critical factors in information system development for a flexible manufacturing system

ELSEVIER Computers in Industry 28 (1996) 173-183

Critical factors in information system development for a flexible manufacturing system

Jack Arthur Gowan Jr. * , Richard G. Mathieu

Departwzenr of Production & Decision Sciences, The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403-3297, U&t

Received 3 May 1994; revised 15 September 1995

Abstract

The successful implementation of a flexible manufacturing system @MS) is highly dependent upon the design and development of the system for information flow and control. The literature indicates that information systems are the primary source of problems in an FM& but are the least studied subsystem within an FMS. Based upon the case study of a successful implementation of a fully automated FMS, six critical success factors (CSFs) were identified for information system development within an FMS. These CSFs point to the importance of four issues: (1) simplification and standardization, (2) communication, (3) team building, and (4) resource allocation. The FMS development process is described, and the six CSFs are compared to related findings in the literature on FMS implementation, project management, software design and factory automation. The paper concludes by stating the implications for management, system design and future research.

Keywords: Flexible man&cturing systems; Computer integrated manufacturing; Information systems architecture; Critical success factors

1. Introduction

A flexible manufacturing system @‘MS) consists of production machinery coordinated and controlled by an integrated information system where products are moved from station to station by a central trans- port system. A primary objective of the FMS is to be versatile enough that a variety of parts can be manufactured simultaneou:dy while achieving high levels of productivity. An FMS can be viewed as consisting of three primary subsystems: 1. machining workstation(s); 2. storage and transportation; 3. information flow and control.

* Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Of the three subsystems, information flow and control is the least understood and the least studied [l].

The design and implementation of a computer- based information system is essential for the successful operation of a fully automated FMS. However, it has been repeatedly documented in the literature that information systems are the primary source of problems in FMS implementation [2-51. In addition, strategies for the successful implementation of information systems in an FMS have been described as either non-existent or ad hoc in nature [l-4,6-9].

Much work has been done to identify critical success factors (CSFs) in the areas of project management and management information systems planning. Several authors, writing on project management, have identified factors which, if addressed, will significantly improve project implementation.

0166.3615/96/$15.00 0 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDI 0166-3615(95)00082-8

174 J.A. Gowan Jr., R.G. Mathieu / Computers in Industry 28 (1996) 173-183

For example, Cleland and King [IO] and Nicholas [ 11 I present theoretical foundations for understanding project success. Pinto and Slevin [12] surveyed five books on project management and identified six common CSFs. In addition, much work has been

done to systematically determine CSFs as they relate to information system planning. Rockart [13] and Shank et al. [14] present structured frameworks for determining CSFs and then apply these results to the strategic planning of management information systems. Curtis et al. [15], in a field study of seventeen large software projects, describe determinants of software project success at the company, project, team and individual levels of the firm.

Several authors point out critical issues in suc-

cessful FMS implementation. Dmitrov and Todorov [ 11 summarize the following problems: unsatisfactory design; inadequate cooperation between designers, users and vendors; problems associated with a lack of system understanding; lack of training; and interface issues related to integration. Yoder [16] supports the need for a complete set of business and technical policies to provide requirements and specifications upon which an information system architecture is built. In addition, Yoder [16] calls for a simple, unambiguous method to communicate the requirements and view of the design, while acknowledging

that different participants, including users, designers and implementors, will be involved. Meredith [4] reports on three case studies, each at different stages in their life cycles, and identifies critical issues for each. For the FMS at the implementation stage, critical issues included interfacing problems, identi- fying the decision maker (responsibility/authority issues), education and training, human and organizational infrastructure issues, and procedural needs for control and direction. Luggen [17] provides guidelines for FMS planning, for working with vendors, and for staffing the FMS development project. Fi- nally, Takanaka [ 181, based on a survey of 93 Japanese companies, identified six CSFs for successful factory automation.

The FMS presents an environment different from the traditional MIS center. The complexity of the information system is intensified by the incorpora- tion of mechanical systems. Development strategies must include the integration of machines, operators and software. Yoshikawa [5] proposes that successful

computer integrated manufacturing (CIM) should focus upon the human factor and coined the phrase “Human Integrated Manufacturing”. Maintenance also takes on an additional array of needs with regards to the management of interruptions and the effect on an automated scheduling process. Because the information system is central to the issue of integration, it is critical to the success of the entire project. Project managers must be aware of pitfalls and CSFs which are unique in the FMS environment. At this point in the brief history of FMS, one can do so by learning from others’ experiences. Meredith [4] acknowledges that research in manufacturing technology is still in its infancy and that most contributions to date come from surveys and case studies.

