Available  online  at  www.sciencedirect.

com  
Available  online  at  www.sciencedirect.com  
ScienceDirect  
Available ScienceDirect  
online
Available atonline
Procedia CIRP
www.sciencedirect.com
at www.sciencedirect.com
00 (2019) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)

Procedia 000–000
CIRP 81 (2019) 529–534
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
Automation decisions in flow-line assembly systems based on a cost-benefit
Automation decisions in flow-line
28th CIRP assembly
analysis
Design Conference, systems
May 2018, Nantes,based
France on a cost-benefit
analysis b
A Peter
new Burggräf
methodology
a toWagner
, Johannes analyzea the functional
, Matthias Dannapfel , and
Sarahphysical architecture
Fluchsc, Katharina Müllerb,of
existing products
Peter Burggräf a
for an
, Johannes assembly
Wagner oriented
a Benjamin Koke * b
, Matthias a,
product
Dannapfel family
, Sarah Fluchs c
identification
, Katharina Müllerb,
a Benjamin Koke *
a,
Chair of International Production Engineering and Management of University of Siegen, Paul-Bonatz-Straße 9 -11, 57076 Siegen, Germany
b
Laboratory
a
Chair
c
Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
for Machine Tools and Production Engineering (WZL) of RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany
of International Production Engineering and Management of University of Siegen, Paul-Bonatz-Straße 9 -11, 57076 Siegen, Germany
b Chair of Production Engineering of E-Mobility Components, RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany
Laboratory for Machine Tools and Production Engineering (WZL) of RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany
cÉcole Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France
Chair of Production Engineering of E-Mobility Components, RWTH Aachen University, Campus-Boulevard 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-271-740-2631; fax: +49-271-740-12628. E-mail address: benjamin.koke@uni-siegen.de

**Corresponding
Correspondingauthor.
author.Tel.:
Tel.:+33
+49-271-740-2631; fax: +49-271-740-12628.
3 87 37 54 30; E-mail E-mail address: benjamin.koke@uni-siegen.de
address: paul.stief@ensam.eu

Abstract
Abstract
Abstract
Today, dynamic changes in market requirements call for high adaptability of the level of automation (LoA) in assembly systems. Traditionally,
the viable LoA ofchanges
flow-lineinassembly systems is calculated as a function of output and monetary costs thus neglecting the true problem complexity.
InToday,
today’s
This
dynamic
paper business
presentsenvironment,
an
market
approach the requirements
fortrend
the towardscall
support of
for product
more high
automation
adaptability
variety and
decisions,
of the
using
level
a
of automation
customization
range
(LoA)
isnon-monetary
of unbroken. Duein to
assembly systems.
this development,
multivariable
Traditionally,
criteria, the need
which of
were
the viable
agile LoA of flow-line
and reconfigurable assemblysystems
production systemsemerged
is calculated as a function
to With
cope of output
with partial
various and monetary
products and costsfamilies.
product thus neglecting
To designthe and
true optimize
problem complexity.
production
determined
This paper by means
presents of a survey and expert interviews. three models to a) describe assembly systems, b) estimate cost and benefits
systems as well
of proposed as to an
equipment
approach
choose for the product
the optimal support matches,
of automation
productdecisions,
analysis using
methodsa range
are of non-monetary
needed. multivariable
Indeed, quality.
most of the knowncriteria, whichaim
methods were
to
determined
analyze by means
a product or oneofscenarios
product
and
and c)
a surveyfamily select automation
expert
on theinterviews.
configurations,
With
physical level. three partial
Different
this approach
models
product
improves
to a) describe
families,
decision
however,assembly
may differsystems,
largelyb)inestimate
terms ofcost and benefits
the number and
of proposed
nature ofThe equipmentThis
components. scenarios
fact byand c) select
impedes automation
anLtd.
efficient configurations,
comparison this approach
and choice improves
of appropriate decision
product quality.
family combinations for the production
© 2019 Authors. Published Elsevier This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
system.
