Conference PaperPDF Available

Key performance indicators for manufacturing operations management in the process industry

Authors:

Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract
-
The international standard ISO 22400 has
defined a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to
evaluate the performance of manufacturing operation.
However, the defined KPIs seem to be inspired from the
discrete production context, and hence do not automatically
fit the process industry context. The process industry is
defined as the industry in which the raw material undergoes
conversion during a continuous process in order to become
finished products. To make the defined KPIs more suitable
for evaluating the operational performance in process
industry, this paper analyzes the different characteristics of
process industry and discrete industry, and proposes a new
framework for organizing KPIs in process industry. Some
modifications are discussed to make the proposed ISO 22400
KPIs fit to the process industry. Such a study can provide
useful ideas for manufacturing engineers and decision-
makers to define and measure suitable KPIs for
performance evaluation in process industry.
Keywords
-
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs),
manufacturing operation management, ISO 22400, KPIs
framework, process industry
I. INTRODUCTION
With the rapid scale expansion and increasing diverse
market incentive in modern manufacturing industry,
production enterprises have to maintain sufficient
flexibility, high quality standards, productivity and
sustainability to combat these emerging challenges and
achieve their full economic potential. Therefore,
manufacturing industries nowadays implement
performance measurement system to evaluate the
operating state of their manufacturing activities
[1, 2]
. In
order to quantify the efficiency and effectiveness of
manufacturing operations management, a set of detailed
indicators are defined to realize the strategic goals of
process management and improvement, which are called
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs
)[3, 4]
.
KPIs are defined as the quantifiable and strategic
measurements that reflect enterprise’s critical success
factors
[5]
. The modern tools of information technology
provide opportunities to gather a large set of necessary
data and estimates, supporting the acquisition and
calculation of KPIs. Hence, the KPIs used to evaluate the
performance of manufacturing production systems have
been given more attention both in the academia and
industry in recent years. Margret et al.
[6]
uses KPIs as an
interface between scheduling and control to maximize
plant performance. Gokan et al
[7]
focuses on measuring
energy efficiency performance of manufacturing plants
and provides a seven step method to develop production-
tailored and energy-related key performance indicators,
using these supports the identification of weaknesses and
areas of energy efficiency improvements related to the
operation management. Arinez et al
[8]
combines the
traditional production KPIs with energy KPIs through a
discrete event simulation modeling method and gives
benchmarks to assess the energy performance of
production system, process and facility. Zhu et al
[9]
discusses the relationship of multi-KPIs when evaluating
manufacturing equipment and proposes a multi-KPI
coordination model to discern and balance the relationship
among multi-KPIs.
However, the most critical issue of evaluating the
manufacturing operations management is not defining the
KPIs in general, but identifying and selecting the most
useful KPIs according to the application. The appropriate
selection and improved understanding of the KPIs could
help the manufacturing enterprises fulfill the desired
business objectives
[10]
. Addressing this issue, the
international standard series ISO 22400 in its latest update
– ISO 22400-2:2014/Amd1:2017 – presents a total of 38
KPIs to evaluate the performance of manufacturing
operations. Four out of these 38 KPIs, are however
introduced in an amendment and will not be considered in
this article. In the standards, the KPIs are described by
means of their formula, corresponding elements, unit of
measure, timing and other characteristics. Despite the
efforts to make the standards generally applicable to all
manufacturing industries, it seems to be primarily
designed for evaluating performance of the discrete
industry. Indeed, in some cases the ISO 22400 explicitly
indicates that the indicators are unsuitable for continuous
processes. However, the indications are often imprecise
and ambiguous, and the information provided is
sometimes fragmented; thus, the indications of the KPI
applicability in the standards should not be considered as
rigorous constraints.
Taking the characteristics of the process industry into
account, improvements and corrections of these 34 KPIs
should be made in order to evaluate the performance
properly and accurately. Though it should be noticed the
standards explicitly indicate that some KPIs are unsuitable
for continuous processes. Based on a survey conducted at
a large process industry in Sweden, this paper evidences
the difference between the process and discrete industry
in relation to the ISO 22400 standard. In doing so, the
KPIs requiring modifications are identified and amended
Key Performance Indicators for Manufacturing Operations Management in
the Process Industry
Li Zhu
1,2
, Charlotta Johnsson
2
, Jacob Mejvik
2
, Martina Varisco
3
, Massimiliano Schiraldi
3
1
Department of Control Science and Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
2
Department of Automatic Control, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
3
Department of Enterprise Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
1
li.zhu@control.lth.se
978-1-5386-0948-4/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 969
accordingly. Hence, the ISO 22400 standard becomes
suitable for the process industry while maintaining its
generality.