It is important to recognize that little of the previous research has sought to identify the critical success factors specific to information systems development in FMS or CIM. A notable exception is a paper by Ettlie and Getner [19] that investigates information system issues associated with CIM. However, this research looked primarily at the later stages of the system development life cycle and focused on software maintenance issues. None of the previous literature has focused exclusively on CSFs for information system development and implementation in a fully automated FMS environment.

2. Research objectives

The primary objective of this research was to identify a set of CSFs for information system development in a flexible manufacturing system. For the purposes of this paper, critical success factors are defined as “those things that must go well to ensure the overall success of the project”. A cohesive set of CSFs were determined after a series of interviews with FMS designers, analysts and managers who

were involved in the design and implementation of a successful FMS. The development of the FMS information system is described along with the identifica- tion of CSFs. These factors are then summarized and compared to similar findings and theoretical formulations reported in the FMS and CIM literature. In addition, the factors are compared to three specific sets of CSFs developed for related topics: project management, software design and factory automa-

J.A. Gowan Jr., R.G. Mathieu / Computers in Industry 28 (1996) 173-183 175

tion. It is hoped that this will lead empirical research

in FMS information systems beyond an exploratory stage and towards theory-based models of FMS information system development.

Case-based research allows investigators to understand the nature and complexity of the processes taking place and serves as basis for theory building. A single-case study ,approach was chosen as the

mechanism for detemlining the CSFs for an MS information system, b#ecause single case studies are ideally suited to prob;lems that have not previously been studied and to problems on the verge of theory generation [20,21]. Due to the fact that both the FMS and the information system areas are characterized by constant technological change and that CSFs in FMS information systems development have not previously been published, the single-case research strategy is ideally suited to the problem at hand. Site selection must be carefully considered when con-

ducting case research. The particular site selected met the following

criteria: (1) a working and profitable FMS with an information system completed within the allocated time and budget, (2) assurance of open and forthright interviews, (3) essential data to be made available, and( 4) commitment from the person(s) with authority to approve the project [21].

3. The site

The basis of this research is a case study of a successful implementation of a fully automated FMS located in the southeastern United States. The FMS is housed in a lOO,OO~Oft* building that produces jet engine components and is considered one of the most productive and technically advanced systems in the aerospace industry. The plant employs metal removing machines, an automated storage and retrieval system, fixturing stations, automated guided vehicles (AGVS) and a response center where management information is monitored. AGVs move a fixtured casing on a series of laps, each of which consists of storage retrieval, fixturing, machining, washing, dimensional verification, defixturing and storage. Each part and tool is monitored for location by an embedded microchip. Equipment redundancy is built into the design to allow the system to run 24 hours a day in a continuous operation.

More than twenty different engine components can be machined using the same tooling which allows the plant to support a lot size of one. The original facility was built for manual operation so that product could be manufactured, but designed for stages of automation and integration to be implemented over the succeeding 4 years. When compared to the original manual facility, cycle time was reduced from an average of 28 weeks to 4 weeks and

direct labor reduced by 31 hours per component. Substantial savings have also been achieved through a reduction of waste of costly materials, stainless steel, nickel, and titanium-based alloys paralleled by a high level of quality. Virgin yields approach 100% and product specifications typically exceed customer requirements.

4. CSFs and FMS information system development

Critical success factors were determined through approximately twelve hours of interviews with seven individuals including the overall FMS project manager, operations manager, manager of information systems, mechanical designers and systems analysts. The first interview was with the FMS project manager at the plant, which included a tour of the facilities. Two four-hour sessions involved two different groups of participants in an informal setting and were taped (audio) for later reference and documentation. Following is a description of the FMS information system development process. Included in the description are the six CSFs that emerged.