© 2019AThe new methodology
Authors. is proposed
Published by Elsevierto analyze
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) Ltd. existing products in view of their functional and physical architecture. The aim is to cluster
©
these2019
This The
products
is an Authors.
inaccess
open new Published
assembly by Elsevier
oriented
article under Ltd.families
product
the scientific
CC This is license
BY-NC-ND an
foropen
the access articleofunder
optimization the assembly
existing CC BY-NC-ND
lines andlicense
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) the creation of future reconfigurable
Peer-review under responsibility of the
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) committee of the 52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
Peer-review
assembly underBased
systems. responsibility
on Datum of Flow
the scientific committee
Chain, the physicalofstructure
the 52ndofCIRP Conference
the products on Manufacturing
is analyzed. FunctionalSystems.
subassemblies are identified, and
aPeer-review
Keywords:
under responsibility
functionalautomation;
analysis islevel
performed. ofMoreover,
the scientific
of automation;
committee
a hybrid
automation
of the 52nd
functional
decision;
CIRP Conference
andanalysis;
cost-benefit physical architecture
assembly
ongraph
planning
Manufacturing
(HyFPAG) Systems.
is the output which depicts the
similarity between product families by providing design support to both, production system planners and product designers. An illustrative
Keywords: automation; level of automation; automation decision; cost-benefit analysis; assembly planning
example of a nail-clipper is used to explain the proposed methodology. An industrial case study on two product families of steering columns of
thyssenkrupp Presta France is then carried out to give a first industrial evaluation of the proposed approach.
©1.  Introduction
2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. means to make assembly systems more proactive [6].
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Design Those Conference
developments 2018. lead to the question of the ideal LoA,
1.  Introduction means to make assembly systems more proactive [6].
Global competition and customer demands for high product which
Those meets the requirements
developments lead to the of cost reduction
question of the as idealwell
LoA,as
Keywords: Assembly; Design method; Family identification
variety lead a higher degree of individualization
Global competition and customer demands for high product and increase optimal flexibility and adaptability [7]
which meets the requirements of cost reduction as well as and to the question
competition
variety lead a among manufacturers
higher degree which favour
of individualization and increasenew which
optimalfactors of theand
flexibility turbulent corporate
adaptability environment
[7] and should
to the question
developments like mass customisation
competition among manufacturers which favour new [1]. This, in turn, leads therefore be included in a decision-making
which factors of the turbulent corporate environment should process.
toIntroduction
a growing number
1.developments like massofcustomisation
product variants. Globalisation
[1]. This, also
in turn, leads of A survey
the product
therefore among
range industry
be included and representatives
in a characteristics
decision-making conducted and/or
manufactured
process. in the
generates enormous cost pressure especially
to a growing number of product variants. Globalisation also in high-wage research
assembled
A survey project
in this MAproFli
system.
among In this
industry (Multivariable
context, the main
representatives automation
challenge
conducted in
in the
countries.
Due to High
generates the labour
enormous costs,
fastcost increasing
development
pressure inproduction
especiallythe indomain numbers
high-wage of decisions and
modelling
research for analysis
a product
project is now
MAproFli andnot volume
only toflexible
(Multivariablecope with flow-line
single
automation
and qualityHigh
communication
countries. demands
and
labouranrequire
costs, a higher
ongoing trend Level
increasing of of Automation
digitization
production and
numbers assembly)a suggests
products,
decisions limited expected
for a product growth
range
and or in the flexible
existing
volume LoA overflow-line
product the next
families,
(LoA) [2].
digitalization,
and quality demands manufacturing
requireenterprises
a higher Levelare facing important
of Automation five
but years
also to be
assembly) (see Fig. 1). The
able to expected
suggests analyze and results regarding
to compare
growth the importance
products
in the LoA overtothe of
define
next
Having
challenges a 70% share of value added [3]
(LoA) [2]. in today’s market environments: a continuing and a 40% share of monetary
new
five product compared
years (see families. to non-monetary
Fig. 1).ItThe
canresults
be observed factors in
that the
regarding the automation
classical existing
importance of
production
tendency
Having acosts
towards [4],
70%reductionassembly
share isadded
of product
of value playing[3] aand
major
development a 40% role
times inand
share the
of decision
product
monetary indicate
families arearegrouped
compared tohigher importance
non-monetaryin function of clients
of
factors monetary
in the or factors
features.
automation
production
shortened
production planning
product
costs [4], process.
lifecycles.
assemblyIn Originally,
addition,
is playing flow-line
there
a major assembly
is an increasing
role in the (51%).
decisionYet,
However, 38% of
assembly
indicate the
aorientedrepresentatives,
higher product
importance which
families
of are state
hardly
monetary that
to both
find.
factors
was
demand designed
production to enable
planning process.
of customization, a cost-efficient
beingOriginally,
at the samemass production
flow-line
time in assembly that
a global types
On the
(51%). of factors
product
Yet, 38% of are
familyof equal importance,
level, products which
the representatives, claim
differ mainly that
state that non-
in both
two
uses standardized products with highly specialized workflows monetary factorsare(i)
should gain
was designed
competition to competitors
with enable a cost-efficient
all over themass production
world. This trend,that main
typescharacteristics:
of factors oftheequal
number ofrelevance.
components
importance, claimAccordingly,
and
that(ii)non-
the
to generate large learning effects [5] but the high workflows
number of monetary factors
uses
which standardized
is inducingproducts with highly
the development specialized
from macro to micro type factorsare
of components
monetary used
(e.g.
should primarily
mechanical, or solely by
electrical,
gain relevance. 52% of the
electronical).