To support these contributions, this paper is organized
as follows. The second section recalls the typical
characteristics of the process industry and points out the
difference between process and discrete industry. A novel
framework for organizing KPIs in the process industry is
proposed to help structuring the KPIs and associated
measurement elements in section 3. The section 4 presents
some adjustment and modifications to make the ISO
22400 KPIs more suitable for the process industry. The
section 5 discusses the contribution and the future
research directions. Finally, concluding remarks are given
in section 6.
II. CHARACTERISTICS OF PROCESS INDUSTRY
Two main types of manufacturing industry are
generally identified by the way the products are realized,
which are called process industry and discrete industry
[11]
.
The process industry is defined as the industry in which
the raw material undergoes conversion during a
continuous process in order to become finished
products
[12]
, alternatively referred to as continuous
industry. While the discrete industry is related to the
process where successive changes of discrete and analog
states occur during the whole process, and the production
is based on discrete time moments of instant and non-
instant controls
[13, 14]
. The process and discrete industries
have different characteristics, and hence can have
different needs for performance measurements and,
therefore, different needs for the KPIs. By investigating
the differences between the typical process and discrete
industries, some general conclusions can be drawn. To
clarify what is meant by the respective terms in this paper,
a summary of the difference is presented in Table 1.
T
ABLE I
The difference characteristics of process and discrete industry
Difference Process industry Discrete industry
Production modality Continuous
outflow
Discrete entity
Production orientation Disassemble assemble
Production process Continuous Discontinuous
Production form Fluid-based Pieces and parts
Work unit Unit Work cell
Production transparency Invisible Visible
Production runs Open-ended Well defined
Operation manner Steady state On-off
Furthermore, the characteristics of the production
industry can be described based on three central
perspectives: object-type, mode-type and driver-type
[15]
.
Firstly, the object transformed in the flow can be of
two different types, discrete object (DO) or continuous
object (CO), including several intermediate alternatives of
production batching.
Secondly, the transformation can be performed in
different modes ranging from one-time occurrence mode
(OM) to continuous mode (CM), including several
intermediate alternatives of intermittent production.
Thirdly, the driver of the flow depends on the origin of
the production trigger: either production is triggered by an
actual customer order (CD) or not, which is the case when
production is expected to meet future orders (SD),
including several intermediate alternatives of production
cases, among which assembly-to-order production.
From these three perspectives, the characteristics of
the industry can be clearly described and distinguished.
Figure 1 illustrates the three perspectives in a cube where
the typical characteristics for the process industry are
shaded in dark grey.
Fig. 1. The production characteristics from three perspectives.
III. A FRAMEWORK FOR ORGANIZING KPIS IN
THE PROCESS INDUSTRY
A framework can provide useful ideas for
manufacturing engineers and decision-makers aiming to
define and measure suitable KPIs for performance
evaluation in process industry. The framework will help
structuring the KPIs and the associated measurement
elements.
Basic measurements, called measurement elements,
have to be collected in order to calculate the KPIs.
According to ISO 22400 Part2, these elements – i.e. the
“relevant measurements for use in the formula of a key
performance indicator” – can be divided into three main
categories; time, quality and logistical. The logistical
elements contain both quantity and inventory
measurements. In this paper, the focus will be on the two
categories time and quantity measurement elements.
The time measurement elements are comprised of
data related to the duration of the production process,
including planned operation time and actual operation
time. Moreover, the actual operation time can be divided
into production time and down time to increase the level
of detail. The time elements are similar to the definitions
in ISO 22400.
Since in the process industry it is likely that the
product being processed in a certain production unit is not
visible for the operators and it is also difficult to measure
what is happening inside the equipment, input and output
970
Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE IEEM
quantities often become the only available logistical
measurement elements.
The input includes both raw material as well as the
energy medium, which are the fundamental components
for producing the product. Likewise, the output can be
divided into the desired product, by-product and scrap.
When doing this division it is however important to also
consider expected future customer orders. Furthermore,
since the process industry is dominated by raw material
and energy costs, the production, quality and energy
aspects are the three most important when evaluating the
performance. It should also be noted that even though it
is continuous outflow and disassembly-oriented
production, the performance of the whole process is
directly influenced by the performance of the production
equipment. Therefore, the KPIs for process industry
could be analyzed from two levels, process KPIs and
equipment KPIs.
Figure 2 presents the proposed framework for
organizing the KPIs in the process industry.
Fig. 2. The framework for organizing the KPIs in the process industry.
