my blog

HUMAN FACTORS AFFECTING THE SUCCESS OF ADVANCED MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes the data collected from 98 manufacturing companies to investigate the associations between human factors and the success of advanced manufacturing systems (AMS).

The AMS measures and human factors were cross tabulated and the Chi Square values were used to test the hypotheses of the study. The results show that statistically significant, positive associations exit between human factors and the success of AMS implementation. The implications of the findings to the practitioners and researchers are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The drive to lower operating costs and improve manufacturing efficiency has led many manufacturing companies to implement different forms of advanced manufacturing systems (AMS). The dramatic developments in advanced manufacturing technologies at various organizational levels can be attributed to numerous benefits that improve the competitive position of the company. AMS affects not just manufacturing, but the whole company operations, giving new challenges to a firm's ability to manage both manufacturing and information systems. AMS can be defined as a group of integrated hardware-based and software based technologies which, when properly implemented, monitored, and evaluated, can improve the operating efficiency and effectiveness of the adopting firm. It encompasses a broad range of computer-based technological innovations which are integrated using communication links made possible through advanced computing technologies and are referred to as computer-integrated manufacturing (CIM)

AMS has the potential to dramatically improve production performance and create vital business opportunities for companies that are capable of successfully implementing and managing it. (King and Ramamurthy, 1992). AMS can also provide distinctive competitive advantages in cost and process leadership. Practitioners and researchers have since developed strong interest on how AMS

can be used to combat global competition. A growing number of organizations are now adopting AMS to cope with fragmented mass markets, shorter product lifecycle, and increased consumer demand for customization (Zummuto, et al., 1992). Although AMS can help manufacturers compete under these circumstances, they often serve as a double-edged sword, imposing organizational challenges and, at the same time, providing competitive benefits

The benefits of AMS have been widely reported in the literature and classified as being tangible and intangible (Udo and Ehie, 1996). Although the benefits of AMS are numerous and have been found to have direct links with the firm's operating performance, only a handful of companies have been able to realize the full benefit of AMS. The rate at which these benefits are derived varies to a large extent from one company to another. Beatty (1993) concludes that only half of those companies adopting AMS ever achieve the benefits they sought. Success in AMS implementation becomes a reality when the set goals and objectives stipulated by the adoption strategy are fully realized.

The potential offered by AMS to deal with the emerging realities of the twenty-first century competitive environment is widely recognized, but concerns have also been expressed about the ability of firms to exploit this to their advantage. The literature is replete with arguments in support of the presence of one or more of the critical success factors as requirements for successful AMS implementation. Sociotechnical or human factors axe among the critical factors believed to have some impact on the success of AMS implementation. The purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which the identified human factors affect the benefits of AMS. This agrees with the observation made by Huber and Brown (1991), who suggest that some empirical research is needed to investigate the impact of sociological variables on the implementation of manufacturing processes.

The eight most cited benefits of AMS considered in this study are return on equity, reduced manufacturing cost, reduced throughput, enhanced competitiveness, better control, quick response, improved working conditions, and improved quality.

The null hypothesis of this study is that there is no association between the AMS benefits and human factors. That is: human factors do not affect the success of AMS implementation

HUMAN FACTORS

Several technical and social changes often take place when a company adopts A_MS. As Hopkins (1989) points out, if an organization focuses solely on the technical issues from the outset of a manufacturing project implementation and at the expense of the human issues, its performance will be less favorable than if it pays attention to both sets of issues. The adoption of AMS certainly changes the social relationship and interactions among employees and their supervisors.

Given the potential impact on employee attitudes, motivation, and retention, these social changes call for an effective management (Huber and Brown, 1991). When employees are affected, the success of A.MS is likely to be affected as well. In this study, human factors comprise of three components namely: self-interest (four factors), top management (three factors), and preparation (one factor)

(a) Self Interest. It is known that human beings are self-interested in that we tend to strive to succeed on those tasks we believe to be of a personal interest to us. King and Ramamurthy (1992) maintain that no matter how attractive the benefits or the sophistication of technology, if personnel-related aspects (such as motivation, participation, reward schemes, etc) are not planned for, the end result is bound to be a frustrating failure. They discovered in their study that people problems could prove to be more difficult to solve than technical problems and could have serious consequences on AMS implementation. The self-interest factors considered in this study include: general employees' morale, satisfaction levels, personal belief that AMS can lead to personal reward or benefits to the individual, and equitable reward structures

(b) Top Management. Top management support provided in the form of creating project mission; allocation of sufficient resources; establishment of a reward system that fits the project; maintaining project accountability; personnel recruitment, selection, and training; monitoring and feedback functions.

Research and experience support the fact that the degree of management support of a project will lead to significant variations in the degree of acceptance or resistance to the project, and also to the degree of success (Udo and Ehie, 1996). The top management factors included in this study are commitment by top management, effective facilitator, and quick response to workers concerns by management

Preparation. The main preparation needed by the workers in the AMS environment is training. The need for training has been heavily emphasized by Beatty (1993)