Accordingly,
variants requires flexible methods for the
butassembly process
numberand survey participants to used
determine the suitable LoA
to generate
markets, largein
results learning
diminishedeffects
lot[5]
sizes the high
due to augmenting of Classical
monetary methodologies
factors are considering
primarily ormainly
solely by and
single52% 39%
products of
of the
variants requires flexible methods for the assembly
product varieties (high-volume to low-volume production) [1]. process and or solitary,
survey alreadytoexisting
participants determine product families
the suitable LoAanalyze
and 39%the of
2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
To cope with this augmenting variety
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
as well as to be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
identify
Peer-reviewpossible
2212-8271 © 2019 The optimization
Authors. Publishedpotentials in This
by Elsevier Ltd.
under responsibility of the scientific committee ofthe
is existing
an open access causes
the 52nd CIRP Conference on difficulties regarding
article under the CC BY-NC-ND
Manufacturing Systems.
license an efficient definition and
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
production system, it is important to have a precise knowledge comparison of different product families. Addressing this
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 52nd CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an©open
2212-8271 2017access article Published
The Authors. under theby CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th 52ndDesign
CIRPConference
Conference2018.
on Manufacturing Systems.
10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.150
 530 Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 529–534
2 Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000

the respondents use both types of factors to the same extent. workstations and automatic machines [10]. Level 7
These tendencies towards monetary factors can be explained by corresponds to automated assembly.
a lack of methods, which consider non-monetary factors to Traditionally, the ideal degree of automation is determined
determine the optimum level of automation of flow-line based on monetary comparative calculations. Labour costs are
assembly systems. In order to close this gap and to facilitate the therefore opposed to automation costs [11]. The expenses for
use of non-monetary factors, the research presented in this automation are compared with the monetary saving potential
paper utilises those factors to determine a guide value for the [12, 13]. However, research agrees that a purely monetary
LoA, which serves as a basis for further, detailed assessments. assessment of the automation level is not adequate.
Product and process factors are used by Bullinger [14] and
In the next 5 years, the degree of automation in assembly will...? Winroth & Säfsten [15]. Bullinger includes e.g. product design
decrease not change increase suitability for handling and assembly, flexibility, reliability or
availability. Winroth & Säfsten combine the eight strategical
7% 91%
2% decision-making areas (process technology, facilities, capacity,
Assess the importance of monetary and non-monetary decision factors on vertical integration, quality management, human resource
the level of automation. management, organisational structure and control, production
9% 38% 40% 11%
planning and control) by Miltenburg [16] with the level of
2% automation and develop a profiling of decision-making
non-monetary much more important monetary more important categories with different abilities by means of the support of
non-monetary more important monetary much more important different levels of automation.
both the same In addition, market factors are regarded to in literature.
According to Kakati [17], automation has an influence on
Which decision factors do you use in your company for automation
decisions? operational and market-related key figures. The operative
indicators are productivity increase, quality improvement, area
9% 39% 43% 9%
0% reduction, reduction of labour costs and inventory reduction.
only non-monetary factors primarily monetary factors
Market-related automation must lead to an improvement of the
primarily non-monetary factors Only monetary factors central competitive factors. Also Ross [12] orientates his
both to the same extent approach to the early identification of the economic assembly
Survey returns = 45
level of automation by means of product and assembly process
information.
Fig. 1. Survey results on importance of monetary and non-monetary factors.
The influence of corporate or production strategy on the
level of automation is highlighted by several authors [18, 19].
2.  Automation Decisions for Assembly
This is also emphasized by Granell et al. [20], who present a
model for adapting the degree of automation to the corporate
The LoA is defined as the quotient of the set of functions
strategy. In an empirical study, quality, working environment
already automated for the respective process and the set of all
and rationalization are identified as essential aspects
necessary functions [8] and scaled according to the DYNAMO
influencing an automation decision. For the comparison of
project (2004-2008) [9], in which a methodology for measuring
different automation alternatives, a cost-benefit analysis is
and evolving today’s information flow and automation level in
chosen.
production systems was developed. Part of this methodology is
On the cost side, an expenditure index based on Ross [12]
a seven-step reference scale, which reaches from manual to
offers a low application expenditure with simultaneously
fully automatic. The physical tasks for mechanical activities are
simple and reproducible implementation. Design for Assembly
ranked in the mechanical LoA, as shown in Table 1.
methods [21] have a stronger cost reference under the premise
Table 1. Level of Automation [9]. of the greater necessary user knowledge in the form of market
Level Mechanical LoA Example Automation Class
prices and the need for special tools.