3.1. Measurement elements
The measurement elements, middle part of the
Framework in Figure 2, are comprised of the data directly
monitored and collected during the production process.
These are used to describe and calculate the equipment
KPIs and process KPIs. Below the list of the basic
measurement elements according to characteristics of the
process industry company is provided.
3.1.1. Time elements
Planned operation time (POT): the scheduled time
during which the equipment or process can be utilized.
Actual busy time (ABT): the actual time for execution
and production.
Actual production time (APT): the actual time in
which the equipment or process is producing.
Actual down time (ADT): the time in which the
equipment or process is delayed due to malfunction-
caused interruptions, minor stoppages and other
unplanned events.
We obtain:
ABT = APT + ADT
The relationship among the time elements is presented
schematically in Fig 3.
Fig. 3. The relationship among the time elements.
3.1.2. Quantity elements
Input quantity (IQ): the material used for equipment or
process to produce the output.
Raw material quantity (RMQ): the feedstock used to
produce the output.
Energy medium quantity (EMQ): the energy material
used to provide the necessary energy for production.
Output quantity (OQ): the items that satisfy the
requirements of production, including products and
energy. It should be noted that the commonly used term in
industry is produced quantity.
Desired product quantity (DPQ): the primary product,
which the production process is originally designed for.
By-product quantity (BPQ): the secondary product
generated during the production of the primary product.
Scrap quantity (SQ): The result of the production
process which cannot be transformed in product,
including waste materials.
Thus, IQ is comprised of RMQ and EMQ while OQ is
a set of DPQ, BPQ and SQ. Hence, the relationships can
be expressed as:
{
}
IQ RMQ,EMQ=
{
}
OQ DPQ, BPQ,S Q=
The relationships among the quantity elements are
presented in Fig 4.
Fig. 4. The relationships among the quantity elements.
3.2. Equipment KPIs
The equipment KPIs, lower part of the Framework in
figure 2, are calculated based on the measurement
971
Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE IEEM
elements. Based on the survey of ISO 22400 KPIs used in
the process industry, the high-relevance equipment KPIs
include allocation ratio, utilization efficiency and
equipment load ratio. Due to the characteristics of process
industry, some of the calculations of these KPIs are
different from the one defined in the ISO 22400 and
should be adjusted. According to the measurement
elements, the equipment KPIs can be descried as follows:
Allocation ratio (AR): the percentage of actual
production rate and maximum production rate. It provides
the valuable information on the allocation of available
capacity.
()
()
Actual OQ ABT
AR
M
aximum OQ APT
=
Utilization efficiency (UE): the ratio between actual
production rate and planned production rate.
()
()
Actual OQ ABT
UE
P
lanned OQ POT
=
Equipment load ratio (ELR): the ratio of actual
produced quantity in relation the maximum equipment
production capacity (EPC), which shows what the
equipment parts actually produce when it is in progress to
the load it could achieve.
()
Actual OQ
ELR
M
aximum OQ APT
=
3.3. Process KPIs
The process KPIs, upper part of the Framework in
figure 2, are calculated based on the measurement
elements. Based on the survey at the process industry
company of ISO 22400 KPIs used in process industry, it
is concluded that the KPIs can be divided into three
categories: production, quality and energy process KPIs.
Production process KPIs includes throughput rate and
technical efficiency. Quality process KPIs includes
quality ratio, actual to planned scrap ratio, scrap ratio and
finished goods ratio, and comprehensive energy
consumption is the energy process KPIs.
3.3.1. Production process KPIs
Throughput rate: measures the produced quantity per
order in relation to the actual busy time, and often used in
the name of production rate (PR) in process industry.
Technical efficiency (TE): the relationship between the
production time and the busy time.
3.3.2. Quality process KPIs
Quality ratio (QR): the relationship between the
desired product quantity and the produced quantity.
Actual to planned scrap ratio (APSR): the ratio relates
the actual quantity of scrap to planned scrap quantity.
Scrap ratio (SR): the relationship between the scrap
quantity and the produced quantity
Finished goods ratio (FGR): the ratio of the desired
product quantity produced in relation to the input
material, including energy material quantity.
3.3.3. Energy process KPIs
Energy consumption (EC): the ratio between all the
energy consumed in a production cycle and produced
quantity.
MQ
EC OQ
=
IV. DISCUSSION
The ISO 22400 defines and describes a set of KPIs
for manufacturing operation management in general.