The entire FMS was implemented in a time-phased plan during a four-year period while production con- tinued in order to respond to capacity needs and demand. Product was produced using manual operations of the new facility for 1.5 years before the first automation was implemented. This approach pro- vided an advantage of having well trained and expe- rienced operators on site and a mechanical system which was well established and understood. The

original plant layout was designed using computer- based simulation models. Several simulation pack- ages are now available developed primarily to support the simulation of CIM, FMS and robotic-based manufacturing systems [22]. The original design was


of the completely automated and integrated FMS and the design process (Critical Success Factor 2). Re- the manually operated mechanical system was in- quirement definition included a choice of operating stalled based upon this design. Substantial time and system, communications protocol and controllers. A effort was invested in the design of the mechanical VAX cluster was chosen to support the FMS and the system using simulation. One factor critical to the administrative systems of the plant. A second VAX design of the plant was to simplify the manufactur- was added as a “hot backup” in case of the loss of a ing process as much as possible (Critical Success central processing unit. The VMS operating system Factor I). It was anticipated that simplification at the was chosen, as well as Decnet’s Ethernet communi- mechanical level would result in less complexity at cation protocol, and Series Six controllers. In addi- the controller level and in the information systems tion, a database management system was chosen design. which would drive data formats and standards.

With the FMS physical system design and plant layout in progress, well-defined system requirements and standards were defined for the FMS information system. In particular, system interfaces, database and data format requirements, and communication network requirements were defined at this early stage of

Among the published proposals and descriptions of information systems architecture in an FMS, many are hierarchical in nature, especially those developed in the 1980s. Zachman [23] developed a framework for information systems architecture and points out

that an architecture representation depends upon the

FACILITY CONTROL

SHOP CONTROL I

Shop Manager QC

SySti MiUlaga

I 1 I I I I f

1 CELL CONTROL

I I I I I 1 I

AGV o CMM !

TMS = Machine Staging ASIRS f Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager Manager

I I I 1. I ,

I WORK STATION CONTROL

r’ I AGV = cmd h4iU TMS’ VTL TMS = VTL ’ Mill ASIRS f

COIltdkI ContrOller contrOlkr cOneoIler Control COW01 conlroller

I I I I II I I

I , I

EQUIPMENT CONTROL I

AGV On-Board

zl

I I

Material Robot Mill Lathe COIlVcyOr Gantry

Conaoll~ Handling Controllers Fix/TJ&x Fix/De&x Controller Controller

COIltrOller Con&ollex controller -~~~L---i

Fig. 1. Information system architecture (” CAPPS = capacity production and planning system; b WIP = work in process; ’ AGV = automated guided vehicle; d CMM = coordinate measuring machine; e TMS = tool management system; f AS/RS = auto-storage return stacker; s VTL = vertical turning lathe).

J.A. Gowan Jr., R.G. Mathieu/ Computers in Industry 28 (1996) 173-183 111

users’ point of view and functionality. Jung [24] and Parrish [25] describe a five-level control architecture: enterprise, system, production cell, workstation and equipment. Micovsky et al. [9] describe a four-level control architecture with a focus on process or control activities: planning, scheduling, coordination and low-level control. Each can be associated with Jung’s and Parrish’s four lowest levels.

The hierarchical architectures have evolved over

the past decade with a tendency to loosen the master/slave relationships between the levels and push more control to lower operational levels given the development of more: intelligent and powerful controllers [26]. Dilts et a.l. [26] classify the earlier, more rigid, architectures as proper hierarchical and the less rigid, more recent systems, as modified hierarchical. The most recent research focuses on heterarchical

systems in which no master/slave relationships exist

and flatter structures. The FMS information system architecture studied

in this case is best classified as modified hierarchical with five levels of control including facility, shop, cell, workstation and equipment control (see Fig. 1). This graphical model was a fundamental communication device used by the project manager to consis-

tently have those involved in the project maintain a project-level focus and recognize the degree of integration required (Critical Success Factor 3).

The information system architecture model was decomposed horizontally and vertically. Based on the architecture model, teams were formed with sys- tern specialists and vendors made subservient to the use&> and/or user representative(s) (Critical Suc-

cess Factor 4). Horizontal decomposition relates re-

1 CELL CONTROL fe I o-IIL__.I-_ I VI ’ , _- ’ I

r

“Manager Manager

WORK STATION NTROL I CMMJ VTL TMS = VTL 8 Mill

Controller Controller Control Control

EQUIPMENT CONT L

ASIRS f Controller

Fig. 2. Vertical decomposition and team assignments.


sponsibilities, in general, from an organizational perspective while the vertical decomposition assigns responsibilities from a functional perspective, across organizational levels.