On the benefit side, a benefit analysis based on Heger [22]
1 Manual Physical strength Manual assembly
represents an alternative to simulation and is a well-known
2 Static hand tool Screw driver Manual assembly standard method in industry. Chan et al. [23] offer a similar
3 Flexible hand tool Adjustable spanner Manual assembly approach based on fuzzy logic, whereby the uncertainties of the
4 Automatic hand tool Hand drills Manual assembly assessments are directly taken into account. The developed
5 Static workstation Turning lathe Hybrid assembly approach is based on the advantages of the analysed projects
6 Flexible workstation CNC-machines Hybrid assembly
and combines them into a holistic analysis.
The majority of approaches focus on either benefit or effort
7 Fully automatic Autonomous system Automated Assembly
and thus prioritisation is only possible to a limited extent.
Accordingly, when developing a decision method for an
The research presented in the present paper uses this adaptation measure, there is a need for a method that combines
mechanical LoA scale as a measurement scale. Levels 1 to 4 an overall analysis with low application effort. To our
correspond to manual assembly. Levels 5 and 6 of the scale can knowledge, there is no basis for a holistic approach to decision-
be equated with hybrid assembly, in which the assembly making that can be applied to adaptation planning at an early
products are manufactured with a combination of manual planning stage.
 Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 529–534 531
Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000 3

3.  Approach
3.1.  Assembly systems description
In order to adequately describe a flow assembly system, 34
literature-based description factors [24–26] were determined
and divided into the following four areas: Technical properties
of the assembly system, product properties, workplace design
and logistical influences. The technical properties include all
factors of the assembly process (e.g. takt time) as well as those
related to the assembly line (e.g. buffer times). All properties
resulting from the shape, weight, etc. of the product belong to
the range of product properties. The area of workplace design
includes, among other things, work design measures,
ergonomics as well as muscular and physical strain. In the
logistics area, material provision at the assembly line and, due
 a determination method for
to a close connection, the warehouse are taken into account.
The sum of all description factors for each area are displayed
together with their possible characteristics in the form of
morphological boxes (see Figure 2).
Description factor Characteristics
Main assembly tasks check, adjust joining, handling
Average assembly
1-175 min 175-350 min
time per station
Spatial arrangement line O-shape U-shape
  is a characteristic parameter, which is used
Annual volume 1.000-50.000 50.000-100.000
Number of lots/ year 5-15,000 15,000-30,000
T akt time <1min 1-5min
Fig. 2. Example for a morphological box for the technical properties.
These characteristics were determined on the basis of the
above literature and suitable ranges or increments were
identified. The number of characteristics ranges from two to
five per description factor. These increments establish a
connection between the different factors and a possible/
meaningful automation. Thus, each characteristic is linked with
a numerical value that represents the automation suitability. An
increasing degree of automation is therefore evaluated with a
higher value for this factor.
To describe the system, the appropriate characteristic of
each description factor is selected. The overall automation
rating of the assembly system 𝑓𝑓"#"$% can then be calculated
using Equation 1. Since a flow-line assembly consists of
several assembly stations, the morphology of the workplace
design and some factors (i) of the technical and product
properties should be evaluated separately for each station s and
then averaged (first summand in nominator). All factors which
are evaluated for the whole assembly (j) are also summed up
(second summand in nominator). The sum of all automation
values is then divided by the total number of factors (i+j).
Nomenclature
𝑓𝑓"#"$% Overall automation rating
𝑓𝑓&' Automation value for description factor i at assembly
station s
𝑓𝑓( Automation value for description factor j; 𝑓𝑓& ∈
{0, 1, 2, 3, 4}
𝑖𝑖 Number of factors to be considered per station s
𝑗𝑗 Number of factors to be considered for the assembly
𝑠𝑠 Number of assembly stations
∑ 8
∑97 : 9: ;<∑> =>
:
𝑓𝑓"#"$% = (1)
&<(
Based on the assembly description model and the concept of
the overall automation rating 𝑓𝑓"#"$%
a guideline value, called target LoA ( 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE" ), was
developed, to which the current situation of each assembly
process step can be compared in order to be able to assess
potential automation measures. For this purpose, the
description factors were extended to also incorporate the
production environment. This factor set is named “influencing
factors” in the following.
350-525 min 3.2.  Target LoA
special form
The 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE"
>100.000
for the further course of the methodology as a benchmark for
30,000-50,000
automation. To determine the 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE" , we identified 52 non-
>5min monetary influencing factors based on the description factors
from chapter 3.1 above and additional literature reviews.