Although the standard intends to make the defined KPIs
generally applicable to manufacturing industries, the
indicators result to be primarily designed for the discrete
industry. No matter which perspective of analysis, such as
production objects, modes and drivers, there are vast
differences between process industry and discrete
industry. In order to identify and redefine KPIs in the ISO
22400 to properly evaluate performance in a process
industry setting, the different characteristics of process
and discrete industry are analyzed. In addition, the
practical requirements in the process industry are acquired
through the survey of the process industry company in
Sweden. Based on the characteristics, the framework of
KPIs in the process industry is proposed to structure the
OQ
PR ABT
=
A
PT
TE
A
BT
=
D
PQ
QR OQ
=
actual SQ
APSR
p
lanned SQ
=
SQ
SR OQ
=
D
PQ
FGR
I
Q
=
972
Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE IEEM
KPIs and related measurement elements. Such a KPI
framework provides useful ideas for manufacturing
engineers and decision-makers to measure, analyze and
define KPIs for performance evaluation in the process
industry.
Based on the study in this paper, further research can
be done in future work:
The relationship between different KPIs on different
levels. The process KPIs and equipment KPIs affected
each other. Dealing with the influence relationships is
important to evaluate the performance of process industry.
Some related KPIs need to be in-depth analyzed, such
as energy related KPIs. According to the specific
requirements of manufacturing enterprises, using suitable
KPIs to obtain the evaluation results.
Apply the defined KPIs in the practical industry. Use
the actual data to verify and demonstrate the effectiveness
of the redefined KPIs in process industry. More case
studies should also be carried out.
V. CONCLUSION
This paper has two deliverables; on one hand, a KPI
framework for organizing the KPIs in the process industry
is proposed, and on the other hand, some KPIs defined in
the ISO 22400 are modified and adjusted in order to make
them more suitable for evaluating the performance of the
process industry. The KPI framework focuses on the
measurement elements and on two levels of KPIs in the
process industry, including the process KPIs and
equipment KPIs. According to the characteristic analysis
of the process industry, the corresponding adjustments
and modifications are made for the KPIs in the process
industry. By analyzing some typical KPIs applied in the
process industry, it is shown how this proposed
framework can make the ISO 22400 KPIs more
reasonable and appropriate for evaluating performance in
the process industry.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support
from China Scholarship Council. This work was
supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the
Central Universities (DUT17RC(4)08) and the Swedish
Research Council through the LCCC Linnaeus Center.
REFERENCES
[1] Franceschini F, Galetto M, Maisano D. Management by
measurement: Designing key indicators and performance
measurement systems: Springer Science & Business Media,
2007.
[2] Neely A, Gregory M, Platts K. Performance measurement
system design: A literature review and research agenda.
International journal of operations & production
management. 2005;25(12):1228-63.
[3] Braz RGF, Scavarda LF, Martins RA. Reviewing and
improving performance measurement systems: An action
research. International Journal of Production Economics.
2011;133(2):751-60.
[4] Fukuda Y, Patzke R. Standardization of key performance
indecator for manufacturing execution system. Conference
Standardization of key performance indecator for
manufacturing execution system. IEEE, p. 263-5.
[5] ISO 22400 Automation Systems and integration - Key
performance indicators (KPIs) for manufacturing
operations management. 2014.
[6] Bauer M, Lucke M, Johnsson C, Harjunkoski I, Schlake JC.
KPIs as the interface between scheduling and control.
IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2016;49(7):687-92.
[7] May G, Barletta I, Stahl B, Taisch M. Energy management
in production: A novel method to develop key performance
indicators for improving energy efficiency. Applied
Energy. 2015;149:46-61.
[8] Arinez J, Biller S, Lyons K, Leong S, Shao G, Lee B, et al.
Benchmarking production system, process energy, and
facility energy performance using a systems approach.
Conference Benchmarking production system, process
energy, and facility energy performance using a systems
approach. ACM, p. 88-96.
[9] Zhu L, Su H, Lu S, Wang Y, Zhang Q. Coordinating and
evaluating of multiple key performance indicators for
manufacturing equipment: Case study of distillation
column. Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering.
2014;22(7):805-11.
[10] Kang N, Zhao C, Li J, Horst JA. A Hierarchical structure of
key performance indicators for operation management and
continuous improvement in production systems.
International Journal of Production Research.
2016;54(21):6333-50.
[11] M. Granger FaJS, FBPICS, Bluebird Software Ltd.
Discrete vs process manufacturing. BPICS Control. 1990:3.
[12] Automation systems and integration - Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) for Manufacturing operations
management - Key performance indicators - Part 1:
Overview, concepts and terminology - Amenement 2:
Process Control. 2016:19.
[13] What is a discrete process. Implementation Center of
Information Technology of Automation of Control of
Discrete Technological and Information Processes.