4.1. Horizontal decomposition

Information system development and implementation responsibility was delegated to three groups of information systems specialists. Systems development at the Facility and Shop Control levels were under the control of a corporate level IS group. Most of this software was proprietary in nature, had been developed in other projects, and required modifica- tion for interfacing with the next layer. Responsibil- ity for systems development at the Cell Control level was delegated to a team consisting of mechanical

and IS designers, systems analysts, and programmers who were primarily drafted from other corporate facilities for the FMS project and were housed on site. The team and vendors shared the responsibility for systems development at the Work Station Control level while vendors alone were responsible for system development at the Equipment Control level.

4.2. Vertical decomposition

Additional teams were created and assigned responsibility for functional systems identified in Fig. 2. Team membership included one or two users, designers, programmers and a vendor. Users included actual operators as well as user representatives hired to serve as liaisons between manufacturing operations (the users) and systems specialists. User representatives reported to the operations manager, not information systems. They were ultimately involved in performing acceptance testing of the software as well as documentation. Although the team approach was intended to promote cooperation

among team members, the systems specialists and vendors were subservient to the use&>. Users in a project team were required to sign off, along with designers and programmers, at different stages of the software development life cycle (SDLC). Project teams were built as needed on a phased implementation schedule. This was based upon physical integration requirements as well as funding constraints. For example, the AGV project was the first, followed by

the Parts Washing and Coordinate Measuring Ma- chine (CMM) project. Each project team was man- aged by the overall FMS project manager on a contractor basis (Critical Success Factor 5). Partial funding of a team would initiate the SDLC, but additional funding would follow only after certain

phases were completed. This funding philosophy is similar to that used in the construction industry when dealing with contractors and subcontractors. The FMS project manager was responsible for the budget and leveraged the funds in the coordination process to control scheduling of activities. In addition, the project manager proposed that he “made project assignments and then placed himself in a support mode to provide necessary resources to make the project succeed”.

4.3. Man-machine interface

Because manual systems were already in operation, users were well trained in the production process. Implementation of automation was simplified by applying automation in a relatively stable environment. Once controllers were installed, the equipment could be manually operated at the workstation level. Any complications were typically traced to the controller. Once workstations were linked to communications and controllers at the cell level, resulting complications were typically traced to the cell level

control and communications, not at the workstation level below. The result was a bottom-up, phased-in integration of the information system with the production system (Critical Success Factor 6). This technique also allows the machine to continue production during tests of other FMS interfaces. In addition to simplifying the integration process, improved maintenance capabilities may be a by-product. Having operators and systems specialists involved in taking a machine in and out of the automatic mode, and taking subsequent action to intervene and keep the host computer updated on the workstation’s status, provides a simulation of action required when a machine actually fails. The “automatic mode” can exist in two degrees, planned and unplanned. A planned automatic mode implies complete automation. Unplanned requires an operator to manually intervene, overriding the current schedule and request a work order, including a pallet, ma-


chine, tools and NC programs to be downloaded. The remaining activities are then automated.

5. Discussion of critical success factors

In the process of interviewing the seven different individuals, many topics and issues relating to FMS development were discussed. The interview environment was perceived by the authors to be relaxed and conducive to open communication. At the beginning of each group session, the FMS project manager articulated that the reason for the meeting was to discuss the events that occurred that made it a successful FMS project. General discussion would ensue

with the two authors of this paper interjecting and asking questions. Near the end of an interview session, one of the two authors would ask the question:

“Can you identify four or five factors critical to the successful implementation of the MS?“. Each par- ticipant took turns responding to the question, with others often commenting on each other’s perspective. Following is a summary of those CSFs. Each CSF is accompanied by a sh.ort description and compared to similar findings and ,theoretical formulations reported in the FMS and CIM literature:

5.1. Success Factor I. Simplification of the production process prior to the design of the FMS information system

The design of the FMS information system should not begin until the production process has been simplified. This CSF is supported by the prior literature. Anderson [27] states that “automating an inefficient system is much more difficult than automating one that has been simplified” and “trying to solve problems of manufacturing competition by applying high technology to an inefficient production system does not work.”

