Evolving Paradigms of Manufacturing: From Mass Production to Mass Customization and Personalization

Abstract

This paper reviews the development of the paradigms of manufacturing, including mass production, mass customization and the emerging paradigm of personalization. In each paradigm, we discuss the contributions of scientific principles, manufacturing technologies and systems operations and how they are integrated together to achieve quality, productivity and responsiveness in manufacturing. We also compare the roles of the consumer in each paradigm. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Full text

Procedia CIRP 7 ( 2013 ) 3 – 8
2212-8271 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Professor Pedro Filipe do Carmo Cunha
doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2013.05.002
Forty Sixth CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems 2013
Evolving Paradigms of Manufacturing: From Mass Production to Mass Customization and Personalization
S. Jack Hu
Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
Tel.: +1-734-615-4315 ; fax: +1-734-647-7303 . E-mail address: jackhu@umich.edu.
Abstract
This paper reviews the development of the paradigms of manufacturing, including mass production, mass
customization and the emerging paradigm of personalization. In each paradigm, we discuss the contributions of
scientific principles, manufacturing technologies and systems operations and how they are integrated together to
achieve quality, productivity and responsiveness in manufacturing. We also compare the roles of the consumer in each
paradigm.
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Professor Pedro Filipe do Carmo Cunha
Keywords: Mass production; mass customization; personalization
1. Introduction
-
being and quality of life for its citizens because
manufacturing creates lasting wealth while also
distributes wealth through high-paying jobs. Since its
birth two centuries ago, the manufacturing industry has
evolved through several paradigms [1]. The first
d the
product the customer requested but at a high cost. There
were no manufacturing systems associated with this
paradigm. In addition, the providers of craft products
were confined to localized geographical regions hence
such production was not scalable. Interchangeability and
the moving assembly lines enabled the development of
which provided low-cost products
through large scale manufacturing. However, the
number of varieties offered by such production was very
limited, as evidenced by the famous statement from
color that he wants so long as it is black [2]. In the late
1980s, global competition and consumer demands for
high product variety led to the development of
3]. Manufacturers designed the basic
product architecture and options while customers are
allowed to select the assembly combination that they
prefer most. Product family planning enabled
manufacturers to share certain common components
across the products in the family so that economy of
scale is achieved at the component level. Flexible and
reconfigurable manufacturing systems are utilized to
create high variety in the final assembly through
combinational assembly, thus achieving the economy of
scope. For example, BMW claims that the number of
possible combinations for the 7 Series alone could reach
10
17
(www.bmwgroup.com). Many companies are
offering high variety through such an approach.
What is the next manufacturing paradigm? For the
past three decades, the governing premise of many
corporations has been to maximize shareholder value.
However, in an article published in the Harvard
Business Review, Martin [4] shows that corporations that
focused on the consumers have been considerably out-
performing companies that focused on the shareholders.
Hence, Martin advocates a shift from focusing on
shareholder value to focusing on the consumer. In their
5], former
CEO of Proctor & Gamble A.G. Lafley and management
consultant Ram Charan advocate a core business
practice cent
-
creation and co-design. At its foundation is clarifying,
segmenting, and precisely targeting the who before
engineering and formulating new-product innovations.
This means involving her in the iterative, two-way
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Professor Pedro Filipe do Carmo Cunha

4 S. Jack Hu / Procedia CIRP 7 ( 2013 ) 3 – 8
design of products is the key driver leading to the new
emerging manufacturing paradigm
which we call
Personalization or Personalized Production.
The evolution of the manufacturing paradigms is
illustrated in Fig. 1 using a volume-variety relationship.
In the remainder of the paper, we review the
development of mass production and mass
customization and the enabling technologies associated
with each. Then we discuss the emerging paradigm of
personalization and the enabling technologies required
to realize such a new paradigm.
2. Mass Production
Mass production, or the American system of production,
began with the introduction of the Henry Ford moving
assembly line at Highland Park near Detroit, Michigan
and reached its peak after the end of the World War II
when demands for products were very high.
Interchangeability, moving assembly lines, and scientific
management are the key science, technology, and
systems enablers for mass production. While mass
production created tremendous wealth for the U.S. and
many individuals, it also had several weaknesses as we
will see later.