[14] World JE. Product Data Management - Discrete Guide.
Oracle. 2013:254.
[15] Wikner J, Noroozi S. Typology for planning and control–
Combining object type, mode type, and driver type.
973
Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE IEEM
... To effectively evaluate and understand the performance of additive processes, it is essential to establish KPIs that are linked to performance and continuously assess the performance of both the produced components and the equipment through real-time KPI evaluation [36]. One of the fundamental applications of DTs is their ability to forecast KPIs [45]. Traditional quality measures for additively manufactured metal components, such as size, porosity, roughness, and hardness, often fall short compared to conventionally made metal parts. ...
Article
Full-text available
Additive manufacturing (AM) has surfaced as a pivotal component in the evolving field of intelligent manufacturing, offering an array of benefits compared to conventional production techniques. Nevertheless, the industry grapples with issues relating to manufacturing instability and inconsistent repeatability, making it challenging to meet desired microstructure and performance standards. The optimization of processing variables within specific equipment and parameter sets often necessitates expensive trial-and-error experiments, given the diversity and intricacy of AM process parameters. To mitigate these challenges, the digital twin (DT) technical concept has been implemented to bolster AM by offering real-time projection and mirroring of physical attributes for both the fabricated products and the AM machinery, thereby facilitating real-time feedback control to alleviate AM-induced defects and achieve optimal performance of the manufactured parts. DT techniques streamline process monitoring, performance prediction, anomaly detection, process parameter optimization, and production cost forecasting, thereby enhancing the entire AM process. Within the framework of Industry 4.0, DTs in AM have attracted considerable attention and experienced significant progress. Auxiliary techniques such as the Internet of Things (IoT), big data analysis, cloud manufacturing, and machine learning (ML) have substantially driven the expansion of DTs in AM. This review’s contribution lies in the comprehensive analysis of how the digital twin (DT) technical concept has been introduced to enhance AM. This review examines existing literature on DTs in AM from six perspectives: background information, structural components, applications, directions for improvement, principal issues encountered, and potential research directions. It identifies current advancements, discusses applications across different domains, suggests areas for improvement, and outlines potential research directions. This review also identifies current advancements, discusses applications across different domains, suggests areas for improvement, and outlines potential research directions. These insights significantly contribute to the understanding and further development of DTs in AM within the context of Industry 4.0, offering a fresh perspective that aligns with the evolution of the intelligent manufacturing industry.
... To evaluate the performance of a production system various Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) can be used [26,27]. There are financial KPIs, customer-focused KPIs, and process-focused KPIs that aim to measure and monitor operational performance across the organization. ...
Article
Full-text available
One of the main problems of modern manufacturing systems is the increasing complexity related to modern Industry 4.0 technologies that are fundamentally changing manufacturing and logistics processes and operations. Industry 4.0 includes, e.g., flexible automation and robotization, which make complex manufacturing systems difficult to analyze. Some modeling and simulation methods are being used to solve industrial problems and can serve as an interface between the production level and management level. The new trend of the Digital Twin, creating simulation models as similar as possible to the real system, and a Digital Twin framework for a manufacturing line from the automotive industry, was considered. Simulation models typically start from the empty state and some warmup time is required to achieve the stable state. The Key Performance Indicators were also analyzed for the stable state. However, there are many stochastic parameters such as machinery failures, human errors, quality issues, etc., that make the real processes differ from simulated processes, and cause the instability of production throughput and changes in the Work in Process. To analyze the Work in Process in the model, initialization of the model with proper production data is required, as the Digital Twin uses data synchronization with the production database. In this paper, the digital model of a human-robot-operated manufacturing system with Work-in-Process data synchronization is analyzed, and the results of the statistical analysis of simulation experiments are presented. The obtained results show high variability of finished production, which is related to system instability due to random failures, especially when the system starts from an empty state. However, an increase in initial Work in Process results in better efficiency and stability for the whole system. The DT simulation of the manufacturing system can be very helpful, as it becomes a repository of knowledge about the real system and enables the analysis of its dynamics. However, for proper functionality, the model should include information about the current WIP state, which enables the start of the simulation with exactly the same number of queues as in the real system. The presented method can also be used in similar enterprises from other industries, especially for those with discrete processes or high WIP variability, and for further synchronization of other DT parameters.
... Jooste and Botha (2018) applied the same method improving it with Parallel Analysis (PA) and Screen Plot, for better identification of the indicators. Zhu et al. (2018) propose a structure for organizing KPIs. The structure is divided into process KPIs and measurement elements. ...