5.2. Success Factor 2. Explicit determination of system inte$ace, database and data format requirements, and communication network requirements early in the design ,process

Design paramete.rs for the FMS information system must be established early. In particular system

interface standards, database and data format requirements, and communication protocols must be established. The literature documents many problems and failures in CIM and FMS development due to a lack of system standards [2,4,7,16,28].

5.3. Success Factor 3. A simple, unambiguous method to communicate the requirements and view of the FMS information system design

The architecture of the information system in a fully automated FMS can be viewed at three levels (functional, physical and implementation) by three groups of constituents (users, designers and implementors) [ 161. It is necessary to communicate different levels of the information system architecture to the different constituents. Yoder [16] suggests that

two views of the system architecture (the functional/user view and the designer/physical view) are particularly important in CIM design. The graphical model used as a fundamental communication device by the project manager in Figs. 1 and 2 support the designer/physical view.

5.4. Success Factor 4. Subsystem development teams formed based on a horizontal and vertical decomposition of the information system architecture model. Systems specialists and vendors made subservient to the useris) and/or user representative(s)

It was found that team formation based on a horizontal and vertical decomposition of the system architecture created well-organized and effective teams. In addition, problems with vendors and system specialists were minimized by making them subservient to the user(s) and/or user representative(s). Meredith [4] states that a major problem involving the implementation of an FMS is that “often it is not clear who has the authority to make software decisions. Frequently a liaison decision maker is needed, and no such person exists in the organization”. This is confounded further by the introduction of information system vendors [3].

180 J.A. Gowan Jr., R.G. Mathieu /Computers in Industry 28 (1996) 173-183

5.5. Success Factor 5. Funding of information system projects by project manager on a contractual

basis

lem by stating that “people do not know what their general requirements are because they have not translated business plans into manufacturing strategies”.

A formal contract for information system project funding was found critical to the success of the FMS. The requirements of a project contract were not considered fulfilled until the use&> and/or user representative(s) “signed-off”. Funding on a contractual basis is one solution that Fossum and Ettlie [29] found effective in dealing with the “turf wars”

that often surround the interface between the cgrpo- rate MIS unit and the manufacturing plant.

6. Relationship to other critical success factors

5.6. Success Factor 6. Bottom-up, phased-in integra-

tion of the information system with the production

system

A well-defined bottom-up, phased-in development plan is essential for successful FMS development. Accounts of similar approaches to phasing in automation and integration have been reported [24,30]. It is important to note that the bottom-up approach must be accompanied by a clearly defined vision for the system. The vision should be created early, but much of the development process should be bottom- up (i.e., users were responsible for accepting the system at each level). Ettlie [2] confirms this prob-

In this section, the six critical success factors for FMS information system development are compared to CSFs in three related areas: project management, factory automation and software development. These three areas compose three important dimensions of FMS information system development. A comparison of the CSFs for FMS information system development with the CSFs in project management, factory automation and software development is used to support the CSFs identified in this paper and to identify issues that are unique to FMS information system development.

Table 1 displays six CSFs of project management as determined by Pinto and Slevin [12], six CSFs of factory automation determined by Takanaka [ 181, and seven CSFs of project management in software design as reported by Curtis et al. [15]. These particular CSFs were chosen for their comprehensiveness in scope and for their project-level focus. It should be noted that the determinants of software project

Table 1

A comparison of critical success factors in project management, factory automation and software development

Project Management Factory Automation Software Projects

(Pinto and Slevin [ 121 (Takanaka [ 181) (Curtis et al. [15])

1. Clearly defined goals 1. Strategy for systematic integration

with clearly defined objectives

1. People with extensive domain knowledge

2. Competent project management

3. Top management support

2. Analysis and evaluation of resource

requirements

3. Establish milestones and fully inform

the people involved

2. Ability to resolve conflicting system

requirements

3. Successful team building

4. Competent project team members

5. Sufficient resource allocation

4. Standardization and simplification of parts, modules and products

5. Evaluation: identify advantages and disadvantages

4. Method to ensure development teams share a common understanding

of the design

5. Negotiations with the client(s)

6. Adequate communication 6. Change the management accounting system 6. Shared vision of project

7. Communication between contending groups

J.A. Gowan Jr., R.G. Mathieu/Computers in Industry 28 (1996) 173-183 181

success identified by Curtis et al. [15] were selected over the more traditional management information system CSFs presented by Pollalis and Frieze [31] because Curtis et al. jpresents a comprehensive list of CSFs useful at the project level of the firm. The CSFs presented by Pollalis and Frieze 1311, while quite comprehensive. were generated at the strategic planning level of the firm and are used primarily to assess overall MIS performance.