Interchangeability: The ability to randomly select parts
and assemble them together was crucial to the
introduction of assembly lines at the beginning of the
20
th
century. Individual parts were made in large
volumes but controlled within tolerance. Products can be
assembled in a random order to desired specification and
performance. The concept of interchangeable parts
began in Europe, but Eli Whitney was credited with
experimenting with interchangeable parts in 1801 when
he built 10 guns using the same exact parts and
mechanisms and then disassembled and reassembled
them in front of the U.S. Congress [6]. While Whitney
actively promoted the concept of interchangeability, he
was not able to successfully implement it in his
production. Henry Leland, founder of Cadillac
automobiles, later successfully adapted interchangeable
parts for automobile manufacturing. Interchangeable
parts enabled the economic production of components
parts in large volumes. Subsequently, economy of scale
was achieved when all these came together on the
assembly line.
Moving Assembly Line: The first modern version of an
assembly system was the moving assembly line
introduced by Henry Ford in 1913 at Highland Park,
Michigan for producing the Model T automobiles (see
Fig. 2). Prior to the introduction of the assembly line,
cars were individually crafted at fixed locations by a
group of workers who traveled from car to car. The
process was slow and expensive. The moving assembly
line where the cars came to the worker who performed
the same tasks again and again was able to significantly
improve the speed and reduce the cost of assembly [7].
Table 1 illustrates the productivity gains achieved
through moving assembly lines. This technology is still
being used today.
Fig. 2. Henry Ford assembly line at Highland Park [7].
Table 1 Productivity gains due to the moving assembly line at
Highland Park.
Pre-1912
20-30 per day
1913
100 per day
1914
1000 per day
1915
3000 per day
Division of Labor: The production of volumes of
individualized parts and the moving assembly lines led
to specialization in the tasks of the workers. While
division of labor was not a new concept in society, the
moving assembly line and production systems further
divided work with much finer granularity by having
each worker focus on some specialized repetitive tasks.
Adam Smith predicted very early that division of labor
represented a qualitative increase in productivity [8], but
Variety
Volume per
model
1850
1913
1955
1980
Personalized
Production
Fig. 1. Volume variety relationship in manufacturing
paradigms [1].

5
S. Jack Hu / Procedia CIRP 7 ( 2013 ) 3 – 8
al
so
c
riti
c
iz
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
job
s
of
t
h
e
wo
rk
e
r
s
we
r
e
co
nfin
ed
t
o a single task
.
W
orkers in such settings failed t
o
see
t
h
e
v
al
ue
o
f th
e
ir
wo
rk an
d
th
e
co
ntri
bu
ti
o
n
s
t
o
th
e
final
products
.
This has become especially true with mass
production
.
Scientific Management
:
Th
e
t
heory of scientific
m
anagement b
y
Fredrick Taylo
r
was one of the earl
y
attem
pt
mm
s
t
o improve economi
c
efficienc
y
,
in particular,
l
abor productivit
y
[
9]
.
Taylor introduced time studies,
work training and separation of workers fro
m
m
anagement etc
.
i
nto the American production system
.
Taylor also contributed to the science an
d
art
o
f m
e
tal
c
utting
.
Limit
a
t
i
ons of Mass production
:
The main goal of mass
production is the pursuit of productivity. Man
uf
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
s
designed products and pushed them to the consumer
s
with only limited inputs from the
m
.
I
n
f
act
,
m
any
U
.
S
.
m
anufacturers had forgotten their customers.
Q
u
ality of
product
s
h
a
d
deteriorated. When products were
no
t
s
elling well, inventory cost increased. The division of
l
abor also caused problems between management and
wo
rk
e
r
s.
N
o
o
n
e
see
m
ed
t
o
ha
ve
n
o
ti
ced
t
he problems
m
an
uf
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
s
fa
ced
u
ntil many Japane
s
e products
arrived in the
US
markets
.
Th
e
fir
s
t
w
ak
e
-
u
p call to US manufacturers came i
n
.
J
apanes
e
c
ar
s
that
were sold in the
U
.
S
.
were cheaper, better and much
m
ore fuel efficient. Another wave of Japanese products
would arrive in the
U
.
S
.
This time, TVs, VCRs made in Japan pretty much
dominated the
U
.
S
.
m
arket and
U
.
S
.
m
an
uf
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
s
we
r
e
n
o longer competitiv
e
i
n these segment
s
.
T
o
fin
d
ou
t
w
hat
t
he Japanes
e
d
i
d
,
t
e
am
s
of
engineers and
r
esearchers were sent to Japan
to
t
ry to
le
arn th
e
J
apanes
e
m
anufacturing methods
.
A
mong the
v
arious discoveries, the most important discovery was
an Am
e
ri
c
an
s
tati
s
ti
c
ia
n
and professo
r
who taught the
J
apanese about quality and manufacturing management.