Article
Full-text available
Performance Measurement Systems (PMS) have been a potential answer to problems related to production systems monitoring, allowing the management and manipulation of data collected at various levels in organizations. PMS can be defined as a group of indicators in an information system. There are several types of PMS, however, the relationship between indicators in a PMS is still an issue that needs to be explored, as the KPIs in a production system are not independent and may have an intrinsic relationship. The purpose of this paper is to present a multilevel structure and its intrinsic structural relation for managing and analysing KPIs for a value stream production system. This hierarchical structure has different KPI levels such as Improvement KPIs, Monitoring KPIs, and Results KPIs or KPR (Key Performance Results), intrinsically related from the strategic levels to the operational levels. This provides a useful tool for the management of production systems, being used to analyse, and support the organization's continuous improvement processes.
... In fact, this is an exhaustive task that involves experts examining several aspects, including energy efficiency, environment, economy, safety and others (Krämer & Engell, 2018). Several studies have been conducted on the definition, selection and benchmarking of KPIs in the industrial and standardization context (Lindberg, Tan, Yan, & Starfelt, 2015;Schmidt et al., 2016;Zhu, Johnsson, Mejvik, Varisco, & Schiraldi, 2018). ...
Article
This paper proposes an innovative multi-output regression method that processes and converts the numeric data variables into representative images (polygons) to build accurate predictive models in industrial applications with several dependent variables (responses). In this method, polygon images are generated from both the inputs and outputs of numeric data. The images representing the data inputs are then translated into those representing the outputs by training a conditional generative adversarial network (cGAN). The output images of the trained cGAN are then mapped into the outputs to get back the predicted numeric values. The advantage of the proposed method is that it makes use of the breakthrough of deep generative modeling to learn the true distribution of complex data, which is difficult to determine in many industrial applications. This is attributed to the fact that the generated polygons express all interrelationships between the data variables in the form of trustworthy representational images used to train the cGAN model. The performance of the proposed method was validated successfully using a complex industrial dataset acquired from a black liquor recovery boiler (BLRB) in a Kraft pulp & paper mill located in Canada. Three key performance indicators (KPIs), one economic and two environmental, are used as regression outputs in the BLRB dataset. The results of the proposed method demonstrate better performance than other comparable machine learning regression methods.
... • The types of processes typical to the industry (continuous, batch, mixing, blending, forming, baking, extrusion, etc.) (Zhu et al. 2018;King et al. 2008;Abdulmalek, Rajgopal, and Needy 2006) • The characteristics of the products manufactured (solids, powders, slurries, liquids, gases, sheets, rolls, etc.) (King et al. 2008;Dennis and Meredith 2000) • The subsectors of the industry (chemicals, food and beverages, metals, minerals, pharmaceuticals, pulp and paper, steel, etc.) (Samuelsson, Storm, and Lager 2016) Depending on the specific definition adopted, either a narrower or broader perspective on the process industry is taken. Regardless, most studies on process industry characteristics note that a distinguishing trait of products inherent to this industry is that they are continuous instead of discrete -i.e. ...
Article
Full-text available
Platform-based product development has been applied extensively in discrete manufacturing industry to accommodate changing market demands. Nevertheless, while process industry manufacturers face similar market demands, the topic is only sparsely covered in literature. Through a systematic review of the literature, this study uncovers the definitions used, drivers behind, approaches and methods applied, and industry examples of platform-based product development in the process industry. Based on these analyses, a research agenda is then proposed to further the knowledge of this topic. The study identified existing definitions of key platform-related terms used in several studies and furthermore discovered new definitions for some terms. The most prominent drivers behind pursuing platform-based product development was found to be cost reduction and productivity of product development, with development lead time reduction playing a less significant role. Literature related to platform-based product development focuses primarily on product design and development issues, with less attention given to market, manufacturing, and supply chain issues. Only few industrial cases were identified within the process industry while multiple anecdotal descriptions were discovered. For future research, further insight into key platform concepts, applicability of existing methods, broader value chain focus and detailed industrial cases are considered relevant.
... While the output of process manufacturing industry may also be in individual units, the products are non-discrete in that individual elements are indistinguishable [23] and "often expand, evaporate or dry out" [7] resulting in them being incapable of maintaining their shape without containerization [7,22]. In general, the process manufacturing industry is defined either based on the types of products produced [24,25] or by the type of production processes utilized by the industry [7,21,26]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Modular function deployment (MFD) is a recognized method for designing modular products within the discrete manufacturing industry as a means of accommodating market demands for higher variety, shorter product life cycles and smaller production batches. Nevertheless, while the process industries face similar market demands, product modularity is only sparsely explored. This paper analyzes the five steps of the MFD methodology for their fit to a process industry context based on general industry characteristics and insights from a case company. It is found that several aspects of the method must change before use in a process industrial context is feasible.