A comparison of these three lists with the six CSFs for FMS information system development identified in this study is summarized below.

6.1. Success Factor 1. Simplification of the produc-

tion process prior to the design of the FMS informa-

tion system

Takanaka’s CSF (4) identifies the need to stan- dardize and simplify parts, modules and products which may lead to simplification of the process. Other methods may involve simplification and standardization of machines and tools as well as broader issues such as plant layout. It is interesting to note that process redesign is typically an important topic in the analysis and design of information systems, yet it did not emerg,e as a critical factor in software development. The simplification of the mechanical components and processes of an FMS is particularly important and not an issue in a typical corporate data processing environment.

6.2. Success Factor 2. Explicit determination of sys-

tem inteqace, data:base and data format require-

ments, and communication network requirements

early in the design process

This success falctor not only addresses Curtis’ CSF (2), the need to resolve conflicting system requirements, but links it to the overall planning process so that conflicts may be avoided by design. The communication requirements become more important and require more resources in an PMS environment as the architecture becomes more heterarchical in nature.

6.3. Success Factor 3. A simple, unambiguous method to communicate the requirements and view of the FMS information system design

Pinto and Slevin’s CSF (61, Takanaka’s CSF (3) and Curtis’ CSF 1:4) and (7) specifically refer to

informing those involved through adequate communication. Curtis identifies the need for communication among team members to promote a common understanding and between contending groups to avoid conflicts. Other CSFs such as Pinto and Slevin’s CSF (1) and Takanaka’s CSF (l), suggest- ing the need for clearly defined goals and objectives, require explicit and effective communication. Com- munication is also an important ingredient in providing a shared vision of the project, Curtis’ CSF (6). This is especially important in an FMS environment due to the complexity, and often physical size, of the system.

6.4. Success Factor 4. Subsystem development teams

formed based on a horizontal and vertical decompo-

sition of the information system architecture model.

Systems specialists and vendors made subservient to

the user(s) and / or user representative(s)

Pinto and Slevin’s CSF (4) and Curtis’ CSF (3) suggest that effective teams are critical. This study identified a specific method to design teams which is directly related to the design of the system. In addition, communication is improved and conflicts reduced due to cross-functional membership which includes the user and often vendor.

6.5. Success Factor 5. Funding of information sys-

tem projects by project manager on a contractual

basis

Pinto and Slevin’s CSF (5) and Takanaka’s CSF (2) express the need for clear resource requirements and sufficient resource allocation. In addition, Cur- tis’ CSF (5) raises the issue of negation with clients. This study identified a specific method for resource allocation and negation which was deemed successful, for the FMS was completed on time and under budget. Giving funding leverage to the project manager does assume Pinto and Slevin’s CSF (2), competent project management.

6.6. Success Factor 6. Bottom-up, phased-in integra-

tion of the information system with the production system

This CSF is quite specific to information system development in an FMS. Mechanical systems are first implemented and manually operated. Initial au-

182 J.A. Gowan Jr., R.G. Mathieu /Computers in Industry 28 (19961 173-183

tomation is implemented with controllers in a stand- alone fashion, then integration and higher-level control is established through communication networks. This is a particular strategy for systematic integration with clearly defined objectives, Takanaka’s CSF (1).

The comparison of four sets of CSFs @MS information system development, project management, factory automation and software development) indicates that the CSFs vary in degree of comprehensive-

ness, ranging from general guidelines to specific points of consideration. In general, there do appear to be four issues which are fundamental in all four sets of CSFs: (1) simplification and standardization, (2) communication, (3) team building, and (4) resource allocation. In addition, it should be noted that

the six CSFs identified in this paper not only address a specific need, but also offer a method by which to accomplish this need. This may be due to the more narrowly defined problem domain addressed herein.