T
h
at Am
e
ri
c
an
w
a
s
W
. Edward Deming who was
c
onsidered a hero in Japan for contributing to Japanese
m
anufacturing and businesses,
bu
t
h
i
s
t
eaching and
philosoph
y
we
r
e
just beginning to be embraced b
y
A
m
e
ri
c
an man
u
fa
c
t
u
r
e
r
s.
A
n
o
th
e
r
important discovery about
J
ap
a
n
m
anufacturing was throu
g
h the MIT International Moto
r
V
ehicle Program.
Au
t
o
m
o
ti
ve
man
u
fa
c
t
u
r
e
r
s
fr
om
J
apan, the US and Europe participated in this
s
tud
y
an
d
[
10
]
,
which introduced the co
n
c
ept of the
Toyota Production Syste
m
and Lean Manufacturin
g
.
L
e
a
n
Manufacturing
:
Lean manufacturing is a
m
anufacturing management philosophy based on the
Toyota Production System. It seeks to
m
aximiz
e
v
al
ue
t
o
t
he customer while minimize waste along the p
r
ocess
fl
ow.
Lean principles and the various methods can be
f
ou
n
d
i
n
v
ari
ous
boo
k
s.
Lean manufacturing is now
i
mpacting every major US manufacturer in its drive for
quality, cost and delivery
.
3
. Mass
C
ustomization
The paradigm of mass customization emerged i
n
th
e
l
at
e
d for product variety increased [
3
]
.
T
he
n
umber of varieties offered by consumer product
m
anufacturers has increased significantl
y
s
in
ce
th
en
.
A
n
example used in [1
]
is the
nu
m
be
r
o
f
d
i
s
tin
c
t a
u
t
o
m
ob
il
e
v
ehicle models in the
U
.
S
.
w
hi
c
h
i
n
c
r
e
a
sed
fr
o
m 44 in
1969 to 165 in 20
0
6
[
11, 12
]
.
Within each model
,
there
c
an be many choices on the powertrain and interio
r
co
m
b
inati
o
n
s.
Market segmentation and global
c
ompetitio
n
l
ed to the development of such high
v
ariet
y
and highly customized products.
Mass customization was enabled by several
i
mportant concepts and technologies, including product
family architecture, reco
n
fi
g
urable
m
anufacturin
g
s
ystems, and delaying differentiation
.
Pr
oduc
t Famil
y
A
rc
hit
ec
t
u
r
e
:
Product Family
A
rc
hit
ec
t
u
r
e
(
PFA
)
[
13
]
i
s an important concept in mass
c
ustomization.
W
ith a PF
A
,
t
h
e
man
u
fa
c
t
u
r
e
r
c
an
develop a product family strategy where certai
n
f
u
n
c
ti
o
nal m
odu
l
e
s
ar
e
s
har
ed
w
hil
e
o
th
e
r
s
ar
e
provided
w
ith
seve
ral
v
ariant
s
e
a
c
h
so
that th
e
assembl
y
co
m
b
inati
on
will provide high variety in the fin
a
l
products
(
see
Fig
.
3
,
where the total number of
v
ariant
s
is
)
.
A
co
n
su
m
e
r
c
an
c
h
oose
th
e
co
m
b
inati
o
n
o
f th
e
d
iff
e
r
e
nt m
odu
l
e
v
ariant
s
f
o
r th
e
m
an
u
fa
c
t
u
r
e
r t
o
a
sse
m
b
l
e
f
o
r him
/
h
e
r
.
Such an approach
e
na
b
l
ed
t
he production of customized products
t
hat th
e
co
n
su
m
e
r lik
ed
th
e
m
os
t
.
Reconfigurable Manufacturing System
s
(
RMS
)
:
W
ith
h
igh variety under mass customization, manufacturing
Modu
l
a
r Pr
odu
ct
s
F1
F2
F
n
V
11
V
12
V
13
V
n
1
V
n
2
V
n
3
V
2
1
V
2
2
Fi
g
.
3
.
Product Family Architecture (PFA) to represent
assembly variet
y
[
1
]
.

6 S. Jack Hu / Procedia CIRP 7 ( 2013 ) 3 – 8
systems need to respond to the changing market in terms
of ever changing product mix and demands. The concept
of reconfigurable manufacturing systems was first
proposed by Koren et al. [14]. An RMS is a system that
is designed at the out-set for rapid changes in its
structure and control in order to adjust its production
capacity and functionality within a part family in
response to sudden market changes. Configurations of
the manufacturing system play an important role in
impacting the performance of the systems [15].