Expert interviews and an industry survey helped to validate and
weight the influencing factors. They can be subdivided into
“market view” and “technology view”. The “market view”, is
further divided into the areas of influence “market &
competitors”, “own company”, “personnel” and “customers”.
The “technology view”, comprises “technology & assembly
process”, “product” and “product design”. For each decision
factor, three possible characteristics correlate with the above-
mentioned automation classes “manual”, “hybrid” and
“automated” assembly with a value 𝑓𝑓 from 1 to 3 being
assigned to each characteristic. In order to determine the
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE" for an assembly system, the existing value for each
factor 𝑖𝑖 must be selected. The class value 𝛫𝛫 is calculated using
Equation 2, taking a weighting 𝑔𝑔 of the 52 factors within the
seven areas of influences into account, which results as well
from the survey and expert interviews:
Nomenclature
𝛫𝛫 Class value
𝑓𝑓& Automation value for influencing factor i
𝑔𝑔& Weighting factor for influencing factor i
𝑖𝑖 Number of influencing factors

∑KL
9MN D9 ∗=9
𝐾𝐾 = O
(2)  

The calculated class value is again between 1 and 3 and is

converted into the 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE" using the scale in Table 2:
532 Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 529–534
4 Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
Table 2. Level of Automation.
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 1 2 3 4 5 6
K from 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.9
to 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.9 2.4
3.3.  Cost and benefit analysis
The cost-benefit analysis is a tool to determine whether the
outcome (benefit) of an action justifies its effort (cost). Both,
effort and benefit are often expressed as monetary values to be
able to easily identify the tipping point where benefits exceed
costs. In order to be able to include non-monetary factors, we
chose a dimensionless scale instead.
The cost-benefit analysis for this paper requires designing
equipment scenarios for all relevant LoA. The first step is to
break down the assembly process into assembly steps, where
each assembly step can be of type handling, joining or testing.
In the next step, the planner attributes an LoA according to
Table 1 (referred to as 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿$'T&' ) to each assembly step. At this
stage, the planner has complete knowledge of the assembly
system in question including the current automation situation.
After this, the task is to compare possible alternatives with the
as-is state. To do so, a team of process experts has to make
rough concept plans for different equipment scenarios, starting
with a scenario that matches
 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE" . For the exemplary measure that aggregates the above parameters. Costs are
process step “tighten four screws”, equipment scenarios could
be “screwdriver with bit set”, “electric screw wrench” or
“automated screwing station”. The information needed in each
concept plan has to follow a predefined structure to ensure all
input for the benefit and cost assessment is available. Each
equipment scenario is then subject to the assessment steps
described hereafter. The planning approach is supposed to be
iterative and decision quality improves with larger numbers of
scenarios planned.
3.3.1.  Benefit assessment
Six relevant target dimensions were identified for the
consideration of the benefits: “Flexibility”, “quality”,
“productivity”, “availability”, “costs” as well as “health, safety
and environment” [9, 17, 27]. Links between these dimensions
and monetary benefits are not clear. For instance, one may
intuitively infer that increased productivity or higher
availability improve overall equipment efficiency and thus may
  Assembly step with i ∈ {1, …, n}
have a direct positive correlation with revenues. However, this
 [,& Total cost per LoA z at assembly step i
assumption is prone to disturbances under real-life conditions.
The non-discrete benefit assessment for these dimensions
follows the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) developed by
Saaty [28]: using a pairwise comparison the user puts all target
dimensions in relation to each other in order to calculate a
standardized weighting vector. The weighting
 [,& =
  𝐶𝐶],& +
 𝐶𝐶_,& +
  𝐶𝐶`,& +
  𝐶𝐶a,& (3)
disproportionately upgrades a scenario with benefit
improvement for strongly weighted target dimensions
compared to the current state.
The further procedure for an adjustment measure follows a
value benefit analysis. For all LoA, the user evaluates an
equipment scenario with regard to benefit changes (B) in
relation to the current state on a scale of −6 ≤ 𝐵𝐵 ≤ 6
 for each section 3.3.1) safe for a negative side (since negative cost are
target dimension. This bound is derived from the AHP method.
𝐵𝐵 > 0 indicates an improvement, while negative values signify
7 a deterioration compared to the as-is state. The evaluation is
2.4 intuitive for each planned LoA of the assembly step.
As a result, this assessment provides dimensionless utility
3.0
values that indicate the quality of the expected adaptation of an
assembly step from 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿$'T&' to any other LoA. This procedure
is equally suitable to evaluate a reduction of the LoA. Any
resulting disposal of equipment is allocated to the benefit side.