7. Conclusions

7.1. Implications for management

The six critical success factors of FMS information system development identified in this paper should serve management as a project management tool during the planning and implementation of the FMS IS project. In addition, the findings of this research confirm the importance of individual talent and experience in the IS design of an FMS. Clearly, management must recruit, nurture, train and retain intelligent and dedicated individuals who can effec- tively work in a team environment. Contributions to the FMS development effort come not only from an individual’s ability to design and implement the IS,

but also typically involve complex interpersonal issues such as resolving conflicting requirements, ne- gotiating with vendors, and providing communications between contending groups. Management’s understanding and action in regards to the six critical success factors, coupled with a strong commitment to the individuals working on the project, will have a significant impact on the ultimate outcome of the project.

7.2. Implications for system design

The selection of an information system design methodology and its accompanying development tools is an important system design activity that must be done early in the planning phase. The design methodology must become a primary medium of communication to integrate people, tools and information. The supporting tools should be effective in sharing domain knowledge. Because of the complexity and physical size of the FMS, a design methodology must minimize information loss, improve communication, and promote coordination among groups.

Ultimately the development tools should serve to communicate to the users, designers and implementors the functional, physical, and implementational requirements of the FMS.

7.3. Implications for future research

This research is the first step in understanding the complex organizational and technical issues associated with IS design in an FMS. Some issues such as simplification, standardization and communication may be technically addressed using analysis and design methodologies and software development

tools. Other issues such as cross-functional team building and bottom-up development are more organizational in nature. There is a need for additional exploration of both organizational and technical issues involved in the development of information systems in highly automated environments, especially an FMS. This area of research is in its infancy such that reported cases of both success and failure are important in building a knowledge base from which a framework, universal principles, and/or contingency theories may be derived.

References

[l] D. Dmitrov and N. Todorov, “Software development approach in PMS”, Computers in Industry 10 (1988) 171-175.

[2] J.E. Ettlie, “Organizing for integrated manufacturing”, Proc.

CIMCON ‘90, NJST Special Publication 785, U.S. Depart-

ment of Commerce, May 1990, pp. 300-305.

[3] A.S. Kunnathur and P.S. Sundamraghavan, “Problems and prospects in PMS installation: A field study”, Proc. Annual

Conference of the Decision Science Institute, November 199 1,

pp. 1217-1219.

[4] J.R. Meredith, “Implementing new manufacturing technolo-


t51

[61

t71

Bl

[91

[lOI

r111

[121

[I31

[I41

[I51

1161

r171

1181

[I91

DO1

1211

D.21

[231

[241

gies: Managerial lessons over the FMS life cycle”, Inter- faces 17(6) (November-December 1987) 51-62.

H. Yoshikawa, “Computer integrated manufacturing: Vi-

sions and realities about the Factory of the Future”, Comput-

ers in Industr?/ 8 (1987) 181-196.

A.B. Badiru, “Analysis of data requirements for FMS imple-

mentation is critical to success”, fnf Eng. (October 1990)

29-32.

D.A. Grant, O.K. Ngwenyama and K.K. Heinz, “Modeling

for CIM information systems architecture definition: An information engineering case study”, Computers in Industry

18 (1992) 199-212.

U.G. Gupta, “The under-utilization of information systems

in manufacturing environments: Challenges and remedies”,

Proc. 23rd Annual 44eeling of Sourheasr Decision Sciences Institute, February 1993, pp. 137-139.

A. Micovsky, L. Sesera, M. Veishab and M. Albert, "TORA:

A Petri net based tool for rapid prototyping of FMS control

systems and its application to assembly”, Computers in Industry 15(4) (1990) 279-292.

D.I. Cleland and W.R. King, Systems Analysis and Project Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983.

J.M. Nicholas, Managing Business and Engineering Pro- jects: Concepts and Implementation, Prentice-Hall, Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ, 1990.

J.K. Pinto and D.P. Slevin, “ Critical factors in successful

project implementation”, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage. EM-

34(l) (February 198’7) 22-27.

J. Rockart, “Chief executives define their own data needs”,

Ham. Bus. Rec. 57(2) (1979) 81-93. M.E. Shank, A.C. Boynton and R.W. Zmud, “Critical suc-

cess factor analysis as a methodology for MIS planning”,

MIS Q. 9 (June 1985) 121-129.