Delaying Differentiation: To manage the high variety in
manufacturing systems, Delayed Product Differentiation
is implemented to delay the point where the different
products take on their unique characteristics. The
processes and assemblies are common up to the point of
differentiation. Such delay reduces cost and improves
responsiveness of the assembly systems [16, 17]. Figure
4 (b) illustrates a configuration with differentiation.
While mass customization provided high variety for
consumers to choose, such high variety also introduced
manufacturing complexity in the assembly systems [18],
which impacts system performance. In addition, the role
of the consumer is limited to choosing the module
combinations and s/he may not be able to obtain the
product exactly as s/he desires.
4. Personalization
The ubiquitous presence of the internet and computing
and availability of emerging responsive manufacturing
systems, such as 3D printing, present an opportunity for
a new paradigm of product realization: the
personalization of products tailored to the individual
needs and preferences of consumers. Customers create
innovative products and realize value by collaborating
with manufacturers and other consumers. This co-design
process is enabled by an open product architecture [19],
on-demand manufacturing systems, and responsive
cyber-physical system involving user participation in
design, product simulation/certification, manufacturing,
supply and assembly processes that rapidly meet
consumer needs and preferences.
Open architecture products: Product personalization rely
on an open product platform that allows various
modules, including user designed modules to be
integrated together. While product family design
methodologies for mass customization were based on
products that consisted of common modules and
customized modules [20, 21], a personalized product
will typically have an open architecture and will consist
of three types of modules: common modules that are
shared across the product platform; customized modules
that allow customers to choose, mix and match; and
personalized modules that allow customers to create and
design. All these modules will have standard
mechanical, electrical and informational interfaces to
allow easy assembly and disassembly. Based on the
anticipated value, manufacturability and cost of the
product, some designs may not contain all three types of
modules but may instead be composed of just the
customized and personalized modules. Product
architecting is to determine the modules that will be
common, customizable and personalizable depending on
cost and manufacturability [22].
Personalization design: Consumers are participating in
the design process at different levels. A number of
designers are much more likely to be novices who bring
with them significant differences in their approach to
design and the preferences that are important to them.
Research into the design and integration of new
interfaces is needed that will support the novice
designer, the expert designer and perhaps the expert
design mentor as an interactive aid to the designer. In
effect, many users will be learning a significant amount
during the design process. Visualization tools are needed
to aid the consumer in understanding the ramifications
of design choices without having to provide physical
prototypes. A design environment with the flexibility to
accommodate both novice and experienced designers
who desire both the freedom to perform creative design
and the ability to visualize the integration of the
personalized modules under the open architecture
product platform would be highly desired.
On-demand manufacturing systems: To ensure rapid
response to the consumer demand, the manufacturing
system must provide flexibility in fabricating
personalized product features and modules and
assembling these modules with other manufacturer
supplied modules. Additive manufacturing that cost-
effectively creates 3D solid objects directly from a CAD
model [23] is considered as enabling technologies
towards personalization. In addition, an on-demand
assembly system should be configured and reconfigured
cost-effectively
designs.
Cyber-physical Systems: To support the distributed
personalization design, collaboration and on-demand
manufacturing, computational tools integrated with the
P1
P2
P1+P2
(a)
(b)
Fig. 4. Manufacturing System Configuration: (a) mixed
model assembly, (b) configuration with differentiation.

7
S. Jack Hu / Procedia CIRP 7 ( 2013 ) 3 – 8
physical design and manufacturing systems will be
necessary. Engineered systems that are built from and
depend upon the synergy of computational and physical
components are called Cyber-Physical Systems [24].
New user interface methods and tools will be needed to
support the scalable user experience and collaborative,
distributed design approaches developed for
personalized production. Methods will be needed that
will leverage existing cyber-social networking
infrastructures to support users as they share their
designs and view the designs of people with similar
interests. Personalization will also result in the
emergence of communities of like-minded designers.
Beyond user interface tools, we see that a rich database
of designs will be constantly evolving for the
manufacturer to use in identifying potential new markets
and new products. Tools and algorithms will be needed
to support the manufacturer as the company seeks to
data-mine the design space to identify trends and
emergent designs which signal new markets and new
product potential.
Advanced analysis tools will be needed to verify
safety and reliability of these highly individualized
products and perform human-in-the-loop simulations.
While the vision includes individual designers having
the freedom to fully personalize a design, the reality is
that the design space is bounded, often by limits on
safety, manufacturability and reliability. Understanding
how to present these bounds to the designer and how to
evaluate a personalized design will be a significant
research challenge.