Moreover, the benefit for 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿$'T&' is zero by default, as this
methodology evaluates automation adaptations, i.e. purposeful
deviations from the as-is state.
3.3.2.  Cost analysis
Parallel to the benefit assessment, a cost analysis for
equipment scenarios is performed. In contrast to the benefit
assessment, expenses data for the scenarios to be gathered can
be in monetary form. In the context of this paper, expenses are
quantifiable, one-off payments usually referring to a monetary
outflow, e.g. paychecks, invoices etc. The terms expense and
expenditure are used interchangeably.
The term “cost” bundles these expenses in an umbrella term
that comprises all consumptions or efforts that need to be
delivered for implementing the automation adaptation
measures in question. Therefore, here, cost is a qualitative
divided into non-operating and purpose-bound cost. Non-
operating cost are not of an expense nature (i.e. have no
immediate outflow associated with them), such as opportunity
cost and depreciation. If expenses and costs overlap, one speaks
of purpose cost, i.e. cost that accrue purely for business
purposes [29].
Costs can be broken down into four cost types: acquisition,
planning, personnel and start-up costs [11, 29]. These cost
types need to be gathered or estimated for the equipment
scenario of each relevant LoA. As with the benefit assessment,
costs for the 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿$'T&' are defined as zero, as maintaining the
current state is considered non-purpose-bound and thus does
not to accrue any one-off expenses. For the purpose-bound cost
C of an equipment scenario at LoA z and assembly step i
equation 3 is the result.
Nomenclature
z LoA with z ∈ {1, …, 7}
i
𝐶𝐶
CAz,i Acquisition cost at assembly step i
CSz,i Personnel cost (staff) at assembly step i
CPz,i Planning cost at assembly step i
CRz,i Start-Up Cost (ramp-up) at assembly step i
𝐶𝐶\#]
For each assembly step i and LoA z we obtain the total cost 𝐶𝐶[,& .
As this method is a qualitative decision-making aid and 𝐶𝐶[,& can
take arbitrary values from 100 to 107 (or higher), proper
interpretation of results proves to be difficult. Therefore, cost
results are mapped to the same scale as benefits were (see

Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
treated as benefit). The normalization of total cost at LoA z
happens via equation 4:
Nomenclature
𝐶𝐶[,&,b#Cc Normalized cost value for LoA z at assembly step i
𝐶𝐶[,&,b#Cc = 𝐶𝐶[,& ∗ 6/ 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚g𝐶𝐶hij,& , … , 𝐶𝐶hiO,&
 l (4)
The purpose of scaling cost at all LoA z is to obtain costs for
equipment scenarios relative to the worst possible scenario,
which will take the value 6. By doing so, we have defined two
independent units that have a maximum value of 6. Yet, it is
vital to highlight that they are not mathematically identical.
Instead, they each describe the worst and best possible case for
the respective equipment scenario.
3.4.  Automation configuration selection
In order to select the suiting automation configuration, cost
and benefit values for various equipment scenarios with
different LoA have to be determined and compared. One
comparison includes all equipment scenarios for one assembly
step. The current state of the assembly step with its 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿$'T&'
naturally has a cost-benefit value pair of (𝐶𝐶, 𝐵𝐵) = (0, 0). All
other planned equipment scenarios for the different LoA will
receive value pairs within the ranges 0 ≤ 𝐶𝐶 ≤ 6 and −6 ≤
𝐵𝐵 ≤ 6.
As the planning and evaluation of all other 6 LoA for each
assembly step of the assessed assembly system causes high
effort, the 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE" can be used in a first stage as a guidance
value for the first planning point. As a second stage, the LoA
next to the 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE" can be planned and evaluated in order to
find a potential local optimum close to the 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE" . As a final
stage, all LoA are planned and assessed. Consequently, the best
cost-benefit value pair will be found. The decision for a certain
stage influences the accuracy of the result but also the effort
necessary as show in the overview in Table 3.
Table 3. Potential planning stages.
Stage Number of considered LoA
1 1 (𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡)
2 3 (𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 − 1, 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡,
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 + 1)
3 6 (All LoA except 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 )
The decision process is visually supported by the overview
of all cost-benefit value pairs in the benefit over cost plot
depicted in Fig. 3, which is also showing the example of a
screw driving process with an 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿$'T&' of 2. With a
determined 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE" of 4, scenarios were planned for LoAs 3,
4 and 5 and put through the benefit and cost analyses.