B. Curtis, H. Krasncr and N. Iscoe, “A Field study of the

software design process for large systems”, Commun. ACM

31(11) (November 1988) 1268-1287.

J.R. Yoder, “Toward a new CIM architecture for Sandia

Laboratories”, Proc,. CIMCON ‘90, NIST Special Publica-

tion 785, U.S. Department of Commerce, May 1990, pp.

326-333.

W.W. Luggen, Flexible Manufacturing Cells and Systems, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.

H. Takanaka, “ICritical success factors in factory

automation”, Long-Range Planning 24(4) (1991) 29-35.

J.E. Ettlie and C.E. Getner, “Manufacturing software main-

tenance”, Manut Reu. 2(2) (June 1989) 129-133.

I. Benbasat, D.K. Goldstein and M. Mead, “The case re-

search strategy in studies of information systems”, MIS Q. (September 1987) 368-386.

R.K. Yin, Case Study Research, Design and Methods, Sage

Publications, Beverly-Hills, CA, 1984.

K. McDermott and K.V. Kamisetty, “Developing an FMS

using IE tools and principles”, Ind. Eng. (December 1991) 28-31.

J.A. Zachman, “A framework for information systems archi-

tecture”, IBM Syst. J. 26(3) (1987) 276-290. D.W. Jung, “Implementation of the RAMP architecture at an

established site”, I’roc. CIMCON ‘90, NIST Special Publi-

cation 785, U.S. Department of Commerce, May 1990, pp.

266-286.

[25] D.J. Parrish, “Opening a dialogue between FMS and CIM”,

Mech. Eng. (May 1988) 70-76.

1261 D.M. Dilts, N.P. Boyd and H.H. Whorms, “The evolution of

control architectures for automated manufacturing systems”,

J. Man& Sysr. lo(l) (1991) 79-93.

[27] A. Anderson & Co., “Trends in computer integrated manu-

facturing”, Trends in Information Technology, 3rd edn.,

1987, pp. 69-89.

[28] S. Aletan, “The components of a successful CIM implemen-

tation”, Ind. Eng. (November 1991) 20-22.

[29] B. Fossum and J.E. Ettlie, “The reconciliation of MIS and

manufacturing for integrated manufacturing”, Pro. CIM- COM ‘90, NIST Special Publication 785, U.S. Department of

Commerce, May 1990, pp. 306-325.

[30] H. Gomma, “Computer integrated manufacturing architec-

ture of FMS”, Proc. CASA/SME Flexible Manufacruring Systems ‘86 Conf, March 1986, pp. 147-163.

[31] Y.A. Pollalis and I.H. Frieze, “A new look at critical success

factors in IT”, Information Strategy: The Executiae’s Jour- nal, (Fall 1993) 24-34.

Jack Arthur Gowan, Jr. is Associate

Professor of Information Systems at the

Cameron School of Business Adminis-

tration, University of North Carolina at

Wilmington. He received his Ph.D. from

Clemson University and M.B.A. and

B.S. from Samford University. His re-

search interests include computer sup-

ported cooperative work systems and

the implementation of information sys-

tems in highly automated manufacturing

environments. Dr. Gowan has worked as

a consultant in manufacturing and has published articles in Infor- mation and Management, Industrial Management and Data Sys- tems, and the International Journal of Man- Machine Studies.

Richard G. Mathieu received the B.S.

degree in civil engineering from the

University of Delaware, the M.S. degree

and Ph.D. degree in systems engineering

from the University of Virginia. He is

currently an Assistant Professor of In-

formation Systems at the Cameron

School of Business Administration, Uni-

versity of North Carolina at Wilming-

ton. His current research interests in-

clude the analysis and design of manu-

facturing information systems and the

use of Internet to support manufacturing organizations. His indus-

trial experience includes work for the U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office and the U.S. Public Health Service. Dr. Mathieu has published articles in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage- ment, Industrial Management and Data Systems, RAIRO - Oper- ations Research, Journal of Information Systems Education, and a

book chapter in Impacts of Recent Computer Advances on Opera- tions Research.

critical factors in information system development for a flexible manufacturing system

Documents