] Swann, K. and O’Keefe, W.D. (1990). Advanced manufacturing
technology: investment decision process. Part I, Management Decision,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 20-31.
[60] Teng, Kevin Low Lock, Seetharaman and Arumugam. (2009). Selection
and Management of Cost Justification Techniques among Advanced
Manufacturing Technology Companies in Malaysia, International
Journal of Management. FindArticles.com. 01 Jun.
[61] Thomas J. Crowe and James S. Noble and Jeevan S. Machimada. (1998).
Multi-attribute analysis of ISO 9000 registration using AHP,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 15 No.
2, pp. 205-222.
[62] Tilak Raj, Ravi Shankar, Mohammed Suhaib, Suresh Garg and Yashvir
Singh. (2008). An AHP approach for the selection of Advanced
Manufacturing System: a case study, International Journal of
Manufacturing Research, Volume 3, Number 4 , pp. 471 – 498
[63] Troxler, J.W. and Blank, L. (1990). Decision support system for value
analysis of integrated manufacturing technology, in Parsaei, H., Ward,
T. and Karwoski, W. (Eds), Justification Methods for Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Elsevier, New York, NY, pp. 193-202.
[64] Voss, C.A. (1986). Managing advanced manufacturing technology,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 6
No. 5, pp. 4-7.
[65] Vrakking, W.J. (1989). Consultants’ role in technological process
innovation, Journal of Management Consulting, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 17-24.
[66] Wabalickis, R.N. (1988). Justification of FMS with analytic hierarchy
process, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 7 No. 3, 1988, pp. 175-
182.
[67] Weatherall, A. (1988). Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Affiliated
East-West Press Pvt., New Delhi.
[68] Young, A.R. and Murray, J. (1986). Performance evaluation of FMS,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 6
No. 5, pp. 57-62.
Zahra Banakar is master student of Industrial and Manufacturing Faculty of
Engineering at the University of Malaya (UM).
Farzad Tahriri is currently a PhD candidate in Industrial and System
Engineering, and research assistance with the Center for Product Design and
Manufacturing (CPDM) in Industrial and Manufacturing, Faculty of
Engineering at the University of Malaya (UM). He graduated with Master
Degree in Industrial and System Engineering in 2008 at University Putra
Malaysia (UPM). His research interests include: Advanced Manufacturing
Engineering (AMT), Robot optimization and Simulation, Virtual Reality,
Decision Making and Optimization Model.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 41 2010
348