All points on or below the cost axis are not to be further
considered like LoA 3 of the example. Points that are above the
axis and tend towards the right side provide a positive benefit
at high costs, like the automated screwing station (LoA 5),
which is “over dimensioned” for the use-case. Cost reduction
measures should therefore be checked for the equipment
scenario of this specific LoA. All points in the top left area
Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 529–534 533
5
show a high benefit with low costs and are to be preferred in
the decision. The electric screw wrench of the example
provided a significant improvement especially on the target
dimensions productivity, availability and quality with
affordable costs at the same time. As a result, the electric screw
wrench was chosen as an automation measure for this specific
assembly step.
Benefit
6
Good
Cost reduction
4 measures 5
2 3
0 6 Cost
Not to be
considered
-6
(2) Standard screw driver 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎−𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =2
(3) Screwdriver with bit set 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿()*+,(−1 =3
(4) Electric screw wrench 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿()*+,( =4
(5) Autom. screwing station 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿()*+,(+1 =5
Fig. 3. Benefit over cost plot.
4.  Discussion
A key aspect of this approach is the decoupling of planning
scenarios from traditional opportunity cost methods. Instead,
we transform planning results into uniform scales to evaluate
equipment scenarios based on the current Level of Automation.
That is, both the maximum achievable benefit and maximum
accruable cost are scaled to 6. Hence, the maximum benefit and
the maximum cost span an extreme condition opposed to the
as-is state. Assuming the benefit analysis yields m scenarios
with equal benefit B, the most viable equipment scenario is
determined by the associated cost. The planning process per
assembly step should therefore continue until one scenario can
be located as far to the top left corner in Fig. 3 as possible. The
previous planning iterations provide valuable cornerstones for
a more narrow iteration. The easy adjustment of estimates
Accuracy Effort (subjective assessments between -6 and +6) with this approach
low low reduces planning time by eliminating the necessity to run
medium medium
extensive simulations that are only as accurate as the
mathematical approximations of their effect mechanisms
high high
resulting in an improved decision quality.
The presented approach, however, does have drawbacks as
well. The idea to treat both benefit and cost relative to each
other and to the current state instead of zero may seem
unintuitive at first. Despite the use of cost as part of the
analysis, no break-even point is discernible with this approach.
This is due to the inclusion of non-monetary decision factors
that determine the optimal𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE" . Therefore, no discrete
statements about profitability are possible although proxies are
inherently present in the benefit assessment. Thus, this
approach, the authors recommend the supplement of
amortization calculations before final decision-making.
In addition, the high up-front planning work to use this tool
is high. For most accurate results, this method requires
equipment scenarios for 6 LoAs for n assembly steps. By
building the reference LoA using company-level factors,
534 Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 81 (2019) 529–534
6 Peter Burggräf et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
suitable measures to tackle dynamic changes in the company’s
environment should be easy to identify. As a basis for a
heuristic search, a sufficient amount of equipment scenarios
from previous automation activities is required. These were
conducted using the tool, and have been stored in a database
for future reference including the respective benefit and cost
values. That way, the method could provide recommendations
for new adaptations based on scenarios that have already been
considered or even successfully implemented elsewhere.
5.  Conclusion
This paper describes a methodology that builds upon three
partial models: an assembly line description to estimate a
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE"
 for the assembly line, a cost and benefit analysis München.
using AHP to evaluate equipment scenarios for 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE" in
comparison to the as-is state as well as a decision-making
model to select suitable configurations.
Traditionally, automation decisions mainly consider
monetary factors. In contrast to existing practice and research,
the presented approach includes non-monetary factors in the
decision-making process when choosing automation decisions.
Furthermore, the corporate environment is taken into account,
when determining the 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿"$CDE" . The methodology also allows
a varying level of detail and therefore adaptable effort in the
evaluation process. Overall, a sufficient theoretical basis for
decision-making was formed.
Acknowledgement
The presented research was developed by the Chair of
International Production Engineering and Management of
University of Siegen and the Laboratory for Machine Tools and
Production Engineering (WZL) of RWTH Aachen University
within the publicly funded (German Research Foundation,
DFG) research project MAproFli (Multivariable automation
decisions for a product and volume flexible flow-line
assembly).
References
[1] Hu, S.J., 2013. Evolving Paradigms of Manufacturing: From Mass
Production to Mass Customization and Personalization. Procedia CIRP 7,
p. 3–8.
[2] Lanza, G., Stähr, T., Sapin, S., 2016. Planung einer Montagelinie mit
skalierbarem Automatisierungsgrad. ZWF 111, p. 614–617.
[3] März, L., von Langsdorff, P., 2001. Flexibilität und Marktorientierung in
der Montage, in Montageplanung - effizient und marktgerecht, Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, p. 3–10.