Finally, new cyber-physical tools will be needed to
support on-demand manufacturing. On the fly
evaluations of design for manufacturability will be
critical to the creation of realizable personalized
products. Reconfigurable assembly systems and supply
chain management tools will also be needed to
accommodate the wide variety in production mix.
5. Summary
This paper reviews the development of the three
manufacturing paradigms and discusses the enabling
technologies for each. While the goals of mass
production, mass customization and personalization can
be summarized as economy of scale, economy of scope
and value differentiation respectively, the role of the
cipation. Each newer paradigm will
encompass the goals and approaches of a prior paradigm
and demand more responsive manufacturing systems. A
comparison of these paradigms is shown in Fig. 5 and
summarized in Table 2. The three paradigms will likely
co-exist so that manufacturers will provide a wide range
of product choices for a broad spectrum of consumers so
that consumers can buy, choose or design their own
products to fit their individual needs.
Fig. 5. Goals of the manufacturing paradigms.
Acknowledgement
The author wish to acknowledge the useful discussions
with colleagues, in particular, Professors Yoram Koren,
Steve Skerlos and Judy Vance, that contributed to the
writing of this paper.
References
1. Hu SJ, Ko J, Weyland L, ElMaraghy HA, Lien TK, Koren
Y, Bley H, Chryssolouris G, Nasr N, Shpitalni M, (2011),
Assembly system design and operations for product
variety. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology,
60(2):715-733.
2. Ford, H, (1926), Today and Tomorrow, Doubleday, Page
and Company, Garden City, NY.
3. Pine II, BJ, (1993), Mass Customization: The New
Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 43.
4. Martin, R, (2010)
Harvard Business Review, January-February. pp. 58-65
5. Lafley, AG and Charan, R, (2008), The Game-Changer:
How You Can Drive Revenue and Profit Growth with
Innovation. New York.
6. http://www.eliwhitney.org/, accessed Dec. 29, 2012
Table 2. Key differences between mass production, mass
customization and personalized production.
Adapted from [1].

8 S. Jack Hu / Procedia CIRP 7 ( 2013 ) 3 – 8
7.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ford.htm
8. Smith, A, (1776), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes
of the Wealth of Nations, London.
9. Taylor, FW, (1911), Principles of Scientific Management.
New York and London, Harper & brothers.
10. Womack, JP, Jones DT, and Roos D., (1990), The
Machine That Changed the World, Rawson Associates,
New York.
11. Wards AG, ed., (2006), Wards Automotive Yearbook. Vol.
68, Prism Business Media, Inc., Detroit, MI.
12. Wards C, ed., (1970), Wards Automotive Yearbook. 32 ed.,
Wards Communications, Inc.: Detroit, MI.
13. Tseng MM, Jiao J, Merchant ME, (1996), Design for
Mass Customization. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology 45(1): 153-156.
14. Koren, Y, Jovane, F, Heisel, U, Moriwaki, T, Pritschow
G., Ulsoy AG, and Van Brussel H,(1999), Reconfigurable
Manufacturing Systems. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology, 48(2), pp. 6-12.
15. Koren Y, Hu SJ, Weber TW, (1998), Impact of
Manufacturing System Configuration on Performance.
CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 47(1): 369-372.
16. Lee H, Tang C, (1997), Modelling the Costs and Benefits
of Delayed Product Differentiation. Management Science
43(1): 40-53.
17. Ko J and Hu SJ, (2008), Balancing of manufacturing
systems with complex configurations for delayed product
differentiation, International Journal of Production
Research,46:15,4285-4308.
18. Hu SJ, Zhu X, Wang H, Koren Y, (2008), Product
Variety and Manufacturing Complexity in Assembly
Systems and Supply Chains. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology 57(1): 45-48.
19. Koren Y, Hu SJ, Gu P, Shpitalni M (2013), Open
Architectture Products, CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology, 61(2)
20. Jiao J, Tseng MM, Duffy VG, Lin F, (1998), Product
Family Modeling for Mass Customization. Computers &
Industrial Engineering 35(3-4): 495-498.
21. Simpson T, (2004), Product Platform Design and
Customization: Status and Promise. AI EDAM 18(01): 3-
20.
22. Berry C, Wang H and Hu SJ, (2012)
Assembly Technologies
and Systems for Quality, Productivity and Costomization,
Proceedings of CIRP Conference on Assembly
Technologies and Systems, May, Ann Arbor.
23. Savitz E, (2012), Manufacturing the Future: 10 Trends
to Come in 3d Printing.
forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/12/07/manufacturing-
the-future-10-trends-to-come-in-3d-printing/].
24. National Science Foundation.
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12520/nsf12520.htm