Article
Full-text available
Key performance indicators (KPIs) are widely used to monitor and control the production in industry. On an aggregated level, often represented as graphs or interrelated KPI systems, a comprehensive overview is given. However, missing or inaccurate sensor data and KPIs, as well inconsistencies in KPI based management are a major hurdle disturbing operations. To counter the impact of such missing KPIs, we propose a value optimization based approach to reconstruct the values of missing KPIs within a KPI system. While the approach shows successful reconstruction in the case study, the value optimization can be sped up through a random forest prediction of the initial optimization set. Thus, the inclusion of previous knowledge about the system behavior proves beneficial and superior to the pure optimization based approach, as validated by both randomized and simulation-based measurement data.
Article
Nakajima defined the ‘Overall Equipment Effectiveness’ (OEE) indicator to measure the performance losses of a company. Since then, variants have been proposed by authors and standardisation bodies to make it more suitable for new production contexts. OEE allows measuring performance losses and is used to determine improvement projects. The use of different OEE measurement systems can lead to different improvement projects; i.e. the use of inappropriate measurement systems leads to the resolution of wrong problems. It is, therefore, necessary to understand OEE and its variants to choose the most appropriate measurement system and thus focus improvement efforts on the least efficient processes. This need is initially specified by a French-Spanish industrial group. However, to our knowledge, there is no comparative study of the different OEE measurement systems. Our review of the scientific literature and international standards revealed four measurement systems widely used and commonly applied in industry, namely, Nakajima, ISO, SEMI and AFNOR. We analysed these different measurement systems in depth, proposed a reference taxonomy of loss families, and compared them all. These measurement systems were then applied to the case of one of the industrial group’s plants to determine their adequacy and compare them with the existing OEE measurement system of the industrial group. An OEE calculator offering these different measuring systems has been programmed and installed in the factory. The main results of this research work are as follows. First, a reference taxonomy of loss families is proposed. The effective comparison carried out for the four widely used measurement systems is the second tangible result. Finally, this study made it possible to determine and validate the main characteristics to be taken into account in the final choice of an OEE measurement system in a real case.
Technical Report
Full-text available
The LISA-Architecture took form around 10 years ago and introduced principles like cloud based storage of information and representation of resources. It also promoted the communication paradigm shift from Push/Pull system to Publish and Subscribe logic. The last three years have seen an exponential increase of interest and consequent adoption of such technologies through modern architectures largely based on the same moving principle of the original LISA initiative. The project LISA 2 has contributed both at theoretical and practical level to the advancement of these field through the improvement and standardization of the original architecture and the development of a number of new services implemented by the industrial partners in their shop floor. Some example: - virtual device to collect detailed data from ABB robots - microservices transforming robot data in operation - global positioning system for resources in the shopfloor - analysis and visualization of operation sequences as Gantt schema - services to optimize robot movement towards energi efficiency The work in the project has resulted in a series of publication detailing most of the work in accordance to the NDA rules set with the industrial partners; due to time constraints, a substantial part of these publications will continue coming during 2019.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The integration of scheduling and control has been discussed in the past. While constructing an integrated plant model that may still seem out of reach, scheduling and control systems are increasingly more intertwined. We argue that they are in fact already integrated and give the example of two key performance indicators (KPIs) that are defined in the recent international standard ISO 22400. The focus of this study is on KPIs that consider both planned times and actual times. An amino acid production plant is used in the study, and the production is described from both the scheduling and the control perspective. To illustrate the integration, a schedule is computed containing the planned production times. Resulting measurements from the control system are analyzed for their actual production times using a proposed procedure that detects the start and end time of batches. Using KPIs as the interface between scheduling and control can be used as a strategy for maximizing the plant performance. The study focuses on the process industry.
Article
Full-text available
Key performance indicators (KPIs) are critical for manufacturing operation management and continuous improvement (CI). In modern manufacturing systems, KPIs are defined as a set of metrics to reflect operation performance, such as efficiency, throughput, availability, from productivity, quality and maintenance perspectives. Through continuous monitoring and measurement of KPIs, meaningful quantification and identification of different aspects of operation activities can be obtained, which enable and direct CI efforts. A set of 34 KPIs has been introduced in ISO 22400. However, the KPIs in a manufacturing system are not independent, and they may have intrinsic mutual relationships. The goal of this paper is to introduce a multi-level structure for identification and analysis of KPIs and their intrinsic relationships in production systems. Specifically, through such a hierarchical structure, we define and layer KPIs into levels of basic KPIs, comprehensive KPIs and their supporting metrics, and use it to investigate the relationships and dependencies between KPIs. Such a study can provide a useful tool for manufacturing engineers and managers to measure and utilize KPIs for CI.