[4] Bullinger, H.J., Richter, M., 1991. Integrated design and assembly
planning. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems 4, p. 239–247.
[5] Shtub, A., DAR-EL, E.M., 2007. A methodology for the selection of
assembly systems. Int J Production Research 27, p. 175–186.
[6] Fast-Berglund, Å., Stahre, J., 2013. Task allocation in production systems
– Measuring and Analysing Levels of Automation 46, p. 435–441.
[7] Frohm, J., Lindström, V. et al., 2008. Levels of Automation in
Manufacturing. Ergonomia - International Journal of Ergonomics and
Human Factors 30.
[8] Hesse, S., 2000. Fertigungsautomatisierung: Automatisierungsmittel,
Gestaltung und Funktion. Vieweg+Teubner, Wiesbaden.
[9] Fasth, A., Stahre, J., Dencker, K., 2008. Measuring and analysing Levels
of Automation in an Assembly System. Manufacturing Systems and
Technologies for the New Frontier, p. 169–172.
[10] Lotter, E., 2012. Hybride Montagesysteme, in Montage in der
industriellen Produktion: Ein Handbuch für die Praxis, Springer, Berlin,
p. 167–193.
[11] Konold, P., Reger, H., 2003. Praxis der Montagetechnik: Produktdesign,
Planung, Systemgestaltung. Vieweg+Teubner, Wiesbaden.
[12] Ross, P., 2002. Bestimmung des wirtschaftlichen Automatisierungsgrades
von Montageprozessen in der frühen Phase der Montageplanung. Utz,
[13] Hartel, M., Lotter, B., 2012. Planung und Bewertung von
Montagesystemen, in Montage in der industriellen Produktion: Ein
Handbuch für die Praxis, Springer, Berlin, p. 407–432.
[14] Bullinger, H.-J., Editor, 1986. Systematische Montageplanung: Handbuch
für die Praxis. Hanser.
[15] Winroth, M., Säfsten, K., 2008. Automation strategies: Implications on
strategy process from refinement of manufacturing strategy content.
POMS 19th Annual Conference.
[16] Miltenburg, J., 1995. Manufacturing Strategy: How to formulate and
implement a winning plan. Productivity Press, Portland, Oregon.
[17] Kakati, M., 1997. Strategic Evaluation of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology. Int J Production Economics, p. 141–156.
[18] Hopp, W.J., Iravani, S.M.R., Shou, B., 2005. Serial Agile Production
Systems with Automation. Operations Research 53, p. 852–866.
[19] Kotha, S., Swamidass, P.M., 2000. Strategy, advanced manufacturing
technology and performance: Empirical evidence from U.S.
manufacturing firms. J Operations Management 18, p. 257–277.
[20] Granell, V., Frohm, J., Winroth, M., 2006. Controlling Levels Of
Automation – A Model for Identifying Manufacturing Parameters. IFAC
Proceedings Volumes 39, p. 65–70.
[21] Boothroyd, G., 2005. Assembly Automation and Product Design. CRC
Press, Hoboken.
[22] Heger, C.L., 2007. Bewertung der Wandlungsfähigkeit von
Fabrikobjekten. PZH Produktionstechn. Zentrum, Garbsen.
[23] Chan, F.T.S., Chan, H.K., Chan, M.H., Humphreys, P.K., 2006. An
integrated fuzzy approach for the selection of manufacturing technologies.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 27, p. 747–758.
[24] Kluge, S.J., 2011. Methodik zur fähigkeitsbasierten Planung modularer
Montagesysteme, Stuttgart.
[25] Battini, D., Faccio, M., Persona, A., Sgarbossa, F., 2011. New
methodological framework to improve productivity and ergonomics in
assembly system design. Int J Industrial Ergonomics 41, p. 30–42.
[26] Al Khateeb, A., 2014. Planung und Optimierung von
Fließmontagesystemen: Ein Beitrag unter Berücksichtigung sich
ändernder Anforderungen an Prozesszuverlässigkeit, Produktqualität und
Flexibilität, Ilmenau.
[27] Bäumers, Y., 2016. Wirtschaftlicher Detaillierungsgrad der
Montageablaufplanung, 1st edn. Apprimus-Verl., Aachen.
[28] Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy
Process. Eu J Operational Research, p. 9–26.
[29] Opitz, A., Müller, E., Hildebrand, T., 2006. Die optimale Anlaufkurve in
der Serienfertigung: Ein Modell zur Bestimmung des Aufwand-Nutzen-
Verhältnisses von Anpassungsmaßnahmen bei der Beschleunigung des
Anlaufs. ZWF 101, p. 356–359.