Book
Full-text available
A world that is changing faster and faster forces companies to a continuous performance monitoring. Indicators give the impression to be the real engine of organizations or even the economy at large. But performance indicators are not simple observation tools. They can have a deep "normative" effect, which can modify organizational behaviour and influence key decisions. Companies are what they measure! The selection of good performance indicators is not an easy process. This monograph focuses on the designing of a Performance Measurement System (PMS), knowing that "magic rules" to identify them do not exist. Some indicators seem right and easy to measure, but have subtle, counter-productive consequences. Other indicators are more difficult to measure, but focus the enterprise on those decisions and actions that are critical to success. This book suggests how to identify indicators that achieve a balance in these effects and enhance long-term profitability.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose – This paper, originally published in 1995, aims to focus on the importance of performance measurement. Design/methodology/approach – Focuses on the process of performance measurement system design, rather than the detail of specific measures. Following a comprehensive review of the literature, proposes a research agenda. Findings – The importance of performance measurement has long been recognized by academics and practitioners from a variety of functional disciplines. Originality/value – Brings together this diverse body of knowledge into a coherent whole.
Article
The integration of scheduling and control has been discussed in the past. While constructing an integrated plant model that may still seem out of reach, scheduling and control systems are increasingly more intertwined. We argue that they are in fact already integrated and give the example of two key performance indicators (KPIs) that are defined in the recent international standard ISO 22400. The focus of this study is on KPIs that consider both planned times and actual times. An amino acid production plant is used in the study, and the production is described from both the scheduling and the control perspective. To illustrate the integration, a schedule is computed containing the planned production times. Resulting measurements from the control system are analyzed for their actual production times using a proposed procedure that detects the start and end time of batches. Using KPIs as the interface between scheduling and control can be used as a strategy for maximizing the plant performance. The study focuses on the process industry.
Article
Evaluating overall energy performance of a manufacturing system requires accurate information on how, when, and where energy is being used. Collecting and tracking energy data is necessary for determining performance benchmarks and reducing energy consumption. Optimizing energy efficiency in manufacturing systems is difficult to achieve since energy management is typically performed separately from the production monitoring and control systems. Further, low-level equipment energy data collection is costly to do, and, if done, is often not well-linked to production data. The smarter integration of production system, process energy, and facility energy data is a significant opportunity to improve manufacturing sustainability. This paper will examine the issues related to the linking of these three types of data as well as develop a methodology for jointly modeling and evaluating production, process energy, and facility energy performance. A case study of a sand casting production line will be discussed to better understand the integration issues, validate the methodology, test performance benchmarks, and investigate sustainable manufacturing opportunities.
Article
Key performance indicators (KPIs) are defined as quantifiable and strategic measurements that reflect the critical success factors in the manufacturing process. KPIs interact and impact each other in the multi-KPI set for equipment. Therefore, it's necessary and important to discern and balance the relationship among multi-KPIs to evaluate the performance of the manufacturing equipment and make effective decision for the manufacturing process. Through coordinating and balancing the relationship between production rate indicator and unit energy consumption indicator in the distillation process, an efficient solution is obtained to evaluate the performance of the distillation column and the effectiveness of the multi-KPI coordination model is validated in this paper.
Article
Recently, a lot of manufacturers are applying the manufacturing execution system (MES) to the automation system. The MES is not only linked to factory site, but also closely linked to enterprise management system. Standardization of MES is interested in the automation field and manufacturers. However, many IT companies provided MES systems to manufacturers. In this moment, it is difficult to make a standard for a MES structure and data by the international standard. Therefore, the ISO is developing a new standard of Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for MES in ISO/TC184/SC5. In this paper, a background for the standardization, a standardization activity and a proposed standard are descried.
Article
Reviewing and updating performance measurement systems (PMS) based on internal and external environmental changes are as important as developing and implementing them. The results of an action research study carried out to improve the PMS of an energy company's maritime transportation area are presented. The findings of this longitudinal study illustrate the difficulty and complexity of reviewing and updating an energy company's PMS for its maritime transportation area. This difficulty is due to the involvement of PMS users, the assessment of performance measures, the establishment of targets, and data availability. The complexity is related to the changes in information technology when implementing changes in procedures for computing performance measures. This article contributes to a better understanding of the process of reviewing and updating a company's existing PMS.